Pakistanis consider India and the Murtids - al Qaeda and Taliban- a major threat to Pakistan.
WASHINGTON: A PEW research says that most Pakistani disapproved of the US operation that killed Osama bin Laden, even though the terror leader was not a crowd favourite, a majority considered it a bad thing. However views about the US and Obama did not get any worse after bin Laden’s killing.
With the relations between the two war on terror allies moving towards breaking point, the research found that 63 per cent of the people did not approve of bin Laden’s killing while 55 per cent believed it to be a bad thing. A mere 37 per cent believed in using army to combat extremists in Khyber Pakhtookhwa and FATA areas.
The comprehensive report is broken down in six chapters, views on national conditions, ratings of political leaders and government institutions, death of bin Laden and the continuing efforts against terrorists, opinion about US and Obama, on extremism and how Pakistanis and Indians view each other.
Views on national conditions
With regards to national condition, the PEW research said that “Pakistanis continue to be highly dissatisfied with conditions in their country. Roughly nine-in-ten (92 per cent) are dissatisfied with the country’s direction. Almost as many (85 per cent) say the economic situation in Pakistan is bad. And optimism is scarce – 60 per cent think the economy will worsen in the next 12 months; only 13 per cent believe it will improve.”
Ratings of political leaders and government institutions
Ratings for President Zardari dropped from 20 per cent a year ago to mere 11 per cent. While ratings for the Prime Minister Gillani fared better, with 39 per cent, despite dropping from 59 per cent from a year ago.
In contrast, political rivals such as Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif saw their popularity soar with Khan getting 69 per cent and Sharif 63 per cent.
Chief of Army Staff, Ashfaque Pervaiz Kayani came in third with 52 per cent. However, the institution he represents, the armed forces were viewed positively with 79 per cent approval. The ratings for the army have fallen only four points after the OBL incident.
Death of bin Laden and the continuing efforts against terrorists
After the bin Laden operation, criticism of the army was rising home and abroad. According to the PEW research data “although Osama bin Laden was not well-regarded in recent
years, few Pakistanis approve of the military operation that killed him, and most say it is a bad thing that the al Qaeda leader is dead. Looking forward, many think the killing of bin
Laden will create even greater tensions between the US and their country.”
As criticism about drone strikes increase, more and more people seemed to be getting knowledgeable about what the hue and cry about it. In addition to that, almost 61 per cent of the people disagreed that they were necessary while 89 per cent thought that they killed too many innocent people.
Support for the fight against extremism using Pakistani forces to conduct operations in the troubled FATA and Khyber Pakhtoonkhw areas of Pakistan has also waned with only 37 per cent of the people supporting an Army operation.
Opinion about US and Obama
Pakistanis are ranked second in viewing the US as unfavourable to their cause. The PEW report suggested that percentage of people who viewed America as friendly slipped from 17 per cent in 2010 to 12 per cent in 2011. Only in Turkey was America viewed less favourably with only 10 per cent viewing the country in positive light.
Extremism
According to the PEW research, the views about Islmaic extremism slipped slightly in 2011 compared with 2010. However, with 63 per cent still worried about the extremism in the country, most Pakistanis continue to see it as a problem facing their nation. Many worry that extremists could take control of their country, and pluralities see al Qaeda and the Taliban as serious threats.
How Pakistanis and Indians view each other
Pakistanis continue to see India in a bad light, with the PEW research saying that views have gotten more negative about their arch rivals over the past five years. According to the research,
ONly 14 per cent of Pakistanis view India in a favourable light.
54 per cent consider India to be a serious threat to Pakistan. Pakistanis also consider Taliban and Al Qaeda (Murtids) a huge threat to Pakistan -Taliban is (34 per cent) and al Qaeda (29 per cent).
On the flip side, Indians do not view Pakistan as any more favourable as Pakistanis view Indians.
However, 65 per cent of Indians see Pakistan in a negative light compared to 75 per cent for Pakistanis.
Interestingly, despite the visible hostility between the neighbouring countries, a large majority of people on both sides of the border want to improve relations.
