Harnessing the Jasmine Revolution in Egypt

By A khokar January 31, 2011

Fear is that; this revolution may not be hijacked by US

Revolutions have no borders; Jasmine Revolution once started in Tunisia is likely to bring some good reforms and it has rightly mobilized the people across the Tunisian borders throughout in Arab world. In Tunisia this revolution could only be materialized that its Armed Forces command was bold enough to say No to President Ben Ali but in Egypt; the Egyptian Military itself is in command of Egypt. Hosni Mubarak is a general like Musharraf in Pakistan and is propped up by US to keep a peace in his area the way US want him to do. As Pakistan is being paid enough to keep the terrorism live and kicking on her own land; so is Egypt paid to guard the Suez Canal to keep this bottle neck open and ensure that US oil supply keeps flowing. To maintain peace with Israel is another issue which Egypt on the US dictates has proved to be doing its best.

 Ever since Suez Canal opening Deal was done by US President Eisenhower with Egyptian Jamaal Abdul Nassir in 1956; Suez is open like highway. So is Egyptian military in power in Egypt. All the military Presidents once deputed are to remain as president till death may part them.

Presently in Egypt; although the movement of revolution is very large and very potent, and its being projected to be against Hosni Mubarak and his acts of tyranny only; but they may be sadly mistaken that their movement is in fact pitched against their military; which rules them in disguise.

Keeping in view the intensity of the pressure exerted by the movement; the US has come up with the rhetoric of transition of power by peaceful means lest the aggravated situation and raging storm may take the other neighbouring countries by stride. Then the political scenario in the Middle East may be seen changed all together.

Former UN nuclear watchdog El-Baradei as an opposition leader is supposedly heading the movement. He has urged to start of “new era” in Egypt but he is again known as the man of the west.

In view of all above; it is expected that this movement may finally boil down to— a case which must be decided on a negotiation table. It is most likely that President Hosni Mubarak may be asked to step down. Seeds of democracy be sown by promise of holding of national elections but till such time the new government is strong enough; Military in disguise will stay in power to harness the Jasmine Revolution in the name of security of the volatile situation in the region.

 The fear is that;  as always this revolution may be hijacked by the US;

 Pukkarti hee naa reh gaey yeh zameen Piasi

 Barasney walay yeh badal, Guzar na jaain kaheen.

 (May the land thirsty of becoming a free land is not left barren and the cloud arriving laden with rain may just  pass above.)


The Raging Storm









Graph; Daily Le Figaro    January 28, 2011

In the graph (shown above)published today by Le Figaro is in French and gives an idea that how the raging storm of peoples uprising can be measured which has been termed as ‘Jasmine Revolution’ that it was long overdue in Arab world.

It is shown as;

Red is (Forte) means intense up rising— as shown in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria

Dark yellow colour shows the intensity in Yemen and Palestine which is taking its turn to go to high scale.Whereas Sudan— which is in the process of splitting in to two separate states; i.e North and South. North is Muslims part with no oil reserves and in the south Christian majority lives with abundance of minerals and oil. There is ongoing tension in the country.

Yellowish colour: depict the lesser intensity of Medium scale turmoil and uprising is gearing up for the freedom and to shed the yoke of oppression.ie. in Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain.

Grey colour shown in Libya, Syria, Iran, and Somalia and in Gulf states shows that peoples are seen duly concerned and watching closely.


Reflections on the Jasmine Revolution

By  James J Zogby   January 27,  2011

Tunisia is on my mind. Events unfolding there have been both dramatic and inspiring and are dominating discussions across the Arab world.

The scenes coming from Tunis have been riveting. A peaceful mass revolt that persisted in the face of repression and violence has brought down a dictator and a government in a marvellous display of “people power”.

We have seen few instances of mass mobilisation like this before in the Arab world. Generations ago, there were the uprisings against colonial domination across North Africa. More recently, the region witnessed the first Palestinian Intifada and the massive street demonstrations in Lebanon that followed the assassination of prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri. But these have been few and far between, and, more to the point, the hopes that accompanied them have gone largely unfulfilled.

 Going back a century or so, the impact of colonial domination and imperial manipulation (Sykes-Picot, Balfour, etc) have taken a toll. The region was occupied, deeply wounded, dismembered, and transformed, against the will of its inhabitants. Scars remain. For one, there is a gnawing sense that history is made by others, that life is “out of control”. In the face of this malaise, Tunisia is strong medicine.

