CIA Supporting Terror Inside Pakistan

CIA Supporting Terror Inside Pakistan

  • A CIA helicopter evacuated top TTP leadership into Afghanistan before the start of Pakistani military operation
  • Terrorists from TTP enjoy safe havens inside Afghanistan with the help of CIA and RAW
  • Satellite mobile phones from a Gulf state were provided to the terrorists of TTP & Swat
  • CIA helped RAW establish a base in Afghanistan
  • No CIA drones ever attacked any of the TTP & Swat terrorists as they freely called BBC and western media
  • Nuristan province in Afghanistan has a base run by CIA, RAW & NDS providing full support to terrorists inside Pakistan
  • In 1995, Benazir Bhutto and Ashraf Jahangir Qazi purged 125 ISI officers to appease CIA

The proof about instances of covert US support to some hardened militant outfits and terrorist activities they carried out over the past few weeks and months, was presented to Panetta. It was indeed a startling revelation for the top US spy and a bold maneuver of Pakistan Army. General Pasha’s move surprised Panetta as the evidence presented was categorical in proving that the CIA officials provide assistance to perpetrators of some of the most serious and deadly attacks on offices and key persons in Pakistan’s security services. Here are the details of what transpired between ISI’s Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha and CIA’s Leon Panetta.

By ZAHID MALIK in Pakistan Observer

Monday, 16 December, 2009.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—After my four hour long informal interaction with US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke at the residence of US Ambassador on the rainy evening of April 6, 2009, I had in my comments mentioned that now the ISI was the immediate target of the US Establishment. This was no “breaking news”  as everyone who keeps an eye on the ongoing war on terror knew well that US was hell-bent on:

1.       Getting the Pakistan Army sucked into domestic turmoil in Swat, FATA and beyond Waziristan, and

2.      Reining in what the US calls “rogue elements” in the ISI

There are confirmed reports that to achieve its objectives the CIA hired the services of at least a dozen Afghan warlords inside Afghanistan and provided through them arms and finances to militants in FATA and Swat to carry out extensive death and destruction by devastating attacks in the country. It was like a double-edged sword not only to get the Army to launch attacks against Taliban on Pakistani side of the border but also to give a message to the ISI that the CIA can use the Pakistanis – Taliban of the TTP- against their own security forces.

It was in this background that after putting up with so much for so long, the prime intelligence agency of the country ultimately confronted the CIA Director Leon E. Panetta with some highly classified and irrefutable evidence. Panetta was startled when Director-General ISI, General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, a no-nonsense General, placed the facts before him in Islamabad on November 20, 2009.

The “deliberate leaks” after the meeting of the spy chiefs of the two countries spoke of the mind of the ISI and the armed forces of Pakistan. General Pasha had earlier conveyed the facts about the interference of CIA in acts of terrorism in Pakistan to the Government but realizing that either the message was not strongly conveyed to the Americans or it had no desired impact on them, finally put its foot down and expressed serious concerns over the CIA’s crude interference in the country’s internal matters.

The proof about instances of covert US support to some hardened militant outfits and terrorist activities they carried out over the past few weeks and months were presented to Panetta. It was indeed a startling revelation for the top US spy and a bold maneuver of Pakistan Army. General Pasha’s move surprised Panetta as the evidence presented was categorical in proving that the CIA officials provide assistance to perpetrators of some of the most serious and deadly attacks on offices and key persons in Pakistan’s security services. He was told that in view of the negative impact on Pakistan’s efforts in its ‘war on terror’ the CIA must stop such activities. The clarity with which the information was meant to be a loud message to Washington and CIA headquarters at Langley that if they wanted Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror; it must give up playing a double game. Pakistan has publicly expressed concerns over the freedom enjoyed by the Indian intelligence agency RAW is operating from Afghanistan. RAW is not only involved in acts of terrorism in the NWFP but also in Balochistan. India cannot undertake such wide-scale activities in this region without the approval and backing of the CIA. The question is: how did India develop such a huge presence in Kabul?