The full research report can be read on the PEW research website.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Pakistan Army Uncovers a cell of Murtids in the Army !
"Murtids" caught in the Army with contacts with a militant oganization. Serving Bearded army officer by the name of Brig. Ali Khan arrested.
A spokesman for Pakistan’s military confirmed on Tuesday that a senior officer had been detained and was under investigation for suspected ties to militants.
The BBC’s Urdu-language news service first reported that the officer, Brigadier Ali Khan, who was serving in the general headquarters of Pakistan’s military in Rawalpindi, was taken into custody last month.
Dawn, a leading Pakistani newspaper, added that the military’s chief spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, “confirmed that the officer had been arrested, but released no further details on which groups he was alleged to have been in contact with.”
General Abbas told Agence France-Presse that Brigadier Khan had been detained because of contacts with a “defunct” militant organization. He added, “The investigation is on and we follow a zero tolerance policy of any such activity within the army.”
General Abbas later told Reuters that Brigadier Khan was linked to Hizb-ul-Tahrir, a radical Islamist group.
Omar Waraich, a Pakistan correspondent for Time magazine, noted on Twitter that Hizb-ul-Tahrir “clandestinely dropped pamphlets in military cantonments” after the American raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, “calling for officers to establish an Islamic caliphate.”
A Karachi newspaper, The Express Tribune, reported that “sources close to Khan’s family revealed he had not returned home on May 6.”
“Senior military officers had told the family that he had been held back to answer some questions and that he would return soon,” the newspaper said.
A Pakistani journalist, Abbas Nasir, pointed out on Twitter, Brigadier Khan seems to have been detained just four days after the Abbottabad raid.
The Express Tribune said Brigadier Khan came from a military family. “Khan’s father was a junior-commissioned officer in the army and his brother is a serving colonel posted with an intelligence agency,” the paper reported. “His son-in-law and son are both captains in the army.” The Tribune added that a senior military source said that the possible radicalization of a senior officer “with loyalty to the army stretching to three generations” was “a worrisome issue for the army.”
After militants penetrated security at a naval base in Karachi earlier this month, Newsweek asked Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister, if “rogue elements within the military” might give radicals access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The minister assured the magazine, “Our nuclear weapons are 200 percent safe.”
A spokesman for Pakistan’s military confirmed on Tuesday that a senior officer had been detained and was under investigation for suspected ties to militants.
The BBC’s Urdu-language news service first reported that the officer, Brigadier Ali Khan, who was serving in the general headquarters of Pakistan’s military in Rawalpindi, was taken into custody last month.
Dawn, a leading Pakistani newspaper, added that the military’s chief spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, “confirmed that the officer had been arrested, but released no further details on which groups he was alleged to have been in contact with.”
General Abbas told Agence France-Presse that Brigadier Khan had been detained because of contacts with a “defunct” militant organization. He added, “The investigation is on and we follow a zero tolerance policy of any such activity within the army.”
General Abbas later told Reuters that Brigadier Khan was linked to Hizb-ul-Tahrir, a radical Islamist group.
Omar Waraich, a Pakistan correspondent for Time magazine, noted on Twitter that Hizb-ul-Tahrir “clandestinely dropped pamphlets in military cantonments” after the American raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, “calling for officers to establish an Islamic caliphate.”
A Karachi newspaper, The Express Tribune, reported that “sources close to Khan’s family revealed he had not returned home on May 6.”
“Senior military officers had told the family that he had been held back to answer some questions and that he would return soon,” the newspaper said.
A Pakistani journalist, Abbas Nasir, pointed out on Twitter, Brigadier Khan seems to have been detained just four days after the Abbottabad raid.
The Express Tribune said Brigadier Khan came from a military family. “Khan’s father was a junior-commissioned officer in the army and his brother is a serving colonel posted with an intelligence agency,” the paper reported. “His son-in-law and son are both captains in the army.” The Tribune added that a senior military source said that the possible radicalization of a senior officer “with loyalty to the army stretching to three generations” was “a worrisome issue for the army.”
After militants penetrated security at a naval base in Karachi earlier this month, Newsweek asked Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister, if “rogue elements within the military” might give radicals access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The minister assured the magazine, “Our nuclear weapons are 200 percent safe.”