While I do not agree with those who assume that this movement is automatically transferable to other countries, there is no doubt that it is a transformative moment that has inspired many Arabs. But those who force parallels with the fall of the “Iron Curtain” are mistaken. There is no Soviet Empire or occupation army here. Each Arab country has evolved differently, has unique internal dynamics, and governments that enjoy varying degrees of legitimacy. And notions of “spontaneous combustion” — or “what caught fire here will spread there” — are at best apolitical, historical, naïve fantasies, not unlike the neo-conservatives’ notion that the fall of Saddam Hussein would unleash a democratic transformation across the region.

What is indisputable, though, is that Tunisia has captured attention, generated excitement and become an inspiration to many Arabs. There is, of course, a difference between being inspired by a performance and repeating that performance.

And so right now we are left to marvel at the power and bravery of the Tunisian masses and to wonder. We must wonder, for example, why and how the regime crumbled so quickly, and what internal dynamics were at work that convinced Zein Al-Abidine bin Ali to leave, the party to fall apart, the feared and omnipresent security services to lose control, and the army to pull back.

And we must wonder about the mobilisation itself. There is, no doubt, a fascinating back-story yet to be told of how this movement came together, found its discipline and organisation, and sustained itself. It is clear that new media played an important role, but that alone is not sufficient to explain this effort. What was, for example, the role of the organised labour movement or Ennahda, or other forces in civil society? Was there cooperation or competition amongst these groupings, and if competition, which will emerge as the “driver” moving forward?

And because so much is still unclear, we must wonder where it will go, what leaders will emerge and what direction the “new” Tunisia will take.

 As I’ve watched these developments unfolding, I’ve been thinking about a group of young Tunisians I met almost two decades ago. They were nephews of a friend of mine who lived in the Washington area. He knew that I was going with an American delegation to Tunis to participate in a conference on democracy that was sponsored by the ruling party on the fourth anniversary of Bin Ali’s assumption of power. My friend encouraged me to take some time to meet his nephews telling me that it would give me some perspective on the problems in Tunisia and an alternative view of the country’s political scene.

His nephews were, in fact, bright and politically active on their campus in a branch of the outlawed Ennahda Party. After a few hours speaking with them I was so glad I had detoured from my conference to get to know them. They were quite challenging in their views and full of anger and idealism and demands for change. But they were also kids, and like college kids everywhere they were drawn to the changing culture of the times and wanted to share in all its possibilities. Most of all, they wanted to know what the future had in store for them. True, they had embraced a religious ideology that was neither progressive nor open to the changing global culture to which they were also attracted, but they wanted and had the right to be taken seriously.

 When I returned to the conference later that day I spoke about these young people; of the need to be open to their idealism and their hopes for change and to be able to provide them with a vision of the future that would inspire them. Because the justice minister of Tunisia had just spoken about the threat posed by these groups, I turned to him and said, “You must not dismiss them. They should be engaged and inspired. They are your future.” I was stunned by his harsh response. He said that if they demanded and demonstrated in the streets “they would be engaged by police and a strong hand”.

 I have also been thinking about a group of strong and smart young Tunisian women who were at this conference. When they spoke they expressed deep concerns about whether the secularism of the current order would prevail, allowing them to continue to play an active role in their society. They understood the arguments our American contingent had been making about “Jeffersonian” democracy, but they were more concerned with the threat to their freedoms posed by intolerant fundamentalism.

 I wonder where those young students and women are today (they would not be so young anymore). Their successor generation did engage the street and were met with a “strong hand”. What is clear is that the “strong hand” was not the engagement that was needed, nor did it hold back the dreams and demands of the young. What is not clear is the outcome. Where it goes from here remains uncertain. Will the change be progressive and open to full participation, and will women benefit from this revolt? Answers to these and more questions will be coming in the months ahead when we see how this revolution plays out. But right now, we have every reason to be inspired and to hope for the best for all Tunisians.

 *Published in Egypt’s AL-AHRAM WEEKLY in the Jan. 27 – Feb. 2, 2011 issue.

Fareed Paracha (JI) manipulates Quranic verses to suit their Purpose


By A Khokar     January 23, 2011

khan Seena work referred to here– are the verses from Suarh e Ahzab which Fareed Paracha of (JI) has tried tactfully to manipulate and thrown it on the audience to accept as Divine Order with very little knowledge that they have.

Nice try mate — but we certaianly like to dig out that under what condition and context this surah was revealed; (that context to follow) but first let us see that how the verses from surah are ‘cherry picked’ to suit their purpose.

Verse[33:57] is picked after ignoring earlier verse[33:56] and is connected out of context to [33:61] by omitting 33:58, 59 and 60 altogether.

Surah Ahzab Chapter 33

[33:56] Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! you should invoke blessings on him and salute with the salutation of peace.

[33:57] Verily, those who malign Allah and His Messenger — Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them an abasing punishment.

[33:58] And those who malign believing men and believing women for what they have not earned shall bear the guilt of a calumny and a manifest sin.