What has raised alarm bells in Islamabad is that Maulvi Fazlullah who escaped from Swat is living openly in Afghanistan under the protection of Afghan intelligence. The TTP leaders including Hakeemullah Mehsud have also being protected and allowed to operate from Afghanistan. All this could not happen without the knowledge of Americans.

There are reports that TTP leaders are provided satellite phones operated by a Gulf based Western company and they have been talking freely to BBC and other media organizations without any fear of being detected and targeted by drones or missiles. Then there are also credible reports that a helicopter that flew from Afghanistan before Oct. 17, when operation Rah-e-Nejat in South Waziristan was launched, evacuated the top leadership of the TTP from Waziristan to Afghanistan. The Americans also vacated some of the crucial posts along the border with South Waziristan in an apparent bid to provide safe passage to the fleeing Pakistani Taliban. The terrorists arrested in Pakistan during the operation told their interrogators about their links with the US and Indian agencies. There is credible information that full logistic and auxiliary support is still being provided to anti-Pakistan Taliban from Nuristan Province and several top officials from Afghan and Indian intelligence networks were seen active in the area.

So, it is CIA’s agenda to get the Pak Army and now the Air Force also spend itself in internal security operations and erode the morale and capabilities of ISI so that Pakistan’s nuclear assets could be targeted in one way or the other. The CIA’s new agenda started to be implemented as soon as the present Government took over. On many occasions since, Washington has been publicly blaming ISI for its links with some of the Taliban leaders including the Haqqani group. During the meeting with Prime Minister Gilani in Washington in August 2008, Director CIA presented him with a charge sheet against Pakistani intelligence agencies for their alleged involvement in Jihadi activities. In order to justify its intended interference in Balochistan, the CIA also raised the bogey of the presence of Taliban Shura in or around Quetta.

PPP’s History of Undermining ISI

The whole scenario became very grim as the Government appeared to have succumbed to American pressure to cut the ISI to size and make it a carpet lion. It was in this backdrop that a notification was issued in mysterious circumstances placing the ISI under the Interior Ministry; the notification was withdrawn the same day when the move backfired. It is no coincidence that during the two stints of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister, a perception developed that the PPP undermined the effectiveness of the ISI. That perception was also based on facts. On the instructions of the BB Government, Lt. Gen. Javed Ashraf Qazi, the then DG ISI, purged 125 officers of the Agency [from the ranks of Major General to Colonel] who were identified to be “rogue elements” by the CIA. Now there is a strong perception that the present leadership is not presenting the interests and concerns of the state of Pakistan to its ‘Americans friends’ and is just raising issues in a casual manner. Perhaps that was the reason that the Army leadership had to make unusual public remarks in a press release, issued by the ISPR after the Corps Commanders meeting in October 2009, expressing serious concern over the Kerry-Lugar Bill saying that certain of its clauses were intrusive and against the national interests and were thus unacceptable. The Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar snubbed the Pakistan Army accusing it of ‘crossing the line’ bringing the differences into the open setting a new precedent and further undermining the state of Pakistan.

The crude interference by the CIA in Pakistan’s internal affairs has not gone well with the Establishment and infuriated the Pakistan Army. If the Americans did not stop its activities to help the Pakistani Taliban against the Army, cooperation with the US in the war in Afghanistan would come to an abrupt end. I am quite sure that if the Army says NO the whole nation will back it. It was owing to this reason that COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, while talking to newsmen on the occasion of rolling out of first JF-17 Thunder Aircraft at Kamra on November 24, declared that the US would have to take Pakistan into confidence and taking into consideration the armed forces know-how to defend the country.

This report was first published by Pakistan Observer on Dec. 7, 2009.


Nato fails to gain Russia aid in Afghanistan

[American/NATO refusal to enter into a non-aggression agreement with Russia has cost NATO the choppers it went begging Russia for.  What will be the overall cost to the Empire’s plans, meaning how far will the repercussions go?  Will this upset American plans for its Northern Distribution Network, meant to compensate for the anticipated cut-off of supply routes through Pakistan?  The CIA’s boys, the Pakistani Taliban may have already sealed America’s fate in NWFP.  SEE: NATO chief opposes Russia’s security pact proposal]

Nato fails to gain Russia aid in Afghanistan

Dmitry Medvedev, left, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Moscow, 16 December 2009

Mr Rasmussen said he had presented Moscow with ‘concrete proposals’

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has failed to gain any commitment from Russia to help win the war against the Taliban insurgency.