Monday, June 20, 2011
Pakistani Police and Army confused who are the "Good" and "Bad" Terrorists !
There is “massive confusion” in the police department about whether they can take action against certain banned groups such as the active Jamaatud Dawa unless they get the go-ahead from ‘big brother’.
These groups differ from clearly marked ones such as the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi or Tehreek-i-Taliban, who are fair game. In any given month, the police arrest at least a dozen of their operatives, who are paraded in front of the media, albeit under blankets to protect their identity. The proud officers rachet up the number of suspects and everyone goes home happy.
But what about the groups that fall in a grey area? In background interviews, senior police and civilian intelligence officials reveal to The Express Tribune that the confusion begins when they come across suspects who operate under groups with an “untouchable status”.
Take, for example, certain outfits such as the Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) whose members were “sashaying around” [Dhandanatay huey phir rahey they] in a massive rally to openly mourn the death of Osama bin Laden, as one senior police official put it. It was ironic that the force had to offer them “protection” for their rally, he remarked. They even openly offered funeral prayers in absentia for the al Qaeda leader.
“Today, if [Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan’s general secretary] Maulana Aurangzeb Farooqi comes to the city and holds a rally, nobody in the police force would know whether he should be allowed to make a speech or not,” said this officer, who has vast experience and specialises in terrorism cases. To make matters worse, the police have the complaint that the intelligence agencies are usually arrogant about these matters and tell the police force that they should be consulted first before any action is taken.
“Without a doubt, there’s massive confusion in the police force today about what to do with certain people belonging to some banned militant groups,” said a senior civilian intelligence official, who corroborated the police official’s claim. He stressed there was a dire need to set up a platform where police, civil and military security agencies can coordinate and work out what is kosher.
This confusion and its fallout has been noted and discussed not just inside the force, but by observers too. It should hardly come as a surprise that the police in Karachi, as those elsewhere in the country, don’t know what to do, said Zahid Hussain, who is the new Pakistan scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre and the author of The Scorpion’s Tale: The Relentless Rise of Islamic Militants in Pakistan. “Despite numerous terrorism incidents, Pakistan lacks a national policy on how to deal with terrorism,” he said. In fact, some of our security agencies engaged in counter-terrorism are still not clear in their heads whether militancy and all militant groups are a threat to the country.
Hussain blamed the government for failing to come up with a national policy and warned that the longer we wait, the more difficult it would become to craft one. For him, it was a shame that the national counter-terrorism authority that was supposedly established to deal with exactly these questions, remains ineffective. “They’re still bickering over whether this body should come under the interior minister or prime minister,” he said.
But why should there even be kosher and non-kosher groups at all, argue others. These categories for militant groups are “mere excuses” being made by the police, in the opinion of former Inspector-General of Police for Sindh Afzal Shigri. It was the duty of a police official and every law enforcement authority to arrest all terrorists. A policeman works under the law and if he catches a suspect according to the law, no one can stop him from doing so. “It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to say that they can’t act unless Big Brother winks at them,” he said, adding that it’s highly unfortunate that today the police was playing second fiddle to the agencies. “Police have the powers to arrest and interrogate. They have all the powers, while intelligence agencies technically have no such powers.”
The truth is that the police has its own national police management board which can be approached for all such conundrums and from whom legal opinion can be solicited.
For Shigri, it’s the policeman’s job to withstand pressure from all internal and external players, even if it comes from the intelligence agencies. “Worst comes to worst, the influential [people] can have an officer transferred. So why be afraid of that?” he asked. In his view, the current situation also indicates a lack of leadership within the police. “An officer who is earning just his salary, [about] Rs20,000, wouldn’t care for such things,” he explained. “It is those who are earning two million rupees a month who worry about transfers and Big Brother pressures.”
These groups differ from clearly marked ones such as the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi or Tehreek-i-Taliban, who are fair game. In any given month, the police arrest at least a dozen of their operatives, who are paraded in front of the media, albeit under blankets to protect their identity. The proud officers rachet up the number of suspects and everyone goes home happy.