[33:59] O Prophet! tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers that they should draw close to them portions of their outer coverings. That is nearer that they may thus be distinguished and not molested. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

[33:60] If the hypocrites, and those in whose heart is a disease, and those who cause agitation in the city, desist not, We shall surely give thee authority over them; then they will not dwell therein as thy neighbours, save for a little while.

[33:61] Then they will be accursed. Wherever they are found, they will be seized, and cut into pieces.
[33:62] Such has been the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away before, and thou wilt never find a change in the way of Allah.

From above series of verses we may get clear picture that in any case the punishment as a consequences of maligning ‘Allah and his Prophet’ by the hypocrites and misguided peoples—- rests with Allah and this prerogative has not been given in the hands of any of group of Muslims even to the Prophet himself, when he was present there.

Verse 61 and 62 is also very much indicative of the fact that Allah is a living God and Allah himself takes care of all such peoples— who indulge in maligning and this has been the way of Allah.


Why the Drones may not go off our skies.

Scores of Drones are stationed at Bagram air base

By A Khokar      January  18,  2011

If Al-Qaida and their hosts Taliban were that capable that it could under take the most gruelling task, some thousands miles away from their base in Afghanistan,  like we saw of 9/11, directing two Jet airliners on to the target twin tower in USA,; admiringly the sharp turn manoeuvring under taken in directing such a large body airliners with precision on to the target in the air aviation circles is graded as unique display of pilots expertise. But how come the target like Bagram Air base where scores of Drones predators are stationed in their home land Afghanistan; daily engaging and destroying the rest resorts of Al-Qaeda and Taliban and killing and mutilating scores of innocent men, children and women on ground but it goes go unnoticed.

we have seen that so far in retaliations, the forces reacting to this savage killing; rather than going and attacking the targets like Bagram air base; this twisted mind lot is misdirected to the civil markets and other vulnerable places like Qisa khawani bazzar to kill own people by suicidal actions.

 What is this dilemma?

Few years back I was able to carry out a study in the area of general behaviour of people of our North West frontier from where Al Qaeda and their host Taliban belong. While going through the very old books and other information available; I was horrified to find that; deceit, betrayal and sleeping with enemy and mint monies are the long old norms, the traits and traditions of our land where people live within and in the adjacent areas of Koh e Hindukush and kirthar ranges. These ranges are known for their major passes as gate ways to India like Khyber pass, Gomal, Khojack, Tochi, Bolan and another ancient route to India via Karakoram Sar pass, the famous Alexander route in far up in the north. These areas and passes now form as a major part of present day Pakistan.

 Whereas these passes always stood there to guard as the defence gates to main land India but there has been no dearth of local lot who would deceitfully act to compromise the sanctity of these defence gates.

These deceitful people have always worked as the hirelings; mercenaries and have been escorting the invader armies through the difficult terrain of Hindu Kush and Kirthar ranges. They will escort the invaders through mountains for money and when these invaders used to come back laden with the booty from main land India, they will lay ambushes and loot them or kidnap them to have their chunk of share. Since ages this remains the practice as a means of their earnings for living. Yet the peoples from the adjacent areas, lying off from mountainous ranges along the tributaries, used to join the invading forces and are known as loyal foot soldiers.

Surely while passing through the passages to main land India, the invaders were to conquer the lands en routes and these elements have remained at the forefront in helping the invading armies and conspiring in dislodging the defences of local armies. The stigma of disloyalty to own home land for sake of money and to work for the foreign elements is found as a known norm. No wonder all the Maliks, tribal lords of even today are found in the forefront in such like plays.

The west is very well aware of all this and in the present age and time when the western forces are found pitched on the other side of Hindukush and Kirther ranges ready any time to cross over, the hirelings and mercenaries are seen on fast forward mode to cut deals with invading armies; even the religious groups and so called the religious stalwart and zealots—they too are dithering not to get involved in these practices of deceit but get paid. Tehrik e Taliban in Pakistan (TTP) the known brain child of CIA raised to subdue Pakistan through subversion is one such example where known figures like Fazlur of JUI and his cohorts have been very active in raising TTP and allowed to breeding and we see that it has turned into monsters. They foresee building up of a potent political clout. ANP the ruling party of this province is also not far behind; simply one has to read their manifesto.

 Ever since the incident of 9/11 in New York, the ominous presence of Al Qaeda, a wealthy fugitive lot sticking here in Tribal area from Arab lands is declared an enemy of the west. This is yet another example that for the sake of money, how the local tribes while acting as hosts of Al Qaeda are giving them the shelter at the cost of even compromising the sovereignty of our own home land Pakistan and get paid; whereas Al Qaeda they are regularly targeted through drone attacks and scores of local people die, injured and properties destroyed as collateral damage.