On Wednesday Mr Rasmussen asked Moscow to provide helicopters to Afghanistan and also requested Russian help in training the Afghan air force.

But he told the BBC he had received no positive response from the Kremlin.

Mr Rasmussen’s visit is the first by a Nato chief since relations chilled after last year’s Russian-Georgian war.

The three-day visit, which has included meetings with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, signifies the alliance’s determination to strengthen ties with Moscow, analysts say.

Common ground

Mr Rasmussen said he had presented Russian leaders with a list of “concrete proposals” to help the Western alliance defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan – specifically requesting helicopters, helicopter training and spare parts.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen (left) talks to Sergei Lavrov

Mr Rasmussen said the two sides should look beyond their differences

“The Russians do realise that if we left Afghanistan behind and if Afghanistan once again became a safe haven for terrorism then they could suffer from it because terrorists would spread from Afghanistan through central Asia to Russia,” Mr Rasmussen told the BBC.

Helicopters are considered a crucial asset in the war against the Taliban, for their ability to move troops around and provide air support. Nato allies have found a shortage of helicopters one of the main handicaps in fighting the insurgency.

The Kremlin has said it wants Nato to win in Afghanistan and is willing to help. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that while differences remained between Moscow and Nato, both sides were trying “to normalise relations and bring them to a new level”.

But while many analysts agree it is not in Russia’s interests to see Nato fail in Afghanistan, Moscow is still deeply suspicious of the old Cold War alliance, says the BBC’s Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow.

Giving helicopters to a US-backed regime in Kabul goes way beyond what the Kremlin is prepared to do, our correspondent adds.

Sensitive subject

Analysts say the atmosphere between the alliance and Moscow has improved recently. Earlier this month, the Nato-Russia Council convened for the first time since the Georgia conflict.

During this visit, issues such as missile defence, Iran and a joint review of new security challenges were expected to be on the agenda.

The expansion of Nato remains a sensitive issue between the two sides, with Russia firmly opposed to any move towards membership by Ukraine or Georgia.

Mr Rasmussen has previously said they would become Nato members as and when they satisfied the necessary criteria, but emphasised that Moscow should not see that as a threat.

NATO chief opposes Russia’s security pact proposal

NATO chief opposes Russia’s security pact proposal

U.S. military vehicles of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) travel on a road in Siavashan village near Herat December 14, 2009. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl

MOSCOW (Reuters) – NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Thursday he saw no need for a new security treaty proposed by Russia, rebuffing the Kremlin’s call for new defense arrangements in Europe.

After talks with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders, Rasmussen urged greater cooperation between NATO and Russia in Afghanistan, but showed no enthusiasm for Moscow’s treaty proposal.

“I don’t see a need for new treaties or new legally binding documents because we do have a framework already,” he told a news briefing in Moscow.

“We have already a lot of documents, so my point of departure is: ‘I don’t see a need for new treaties.’ But let me reiterate, we are of course prepared to discuss the ideas in the right forum,” said Rasmussen.

He said the 56-member state Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was such a forum.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev published a draft post-cold war security pact on November 29. He said it would replace NATO and other institutions and would restrict the ability of any country to use force unilaterally.

In Moscow on his first visit since taking office on August 1, the NATO chief repeatedly said recent rows should not prevent Russia and the military alliance from confronting a common security threat from Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.

Rasmussen conceded he had not received any firm offer of support from Moscow in response to his requests for Russia to provide Kabul with helicopters and training support, saying he had never expected to get a firm response this week.


Moscow still views NATO, its Cold War adversary, with deep suspicion. Ties have been severely strained by last year’s war between Russia and Georgia and by U.S.-backed plans to invite more former Soviet states to join the alliance.

But Rasmussen, during a speech to students and diplomats in Moscow, urged both sides to stop viewing each other as threats.

“Let me make a very clear statement as Secretary General of NATO: NATO will never attack Russia. Never. And we don’t think Russia will attack us. We have stopped worrying about this and Russia should stop worrying about us as well.”