But what about the groups that fall in a grey area? In background interviews, senior police and civilian intelligence officials reveal to The Express Tribune that the confusion begins when they come across suspects who operate under groups with an “untouchable status”.
Take, for example, certain outfits such as the Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) whose members were “sashaying around” [Dhandanatay huey phir rahey they] in a massive rally to openly mourn the death of Osama bin Laden, as one senior police official put it. It was ironic that the force had to offer them “protection” for their rally, he remarked. They even openly offered funeral prayers in absentia for the al Qaeda leader.
“Today, if [Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan’s general secretary] Maulana Aurangzeb Farooqi comes to the city and holds a rally, nobody in the police force would know whether he should be allowed to make a speech or not,” said this officer, who has vast experience and specialises in terrorism cases. To make matters worse, the police have the complaint that the intelligence agencies are usually arrogant about these matters and tell the police force that they should be consulted first before any action is taken.
“Without a doubt, there’s massive confusion in the police force today about what to do with certain people belonging to some banned militant groups,” said a senior civilian intelligence official, who corroborated the police official’s claim. He stressed there was a dire need to set up a platform where police, civil and military security agencies can coordinate and work out what is kosher.
This confusion and its fallout has been noted and discussed not just inside the force, but by observers too. It should hardly come as a surprise that the police in Karachi, as those elsewhere in the country, don’t know what to do, said Zahid Hussain, who is the new Pakistan scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre and the author of The Scorpion’s Tale: The Relentless Rise of Islamic Militants in Pakistan. “Despite numerous terrorism incidents, Pakistan lacks a national policy on how to deal with terrorism,” he said. In fact, some of our security agencies engaged in counter-terrorism are still not clear in their heads whether militancy and all militant groups are a threat to the country.
Hussain blamed the government for failing to come up with a national policy and warned that the longer we wait, the more difficult it would become to craft one. For him, it was a shame that the national counter-terrorism authority that was supposedly established to deal with exactly these questions, remains ineffective. “They’re still bickering over whether this body should come under the interior minister or prime minister,” he said.
But why should there even be kosher and non-kosher groups at all, argue others. These categories for militant groups are “mere excuses” being made by the police, in the opinion of former Inspector-General of Police for Sindh Afzal Shigri. It was the duty of a police official and every law enforcement authority to arrest all terrorists. A policeman works under the law and if he catches a suspect according to the law, no one can stop him from doing so. “It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to say that they can’t act unless Big Brother winks at them,” he said, adding that it’s highly unfortunate that today the police was playing second fiddle to the agencies. “Police have the powers to arrest and interrogate. They have all the powers, while intelligence agencies technically have no such powers.”
The truth is that the police has its own national police management board which can be approached for all such conundrums and from whom legal opinion can be solicited.
For Shigri, it’s the policeman’s job to withstand pressure from all internal and external players, even if it comes from the intelligence agencies. “Worst comes to worst, the influential [people] can have an officer transferred. So why be afraid of that?” he asked. In his view, the current situation also indicates a lack of leadership within the police. “An officer who is earning just his salary, [about] Rs20,000, wouldn’t care for such things,” he explained. “It is those who are earning two million rupees a month who worry about transfers and Big Brother pressures.”
Pakistani politicians in Total Denial on Terrorism !
Taleban should be declared "Murtids" if we are to win the hearts and minds of the illiterate majority of Pakistan. Innocent people of the villages are brainwashed and then made to believe that the Taliban's agenda is the truth and Pakistan is on the wrong side of the war.
Circumvention, hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness describe best the behaviour of clergy and politicians when it comes to condemning terrorists and extremism. Fearing electoral losses, the politicians and ulema have chosen to either remain mum or side with the rising tide of bigotry and fanaticism.
Nawaz Sharif and company::
The Sharifs of Punjab are playing the most dangerous game with the fate of Punjab vis-à-vis terrorism which has become entrenched in the province due to denial of the threat’s existence. There have been allegations of them being in arms with various extremist elements for petty political gains. Earlier, Punjab’s senior minister Rana Sanaullah was photographed with the chief of defunct Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan during the by elections in south Punjab. Following this, Shahbaz Sharif and Interior Minister Rehman Malik exchanged endless salvos of claims for and against the existence of Punjabi Taliban.