 In case of drone attacks; CIA is paying heftily to the ‘Patahries’. Patharie are the local people; hired to keep a track of Al-Qaeda and Afghani Taliban present in the areas. They in disguise get closer to the targets where Al Qaeda or Taliban gather and drop a tiny electronic chip; which in turn assists to locate the exact target through satellite and then —the unfortunate group is hit by Drones on the spot. This is another stark example of working for the enemy by the locals as patharies and to get paid.

TTP, the Fazlur the conspirator, the patharies, drone attacks, acting as the host for Al-Qaida and Taliban… boils down to one old age simple equation; acting for the foreign elements to get paid. Reportedly; CIA is footing all the bills and is also paying the government of Pakistan as well as directly to the Pakistan military. The bases like Bagram air base where scores of drones are stationed in open bunkers will never be raided by these forces neither Pak military may strike or take the drone down off from skies as this helps keep the flag of the terrorism in this theatre of terrorism up. With every drone attack strike where civilians are killed; ten more become the terrorists. The phenomenon of drone attacks is the main tool used for keeping the terrorism alive. The   elimination of drones altogether is likely to minimise the potency of terrorism and also stops the inflow of money for the beneficiaries.

 Hum hoaay,Tum hoay;keh Meer Hoaay

 Sab isee ki zulf kay aseer hoaay

Whereas the Pakistani government, its military and the locals working as western agents; all the  hypocrites get paid for the services provided to US lead western forces; US avails a readymade pretext of Terrorism to prolong their well wished stay in this region while the people suffer.

So; Lagay rahou Munna bhai.

We the traitors, the hypocrite; our end is fast drawing nearer.


Link for related article: Sleeping with the Enemy. http://www.adab-arz.co.uk/?p=74 


WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes

By Fred Branfman   January 13, 2011

There are few scenarios more frightening for America than a domestic nuclear terrorist incident, which could kill tens of thousands of people, devastate the economy and turn America into a police state. As a March 2010 Harvard study reported, Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile “faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth.”

The single most significant revelation of the State Department cables released by WikiLeaks is that U.S. policy is actually increasing the danger of a nuclear incident. The U.S. has so alienated the Pakistani people that their government fears cooperating with Washington on nuclear matters: The U.S. signed a nuclear energy agreement with India that has convinced Pakistani officials to enlarge their already unstable nuclear stockpile, and Washington has expanded U.S. military operations into Pakistan in a way that Ambassador Anne Patterson herself secretly admitted “risks destabilizing the Pakistani state” (9-23-09 cable). These newly disclosed official U.S. cables, which strongly point to the growing threat to Americans from mismanaged U.S. policy, require urgent congressional hearings, greater media investigation and public protest.

Ambassador Patterson, reporting on the Pakistani government breaking its 2007 written agreement to return U.S.-supplied nuclear material to the U.S., wrote in quoting a Pakistani official that “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, `they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.’  ” Patterson added that “the negative media attention has begun to hamper U.S. efforts to improve Pakistan’s nuclear security and nonproliferation practices” (5-27-09 cable). A subsequent cable revealed that Pakistani distrust of the U.S. government has left Washington unable to encourage Pakistan to sign key pacts limiting nuclear proliferation, and that there is little coordination on nuclear matters between the American and Pakistani governments (11-24-09 cable).

Patterson’s cables also reveal that U.S. leaders know that present policy is destabilizing Pakistan, thus making a nuclear disaster more likely. Referring to U.S. “unilateral operations” in northwest Pakistan (such as drone strikes, ground assassination and other infringements of Pakistani sovereignty), she wrote that “increased unilateral operations in these areas risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan without finally achieving the goal.” She then added that “to be effective, we must extend the writ of the Pakistani state into the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] in such a way that Taliban groups can no longer offer effective protection to al-Qaeda from Pakistan’s own security and law enforcement agencies in these areas” (9-23-09 cable).

Incredibly, U.S. leaders have only escalated the very operations their own officials believe risk destabilizing the Pakistani state. They have vastly increased U.S. drone strikes and stationed both U.S. assassins and U.S.-supported local assassins on Pakistani soil—even though the Pakistani government has not extended its “writ” in FATA as reported in November. These unilateral operations have thus increased the public’s hatred of the United States, to the point where a Pew poll in July found that 59 percent of Pakistanis regard the U.S. as an “enemy” and only 11 percent view America as a “partner.”