Rasmussen is trying to secure more support for the fight against the Taliban after U.S. President Barack Obama pledged 30,000 more troops.

“I believe that Afghanistan must be a centerpiece of our partnership in 2010,” he said in his speech.

“We need to look at what more we can do together to train the Afghans to secure their own country; to provide them the equipment they need to fight; to stem the flow of drugs into our schools and back-alleys; and to support the UN-mandated, NATO-led mission.”

Rasmussen said that by 2020, a common anti-missile shield could cover Russia and NATO countries. His optimism about future ties contrasts with years of conflict over previous U.S. plans to install missile interceptors in European countries.

“By 2020, cooperation between NATO and Russia on missile defense will have advanced to the point where we are able to link our systems to create a genuine missile shield in the Euro-Atlantic area. Which will not only protect us all against proliferation, but bind us together politically as well.”

(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom; Editing by Charles Dick)

Zionist Piss Ant Threatens to Boycott Primary Benefactor

[The shitty little state that wants to rule the Middle East wants to rub British noses in it for embarrassing it over the Tzipi war crimes warrant.  This is great!  You guys in the British Isles really ought to show these arrogant little Khazars what a boycott really is.  I mean, how much kosher food, electronics and mind-control experts does England really need, anyway?]

Israeli MPs threaten boycott of British products

Tzipi Livni

JERUSALEM : Israeli MPs on Thursday threatened to call a boycott of British products unless London withdraws an advisory allowing retailers to state whether West Bank products were made by Palestinians or Jewish settlers.

So far, 40 of Israel’s 120 MPs have signed the petition which is to be sent to the British parliament, according to an aide to MP Ronit Tirosh of the centrist Kadima party.

Tirosh, leading the initiative, said the petition threatens “to call on Israelis to think twice before buying British products if the decision is not rescinded by the British government.”

She also called on officials to boycott British airlines.

“I urge official Israeli representatives to abstain from using British airlines as long as the British government treats Israel as though two states existed, one within the green line and another outside,” Tirosh said in reference to the border between the occupied West Bank and Israel.

She said parliamentary president Reuven Rivlin had expressed support for the petition.

Earlier this month the British government issued an advisory suggesting retailers could use labels distinguishing whether West Bank items are “Israeli settlement produce” or “Palestinian produce.”

The move infuriated the Israeli government, which said it would “encourage extremism among Palestinians.”

Tirosh likened the measure to the Nazi persecution of Jews. “We intend to protest anything that singles out Jews as this kind of method brings back very bad memories,” she told Israeli radio.

The international community considers the Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal and a major hurdle to peace efforts.

Relations between Britain and Israel soured further after an arrest warrant was issued against former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni for her role in the devastating military offensive in the Gaza Strip at the turn of the year.

But British officials expressed opposition to the warrant, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Wednesday told Livni over the telephone that she would “always be welcome” in Britain.

The arrest warrant was understood to have been issued by a London court at the weekend.

Steel walls cannot contain the struggle for freedom

Steel walls cannot contain the struggle for freedom

Hasan Abu Nimah,

Photo documentation of a new wall being built on the Gaza-Egypt border. (Al-Masry Al-Youm English)

December 16, 2009

As if the siege of Gaza were not already bad enough, Israel and Egypt are working even harder to tighten the prison which holds Gaza’s 1.5 million people.

Egypt is building a steel wall along its 10-kilometer-long border with the Gaza Strip, according to recent media reports. This wall apparently extends not only above ground, but deep into the ground in an attempt to prevent Palestinians digging the tunnels that have become a lifeline for the territory.

As early as July 2008, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the US Army Corps of Engineers was consulting with Egypt on the project and recent reports say the US is still involved in this cruel plan to further isolate Gaza’s population and violate their rights as an occupied people under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is well-known that Palestinian have dug hundreds of underground tunnels to counter the ongoing siege of Gaza and to import their basic necessities from Egypt as all of Gaza’s crossing points on the Egyptian and Israeli side have been routinely closed for almost three years.