Imran Khan ::
Imran Khan is another politician of the same ilk who wants us to think that terrorists are only after Pakistan because we are fighting a “US war” and not a war for our own survival. He conveniently ignores the terrorists’ proclamation of “fighting to create an Islamic system in Pakistan”. However, ANP is an exception which bravely and boldly took the case of the militants on, wrestled free Swat and South Waziristan and suffered several casualties in its ranks and file.
Parliament ::
Shrinking from its duty, the Parliament has failed to take ownership of the counter terrorism action. They have not amended the 1997 Anti Terrorism Ordinance which lapsed and has not been re-promulgated ever since.
Politicians ::
The politicians share the mindset with the clergy who otherwise issue infidelity verdicts at the drop of hat, like their cousins in the pre-Protestant Movement’s clergy, but refuse to educate people to exorcise the genie. Most share the perverted ‘jihad’ mindset of imposing a system based on blood and gore.
One would question their quest for Islamising Pakistan. The preamble to our Constitution says no unIslamic law can be passed in the country. A republic with majority Muslims has never passed anything even remotely unIslamic. But constitution matters little to them which they consider based on “munkirat”.
Sectarian ::
Barring the argument, the roots of intolerance go back to the ’50s at times of movement against the Ahmadis. Later, the country bore witness to the blood curdling Shia -Sunni violence at the behest of the Saudis and the Iranians. This progressed into internecine intra-sunni conflict. And now fundamentalist insurgency. They are waging their “jihad” in clear violation of the Holy Quran and Hadith. As Javed Ahmad Ghamdi points out ” Jihad can only be launched by the state and not independent actors otherwise it turns into chaos.”
Deoband ::
Unfortunately, all the followers of Pakistan’s chapter of Deoband school approve of terrorism, whereas scholars running the Deoband Institution in India have rejected and denounced terrorism as unIslamic.
Jamat-e-Islami::
Qazi Hussain Ahmad of Jamaat-e-Islami refuses to denounce the Taliban offensive and terms it justified. His party, now led by Munawwar Hassan, is up in arms over action against feared terrorist and mastermind Ilyas Kashmiri. Jamaat-e-Isami’s Karachi chief Merajul Huda Siddiqui says Kashmiri’s death is being celebrated by India.
JUI (F)::
A departure from this trend is Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Albeit too little too late, Fazl’s reaction coincided after two life attempts on him. Stopping short of categorical rejection, he criticised terrorism, saying “violence has no parallel in Islam.”
Who is on Board against the Taliban/Al Qaeda/The Right::
But there were some religious luminaries who acted like “light at the end of the tunnel”.
Maulana Hassan Jan ::
They lost their lives in opposing Taliban and al Qaeda’s brand of Islam. Foremost among them was Maulana Hassan Jan who was a Taliban ideologue and tried to convince the latter of the wrongdoing. He received several warnings but he didn’t budge from opposing the macabre deeds and was gunned down.
Other Maulanas who should declare the Taliban Murtids ::
Dr Ghulam Murtaza, Dr M Farooq, vice chancellor of International Islamic University, Swat, Mufti Naeemi, and Maulana Hassan Turabi slammed the violence perpetrated by the fringe elements openly and boldly but had to pay with their blood for sticking to their conviction. Another critic, noted scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamdi has to leave the country following persistent life threats.
Ulema ::
The ulema as a whole should have taken the lead role in explaining and defining terrorism as a vice which only sows more confusion and chaos. Their effort should have been directed at reformation and education. Let’s see how long it takes for sanity to prevail.
Political Parties who are on Board ::
MQM
ANP
PPP
JUI(F)
BNM
APML
PML (Q)
Political Parties who are NOT on Board ::
PML (N)
TI
This tells us that major political parties are on board with the rest of Pakistan. PML(N) has basically lost all track to what way they are headed.
Imran Khan thinks this is all Americas fault and there is no enemy within.