These cables reveal that it is U.S. foreign policy that is jeopardizing national security, not WikiLeaks. And WikiLeaks can actually help strengthen U.S. national security if in response the Congress and the public act to change America’s disastrous policy toward Pakistan and thus reduce the nuclear terrorist threat. The American people may disapprove of Julian Assange by a 77-20 margin, but they owe the WikiLeaks editor their thanks for revealing the growing danger they face from wrongheaded U.S. policy.

To those who consider it alarmist to raise urgent calls to change U.S. policies to secure Pakistani nukes, there is a simple response: “the Shah of Iran.” Throughout the 1970s, U.S. leaders strongly supported the shah, with Henry Kissinger even foolishly making him the lynchpin of his “Nixon Doctrine,” while ignoring the growing hatred the Iranian people felt toward their tyrant. Just three months before the shah fell, U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan stated that “the riots erupting in provincial cities would play themselves out and were not a cause of major concern.” The U.S. government disastrously miscalculated in ignoring local public opinion in Iran. It is even more foolishly doing something similar today in Pakistan, which, unlike Iran then, has both nuclear weapons and an economy on the verge of collapse.

Because we psychologically turn to our leaders above all for protection, it is difficult to accept that they could really be endangering us. But the WikiLeaks documents reveal beyond any doubt that those making U.S. foreign policy cannot be trusted to protect Americans. In fact, the lives of countless Americans—not to mention even more non-Americans—depend on opening up our foreign policy to democratic control so that our leaders’ present bungling and crimes can be ended.

Many Establishment observers have falsely asserted that there is nothing new in the WikiLeaks cables, and that they in fact reveal a competent foreign policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cables reveal an enormous amount that has been heretofore unknown and a breathtaking incoherence in Washington’s Afghanistan-Pakistan policy: The more that U.S. leaders wage war in tiny Afghanistan, the more they destabilize giant Pakistan and increase the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

Even after reporting for Truthdig for 18 months now on how U.S. policy has been dangerously and recklessly destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan, I am amazed at how much new information these cables reveal. Outside experts have been warning of the dangers of Pakistan nuclear proliferation for years. It is only because of WikiLeaks, however, that we now realize how deeply U.S. and allied officials are also concerned about the issue:

  • Ambassador Patterson reported that “our major concern has not been that an Islamic militant could steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in [Pakistani government] facilities could gradually smuggle enough fissile material out to eventually make a weapon and the vulnerability of weapons in transit” (2-4-09 cable).
  • A Sept. 22, 2009, cable regarding a meeting with U.K. expert Mariot Leslie reported that “the UK has deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. … In Leslie’s view, the risk of proliferation is a bigger threat than terrorism but it ranks lower than terrorism on the public’s list of perceived threats. She flagged efforts both by states and by terrorist groups to obtain nuclear weapons” (9-22-09 cable).
  • U.S. national intelligence officer Peter Lavoy reported that “Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world” (12-5-08 cable).
  • One Russian foreign ministry official explained that “Russia assesses that Islamists are not only seeking power in Pakistan but are also trying to get their hands on nuclear materials. … There are 120,000-130,000 people directly involved in Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs, working in these facilities and protecting them. However, regardless of the clearance process for these people, there is no way to guarantee that all are 100% loyal and reliable. Extremist organizations have more opportunities to recruit people working in the nuclear and missile programs. Also, even if places are well protected, transportation of materials is a vulnerable point. In Pakistan, it is hard to guarantee the security of these materials during transportation” (undated cable). Since 59 percent of the Pakistani people regard the U.S. as an “enemy”, according to polling results, this means that it is likely that a significant, if smaller, portion of the 120,000 to 130,000 people “directly involved in Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs” do so as well.
  • Ambassador Patterson reported that “one of the reasons Pakistan opposes the [nuclear proliferation] treaty is that it is building an arsenal of smaller, tactical nuclear weapons. Pakistani military planners believe that Pakistan needs to transform its arsenal to smaller, tactical weapons that could be used on the battlefield against Indian conventional capabilities. The result of this trend is the need for greater stocks of fissile material to feed Pakistan’s nuclear weapons requirement” (11-24-09 cable). She also described how the U.S.-India nuclear energy agreement has led Pakistan to develop even more nuclear weapons: “Pakistani officials perceive the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation initiative as having unshackled India’s nuclear weapons program. Prior to the initiative, they said, India faced a significant uranium supply constraint that forced it to choose literally between nuclear weapons or nuclear power. Now, however, India is able to secure foreign-supplied uranium for its civil nuclear power reactors, leaving it free to devote a greater share of its domestically-sourced uranium to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.” This was a key reason, she explained, why Pakistan was resisting the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and planning to build more nuclear weapons (11-24-09 cable).
  • While Pakistan was resisting the FMCT, Patterson wrote, “direct U.S. pressure is unlikely to convince them to support FMCT negotiations, and may even hurt efforts to move forward” (11-24-09 cable). Patterson describes the U.S.-Pakistani relationship as one of “mutual distrust,” saying that “the relationship is one of co-dependency we grudgingly admit—Pakistan knows the U.S. cannot afford to walk away; the U.S. knows Pakistan cannot survive without our support” (2-21-09 cable). That is, despite the fact that the Pakistani government depends on U.S. aid for its very survival, the U.S. has so bungled its overall Pakistan policy that it cannot meaningfully move to reduce the threat of Pakistani nuclear proliferation, e.g. by encouraging Pakistan to sign the FMCT.