Smuggling is normally illegal and shames and incriminates those who engage in it. Not in the case of Gaza though, where forcing a besieged population to act like moles and to dig deep underground to import in their needs from kerosene to cooking oil — also used as car fuel — to livestock, is actually an affront to the so-called civilized world, but more specifically to the Arab world which is acquiescing in the lethal blockade and humiliation imposed upon the Palestinians.

If siege is an act of aggression and war, then breaking out of it by any means is an act of self-defense and resistance. History records people’s struggle for liberation and independence from any form of repression or aggression as heroic and honorable. Every nation is proud of its past deeds and its successful struggle for its national goals, as well as its victories and its heroic achievements no matter how much war, violence, bloodshed, death and destruction were involved. Why should the Palestinians be constantly punished, from friend and foe alike, for simply seeking their dignity, liberation, usurped rights and freedom? Indeed, dozens of Palestinians have given their lives digging and operating the dangerous, but vital tunnels.

The Palestinians have long been condemned as “terrorists.” In comparison, the Israelis are the ones who are always, under all circumstances, act in “self-defense” against Palestinian “aggression.” For Israel and its apologists, the illegal eviction of the Palestinians from their homeland is not aggression or terrorism. The continued occupation of the West Bank, in its fifth decade now, is not aggression. The strangulating siege of Gaza is not aggression. The imprisonment of more than 10,000 Palestinians is not aggression. The occupation of Syrian lands since 1967 is not aggression. Daily incursions in Palestinian towns and villages to arrest or assassinate Palestinians are not aggression. Neither devastating wars causing thousands of civilian deaths, against Lebanon (2006), Gaza (2008/09) and air raids against Syria are forms of aggression. But retaliation or resistance to any of such acts is “terrorism.”

The pretext for the Gaza siege, Israeli, Egyptian, Arab or international is the alleged Hamas “coup” against the “legitimate” Palestinian Authority in Ramallah in June 2007, and the Hamas rockets fired at Israel. There is another Hamas “crime,” the holding of the lone Israeli prisoner of war.

Although it has been proven time and again that there was no Hamas coup; there was in fact an act by a legitimately elected authority to abort a coup. Hamas has also fired no rockets during the ceasefire that Israel violated in November 2008, and has once again operated a unilateral ceasefire even though Israel continues its attacks and invasions of Gaza.

But let it be assumed that Hamas deserves all this punishment and more, why should the other 1.5 million innocent people in Gaza be collectively punished with them?

Should people in Gaza just sit still and watch their children starve? Is it not a moral duty and existential necessity for all people to fight for their dignity and survival? Why should only the Palestinians be denied this right?

If it is true that Egypt is building the steel wall — Egypt has denied it despite repeated claims otherwise — it will indeed be a shameful measure intended to acquiesce to American and Israeli pressures.

To stop “smuggling” into Gaza there is a cheaper and an easier way than building more cruel and futile walls: open the Rafah crossing for food and domestic needs, building materials and energy supplies — not for rockets — and insist that Israel open the crossings on its side connecting Gaza to the rest of the country.

The excuses for Gaza may be rockets or tunnels, but in fact the tightening of the Gaza siege is part of a total effort by Israel to besiege the entire Palestinian population in the occupied territories. For more than 40 years, Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have been living under a tightening siege. First, their freedom to move in and out of the occupied territory has been severely curtailed and later — especially during the years of the so-called “peace process” — the occupier imposed internal barriers that have made it virtually impossible to pass from one town to the other without encountering one of the hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints that have rendered the West Bank a series of ghettos surrounded by expanding settlements. Finally there is the illegal apartheid wall — which brave, heroic Palestinians recently breached in several places demonstrating that no amount of concrete and steel can suppress the human desire for liberation.

Hasan Abu Nimah is the former permanent representative of Jordan at the United Nations. This essay first appeared in The Jordan Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

:: Article nr. 61128 sent on 16-dec-2009 19:54 ECT


What a Difference a Day Makes!