I rest my case with both of these parties. PML(N) will perhaps get another drubbing at the hands of the the major parties in 2013 with no major coalition partners siding with them.
Circumvention, hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness describe best the behaviour of clergy and politicians when it comes to condemning terrorists and extremism. Fearing electoral losses, the politicians and ulema have chosen to either remain mum or side with the rising tide of bigotry and fanaticism.
Nawaz Sharif and company::
The Sharifs of Punjab are playing the most dangerous game with the fate of Punjab vis-à-vis terrorism which has become entrenched in the province due to denial of the threat’s existence. There have been allegations of them being in arms with various extremist elements for petty political gains. Earlier, Punjab’s senior minister Rana Sanaullah was photographed with the chief of defunct Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan during the by elections in south Punjab. Following this, Shahbaz Sharif and Interior Minister Rehman Malik exchanged endless salvos of claims for and against the existence of Punjabi Taliban.
Imran Khan ::
Imran Khan is another politician of the same ilk who wants us to think that terrorists are only after Pakistan because we are fighting a “US war” and not a war for our own survival. He conveniently ignores the terrorists’ proclamation of “fighting to create an Islamic system in Pakistan”. However, ANP is an exception which bravely and boldly took the case of the militants on, wrestled free Swat and South Waziristan and suffered several casualties in its ranks and file.
Parliament ::
Shrinking from its duty, the Parliament has failed to take ownership of the counter terrorism action. They have not amended the 1997 Anti Terrorism Ordinance which lapsed and has not been re-promulgated ever since.
Politicians ::
The politicians share the mindset with the clergy who otherwise issue infidelity verdicts at the drop of hat, like their cousins in the pre-Protestant Movement’s clergy, but refuse to educate people to exorcise the genie. Most share the perverted ‘jihad’ mindset of imposing a system based on blood and gore.
One would question their quest for Islamising Pakistan. The preamble to our Constitution says no unIslamic law can be passed in the country. A republic with majority Muslims has never passed anything even remotely unIslamic. But constitution matters little to them which they consider based on “munkirat”.
Sectarian ::
Barring the argument, the roots of intolerance go back to the ’50s at times of movement against the Ahmadis. Later, the country bore witness to the blood curdling Shia -Sunni violence at the behest of the Saudis and the Iranians. This progressed into internecine intra-sunni conflict. And now fundamentalist insurgency. They are waging their “jihad” in clear violation of the Holy Quran and Hadith. As Javed Ahmad Ghamdi points out ” Jihad can only be launched by the state and not independent actors otherwise it turns into chaos.”
Deoband ::
Unfortunately, all the followers of Pakistan’s chapter of Deoband school approve of terrorism, whereas scholars running the Deoband Institution in India have rejected and denounced terrorism as unIslamic.
Jamat-e-Islami::
Qazi Hussain Ahmad of Jamaat-e-Islami refuses to denounce the Taliban offensive and terms it justified. His party, now led by Munawwar Hassan, is up in arms over action against feared terrorist and mastermind Ilyas Kashmiri. Jamaat-e-Isami’s Karachi chief Merajul Huda Siddiqui says Kashmiri’s death is being celebrated by India.
JUI (F)::
A departure from this trend is Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Albeit too little too late, Fazl’s reaction coincided after two life attempts on him. Stopping short of categorical rejection, he criticised terrorism, saying “violence has no parallel in Islam.”
Who is on Board against the Taliban/Al Qaeda/The Right::
But there were some religious luminaries who acted like “light at the end of the tunnel”.
Maulana Hassan Jan ::
They lost their lives in opposing Taliban and al Qaeda’s brand of Islam. Foremost among them was Maulana Hassan Jan who was a Taliban ideologue and tried to convince the latter of the wrongdoing. He received several warnings but he didn’t budge from opposing the macabre deeds and was gunned down.
Other Maulanas who should declare the Taliban Murtids ::
Dr Ghulam Murtaza, Dr M Farooq, vice chancellor of International Islamic University, Swat, Mufti Naeemi, and Maulana Hassan Turabi slammed the violence perpetrated by the fringe elements openly and boldly but had to pay with their blood for sticking to their conviction. Another critic, noted scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamdi has to leave the country following persistent life threats.