These cables reveal a deep official concern about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear materials; however, none of this was shared with the American public. “We’ve given [the Pakistanis] assistance in improving their security arrangements over the past number of years. Based on the information available to us that gives us … comfort,” read a typical official statement by Defense Secretary Gates in December 2009. But as The New York Times reported on Nov. 30, 2010, on the nuclear fuel that Pakistan was supposed to transfer to the U.S., “the fuel is still there.” And as Pakistan continues to produce “nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world,” the danger is clearly increasing (12-5-08 cable).

The second major issue revealed by the leaked cables is that while U.S. and other Western officials fear Pakistani nuclear proliferation, they are pursuing policies that make a nuclear incident more likely. As the Russian foreign ministry official cited above makes clear, the issue for the U.S. is not a narrow one, meaning a specific effort to secure this or that plant. The U.S. can secure Pakistani’s nuclear materials only by changing its present overall policy. By turning the vast majority of Pakistanis against the U.S., American leaders have made Pakistan’s government reluctant to cooperate on nuclear matters and have therefore increased the danger of nuclear theft among the more than 100,000 Pakistani workers at nuclear facilities.

The cables reveal that the threat to the West has geometrically increased as a result of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. In one leaked document, then-shadow and now actual British Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to have raised the concern: “Cameron noted that most of the approximately one million UK citizens of Pakistani origin (mostly Punjabis and Kashmiris) living in the UK were not pro-Taliban but had been radicalized by the Iraq war” (4-9-09 cable).

U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan must aim at improving favorability among its people so that the U.S. can then cooperate with its government on nuclear matters, but Ambassador Patterson reported that the opposite is occurring: “America is viewed with some suspicion by the majority of Pakistan’s people and its institutions. We are viewed at best as a fickle friend, and at worst as the reason why Pakistan is attacking its own. …”

There are many reasons why Pakistanis hate America, of course, including the perception that the U.S. is pro-India. But these cables reveal that the U.S. is pursuing policies, such as support for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari , that increase this hatred rather than diminish it. On the one hand, Patterson wrote “Zardari is our best ally in Pakistan right now” and recommended strong support for him. On the other, she acknowledges that Zardari has an “approval rating [of only] 20%” and that he “sees himself as viewing the world the way Americans do; this same image works against him with the public” (2-04-09 and 6-20-09 cables). So why is the U.S. supporting a leader as despised by his own people as was the Shah of Iran? Patterson explains: “Zardari is less likely to make public announcements chastising the USG [U.S. government] for its policies in, and toward Pakistan (including on USG drone activity) than other senior GOP [government of Pakistan] officials” (6-20-09 cable). That is, while polls indicate that the Pakistani people overwhelmingly oppose drone assassinations, the U.S. is aligning itself with a hated leader who does not have the support of his people at least partly because he secretly supports the strikes.

The cables also reveal that U.S. war-fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan is strengthening jihadi forces in Pakistan, most ominously in its Punjabi heartland, not just border regions. According to a 12-05-08 cable, former National Intelligence Officer for South Asia Peter Lavoy “commented on two causes of instability in western Pakistan that could cause Pakistan to completely lose control of its Pashtun territories over the next few years.” The cable went on to say in paraphrasing Lavoy: “Traditional Pashtun tribal authority has broken down since the anti-Soviet jihad period, and is no longer capable of resolving social harmony at the community level. Pakistan has also promulgated a policy of neglect of Pashtun areas and still lacks a strategy to deal holistically with social problems of illiteracy, unemployment, and disaffected youth. Both of these situations play to the advantage of insurgent and extremist groups.”

A Feb. 19, 2009, cable from Patterson reveals that Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani “raised concern about the effect of a U.S. troop build-up in southern Afghanistan, which could push militants and refugees across the border into Balochistan and prompt an influx of foreign fighters.” Patterson reported that “even in the south of the prosperous Punjab we have seen an increasing trend to extremism among youth” (6-20-09 cable). That is, U.S. war-making in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s northwest territories are pushing more militants into the Pakistani heartland, increasing rather than diminishing the threat they pose to the Pakistani state.