[Reversing the NRO seems to have given Zardari the power to tell Obama “No!”  Did Gen. Kayani trigger today’s wave of Predators swarming over N. Waziristan by ruling-out Pakistani military operations there?   SEE: US Drone Swarm Kills 12 in North Waziristan]

Zardari resists US pressure to expand Fata operations

By Anwar Iqbal
Mr Zardari also urged the US president to speed up American military assistance to Pakistan and to intervene more forcefully with India for resolving bilateral disputes. — File Photo
Mr Zardari also urged the US president to speed up American military assistance to Pakistan and to intervene more forcefully with India for resolving bilateral disputes. — File Photo by AP

WASHINGTON: In a letter to Barack Obama, President Asif Ali Zardari has turned down the US request for expanding Pakistani military operations in Fata, according to The Washington Post.

Mr Zardari also urged the US president to speed up American military assistance to Pakistan and to intervene more forcefully with India for resolving bilateral disputes.

He wrote the letter in response to a letter Mr Obama sent last month, urging Islamabad to step up operations against militants.

Mr Zardari wrote that his government was determined to take action against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and allied insurgent groups attacking US forces in Afghanistan from the border areas in Pakistan. But, he said, Pakistan’s efforts would be based on its own timeline and operational needs.

The newspaper said on Wednesday that Pakistan’s military chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, reinforced this message on Monday when he told Gen David H. Petraeus, the head of the US Central Command, that the United States should not expect “a major operation in North Waziristan” in the coming months.

“The letters between the two leaders, while couched in diplomatic niceties and pledging mutual respect and increased cooperation against insurgents, reflect ongoing strains in a relationship that is crucial to both,” the Post observed.

The newspaper noted that Mr Zardari, with a weakening hold on power and under strong military and political pressure, was anxious not to be seen as kowtowing to US pressure.

The Post noted that both the military and the civilian government publicly deny cooperation with US attacks on insurgent targets inside Pakistan, launched from CIA-operated unmanned aircraft, and the US military’s use of two Pakistani air bases — Shamsi in Balochistan and Shahbaz in Sindh.

The report said that Mr Zardari did not mention India by name in his three-page letter to Mr Obama, but he made repeated reference to Pakistan’s core interests, unresolved historical conflicts and conventional imbalances. He called on Mr Obama to push Pakistan’s neighbours towards diplomatic rapprochement with Islamabad.

Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts, Mr Zardari said, were based on the country’s own threat assessment and timetable. He noted that military operations in the Swat Valley alone had cost Pakistan $2.5 billion and said that Pakistan expected the United States to provide increased material support.

The daily noted that the long-term success of Mr Obama’s new Afghanistan strategy depended on Pakistan moving forcefully against “Taliban havens in Fata and Balochistan” as Islamabad did not allow US ground troops to operate inside the country.

The newspaper reported that in return for a three-fold increase in US assistance to Pakistan, Washington wanted Islamabad to launch an offensive against the Haqqani network of militants which the Americans said operated from North Waziristan.

Officials who discussed Gen Petraeus’s meeting with Gen Kayani in Islamabad told the Post that the US general expressed some irritation at Pakistan’s complaints against the United States but accepted what one US official called Gen Kayani’s explanation of “the limits of their forces in terms of capacity”.

Another US defence official told the newspaper that Pakistan was “already doing an extraordinary amount”. They were “a sovereign nation”, he said, and “all we can do is keep encouraging them to keep it up”.

Gen Kayani, the official said, expressed concern that stepped-up US operations in Afghanistan were pushing insurgents into Pakistan. He said that the military had begun raids into North Waziristan and was working with tribes in the area to expel Uzbek and Arab insurgents.

US Drone Swarm Kills 12 in North Waziristan

US drone strikes kill 12 in North Waziristan

MIRANSHAH: At least 12 people where killed when unmanned US aircrafts fired 10 missiles at a house in North Waziristan on Thursday.

According to sources, the US drones targeted some houses situated in Degan and Ambor Shaga areas off 25 kilometers from Miranshah, headquarter of North Waziristan.

Following the strikes, as people were heading toward the targeted house, 10 back-to-back missiles were fired, killing at least one dozen of people.

According to the reports reaching here, five to six unmanned aircrafts were still hovering over North Waziristan.

It may be reminded here that two people were killed when a US drone hit the house of a tribesman in Datta Kheil Kay village early on Thursday.