While the government of Pakistan would, according to Patterson, prefer a strategy of “dialogue, deterrence and development,” the U.S. government has instead forced its ally to undertake offensives in both the Swat Valley and south Waziristan. Washington should tell Kayani, Patterson wrote, that “it will be difficult for international donors to support a government that is not prepared to go all-out to defend its own territory” (2-04-09, 2-19-09 cables).

The cables also reveal for the first time that the U.S. has gone even further in increasing anti-American hatred by secretly deploying Special Forces assassins in Pakistan. Patterson wrote that “the Pakistani Army has for just the second time approved deployment of U.S. special operation elements to support Pakistani military operations. … These deployments are highly politically sensitive because of widely-held concerns among the public about Pakistani sovereignty and opposition to allowing foreign military forces to operate in any fashion on Pakistani soil” (10-09-09 cable). Celebrating this “sea change in Pakistani thinking,” Patterson indicated that this would lead to more U.S. assassination activities within Pakistan, saying that the first deployment “likely helped catalyze the follow-up requests for new and repeat support.”

The overall message from the WikiLeaks cables, therefore, is clear: A disastrously bungled U.S. policy toward Pakistan has led a majority of the Pakistani people to see the U.S. as their “enemy” and strengthened jihadi forces in both the northwest territories and Punjab heartland and thus made it more likely that anti-American forces could obtain Pakistani nuclear materials.

And these cables thus prove that America faces a basic choice: It can continue to try to win in Afghanistan and thus continue to destabilize the Pakistani state, increasing the danger of a nuclear incident. Or it can withdraw from Afghanistan, use a portion of the $100 billion it is annually wasting there to help restore the Pakistan economy, end the drone strikes, ground assassinations and other infringements of Pakistani sovereignty, and seek to build a new relationship with the Pakistani people so that their government will no longer fear openly cooperating with America to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear materials.

Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Pakistan came amid growing signs that the Obama administration is finally waking up to the growing crisis there that its policies have helped produce for the past 18 months. The question now is whether U.S. policy-makers will realize that they have been destabilizing already-fragile Pakistan and redirect their efforts toward more constructive ends.

There is reason to believe such a reformed policy could work. A Pew poll last July revealed that while only 17 percent of Pakistanis view the U.S. favorably, 64 percent desire better relations. If the U.S. was to practice what it preaches and respect the Pakistani public’s democratic desires, it would be possible to create a foreign policy that would see the Pakistani and U.S. governments working together to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation, thus enhancing U.S. national security rather than continuing to weaken it.

If U.S. policy toward Pakistan changes in a way that increases U.S. national security, it will be due in no small part to the courage of those who revealed how U.S. policy is increasing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and a devastating attack on U.S. soil. The American people owe Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, the website’s sources and its volunteers their gratitude.

URL: http://www.truthdig.com

Is Religious Moderation Dying in Pakistan?


By Ehsan Ahrari —Honolulu;     January 6, 2011

The recent assassination of the Governor Salman Taseer of Punjab, the most populous state of Pakistan and the state that formulates a large chunk of its Army, raises that perennial question: Is religious moderation dying in Pakistan? Assassin’s bullets are notorious about leading to major cataclysmic events, and one should be careful about reading too much into such events. However, in Pakistan’s case no amount of broad sweep of analytical thinking may be regarded as exaggeration.

Continue reading Is Religious Moderation Dying in Pakistan?

Allah loves not those who create disorder

By A Khokar    January 8, 2011

Malik Mumtaz Qadri of Elite police force is a murderer that he killed Punjab governor Salman Taseer cold blooded while he was deputed to protect him. Reportedly Governor Salman Taseer uttered something about blasphemy law that how it has been misused in Aasia Bibi case — where upon certain politico-religious gangs in order to wield their political clout rather than lodging an official report; alleged him and fanned it as an issue of committing of blasphemy. Various Fatwas (Mullah’s decree)were issued as well as head money placed on him to kill him.

Act of Mumtaz as a security guard is being taken as a great news in the politico–religious circles and they are seen hailing and glorifying his act to the hilt. Understandably it has given them a big leap forward in raising of their waned political clout but ironically this incident has turned into a great National tragedy. It is also much more tragic that his other colleagues while on duty, knowingly abetted him and did not stop him or report their seniors about his hideous plan. We may not be able to gauge it at present but it may bring a big upheaval against the command and control structure of national security and military establishment and it is feared that it may also induce and inculcate a phenomenon of revolt in their arena.

It is most chilling to note that even after the laps of some 65 year of our independence from British Raj, we still think as we are under some colonial rules and like to remain pitched against the present rulers all the times. Not knowing that this government is our elected government; they represent us in the parliament and may easily be dealt with for their any outlandish behaviour as per set laws.

Reportedly Maulana Fazlur of JUI who recently quit the PPP government as their ally on some flimsy grounds has joined this Politico-religious gang to head them. Along with the other top notches from Jammat e Islami (JI) have brought the  the old terror groups known as Tehrike Taliban (TTP) in their fold. Previously TTP were let to breed in FATA-Malakand-Swat area under Fazlur’s MMA government in Frontier province. This monster was defeated in last Swat operation but surprisingly; devil is resurfacing again.

 It is also very surprising that when allegedly Salman Tahseer was uttering something about the amendment in Blasphemy law; Fazlur was still in the government; he could have quit the PPP government on the pretext of flagrant Blasphemous tattle-tale of Tahseer but he preferred to go out on flimsy grounds.

Unfortunately; incident of brazen killing of Salaman Tahseer under the cover of Blasphemy law has divided this nation into two warring groups; the religious extremist glorifiers and the liberal moderates Muslims. It is no more a hidden secret that this diabolic devilish design of these stooges can only bring the destruction and disorder in this beleaguered, misguided nation and may result in tearing apart the fabrics of society. Lawlessness, mass killing, unrest, wide spread anarchy and disorder in the society is but eminent.

 Creation of this lawlessness and disorder that one may foresee is by design which is against the spirit and ethics of Islam.  Allah jala shana hou is against all the creators of disorder in society and admonishes [2:60]”….and commit not iniquity in the earth, creating disorder.” [5:64] “Whenever they kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. And they strive to create disorder in the earth, and Allah loves not those who create disorder.”

The hideous designs of the politico-religious groups to build their political clout through spread of anarchy fear and terror is sheer trangression. It is uncalled for and amounts to calling for the wrath of God.

Meray wattan Peh Chaaey Hoaay Andheroun ko

Jo Tum kaho; mujhey Qaher e khuda sa lagta hey

Pakistan Poses the Greatest Terrorist Threat to the world: A Survey

 Foreign Policy Magazine Survey : Terrorism




For full Survey Report Please Link:


Please watch TV programme ‘Aaj Ki Khabar’ of Aaj Tv. Anchor: Absar alam

 Mr Imtiaz Gul the Pakistani analyst and expert on the Defence and Terrorism matters of the region is one of the contributors of this survey.


The Blasphemy Law; Brief History

 Let’s update ourselves on Blasphemy Law: its history in Brief.

This Blasphemy law was introduced earlier in 1927 during the British Raj to thwart any communal riots between Hindus-Muslims and Sikhs, which also formed part of Pakistan penal code section 295 and 295A which says:

PPC 295       Injuring or defiling places of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class       Up to two years’ imprisonment or with fine, or with both

PPC 295A     Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs—-Up to ten years’ imprisonment, or with fine, or with both

General Ziaul Haq the chieftain of all the Mullahs inserted new sections by formulating  new ordinance called as 1986 ordinance which is as follows:

PPC 295B     Defiling, etc., of Holy Quran—-Imprisonment for life

PPC 295C       Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet—Death*  and fine

But it did not satisfy the Mullahs and General Ziaul Haq the chieftain of all the Mullahs amended and formulated yet another ordinance called Ahmadi specific law which is as follows:

PPC 298A       Use of derogatory remarks etc., in respect of holy personages—Three years’ imprisonment, or with fine, or with both

PPC 298B     Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places, by Ahmadis—Three years’ imprisonment and fine

But it was extended specifically for Ahmadies and marked as 298C:

PPC 298C     An Ahmadi, calling himself a Muslim, or preaching or propagating his faith, or outraging the religious feelings of Muslims, or posing himself as a Muslim—-Three years’ imprisonment and fine

Ahmadies were already declared as Non-Muslims under the Second amendment of constitution of 1974 which says:


An Act to amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, 21st September, 1974]


The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th September,1974, and is hereby published for general information:-

Whereas it is expedient further to amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the purposes hereinafter appearing ;

It is hereby enacted as follows:-

1- Short title and commencement.

(1) This Act may be called the CONSTITUTION (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1974

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2- Amendment of Article 106 of the Constitution.

In the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution in Article 106, in clause (3) after the words “communities” the words and brackets “and persons of Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’)” shall be inserted.

3- Amendment of Article 260 of the Constitution.

In the Constitution, in Article 260, after clause (2) the following new clause shall be added, namely–

(3) A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophet hood of MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.


* Death penalty was inserted by Nawaz Sharif; yet another candidate of would be called “ Ameerul Momineen”

 Please read the article for further details,

Engineering of a Doctrine in quest for Power to Rule

Link ref: http://www.pakspectator.com/engineering-of-a-doctrine-in-quest-for-power-to-rule/