Ulema ::
The ulema as a whole should have taken the lead role in explaining and defining terrorism as a vice which only sows more confusion and chaos. Their effort should have been directed at reformation and education. Let’s see how long it takes for sanity to prevail.
Political Parties who are on Board ::
MQM
ANP
PPP
JUI(F)
BNM
APML
PML (Q)
Political Parties who are NOT on Board ::
PML (N)
TI
This tells us that major political parties are on board with the rest of Pakistan. PML(N) has basically lost all track to what way they are headed.
Imran Khan thinks this is all Americas fault and there is no enemy within.
I rest my case with both of these parties. PML(N) will perhaps get another drubbing at the hands of the the major parties in 2013 with no major coalition partners siding with them.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Defining Moment for Pakistan's media and the military establishment !
Pakistani journalists' Syed Saleem Shahzad killing has changed Pakistan and its media. This sole event has brought Pakistan's media and the military establishment at loggerheads putting the military on the defensive for the first time in the history of the country.
“I have never worked for any well-funded international news organizations. Nor have I worked for the mainstream national media. My affiliations have always remained with alternative media outlets. This has left me with narrow options and very little space to move around in. Those who loom large on the political horizon by and large target mainstream information outlets and well-financed news organizations for the launch of their media campaigns, interviews and/or disclosures. Alternative media persons need to work twice as hard as others to draw their attention…,” wrote Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, who was tortured to death, in the preface to his book Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 that hit the stands just 10 days before his brutalised body was fished out of a canal.
But in death, Shahzad — who was the Pakistan bureau chief of the Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online — has turned out to be a game-changer in a country where journalists are often part of the collateral damage in the war on terror. Before his body was found on May 31, over 70 journalists had been killed in the country since 2000. And, in the fortnight after his end, at least three journalists have been killed — two while reporting a blast in Peshawar and a third in mob violence outside the Multan Press Club.
While some of these journalists killed in the line of duty were victims of targeted attacks, Shahzad's case shook media honchos to the core. Top guns of the industry — seldom seen in protest meetings over attacks on freedom of expression and minorities — took to the streets; rubbing shoulders with lesser mortals in the profession and, more importantly, began openly questioning the feared Inter Services Intelligence by name.
Had Shahzad been killed at any other time, the volte face by some of the media bigwigs would not have been so evident. But, Shahzad died at the end of a month which began with the U.S. raid in Abbottabad to take out al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and terrorists laying siege of a naval airbase for 17 hours three weeks later.
After the initial loss for words at these show-stopping events, the media — particularly, the mood-setting television news networks — stuck to the all-too-familiar narrative on security-related matters; pedalling conspiracy theories that sought to put the blame outside Pakistan. Of course, there were some notable exceptions who questioned the country's strategic policy that has harmed Pakistan most than any other country and called for introspection, especially by the military which has shaped not just the nation's history but also its thinking. But the mainstream narrative focussed on the U.S.' violation of Pakistani sovereignty in the Abbottabad raid and the “outside hand” in the “PNS Mehran” attack; prompting columnist Ayaz Amir to write: “Islam is not the state religion of Pakistan, denial is. And our national emblem should be the ostrich, given our proclivity to bury our heads in the sand and not see the landscape around us as it is.”
Shahzad changed that. Known to have contacts within terror networks and intelligence agencies, the unsaid view is that he had crossed some “red lines.” What these lines were or who drew them will probably never be known — given the track record of enquiries in Pakistan — but it drove home the fact that proximity to the security establishment does not necessarily ensure personal security.
Protest
Overnight, several prime time television anchors and columnists — known to toe a certain line — changed their tone, began asking searing questions and joined the 24-hour protest staged outside Parliament House on Wednesday to demand the setting up of a commission to enquire Shahzad's killing. Some of them did live talk shows from the site of the dharna and openly admitted that the media — which had been so supportive of the security establishment — had been forced by circumstances to turn against it.
In all this the democratically elected government got a bit of a breather for the first time since it was voted to power three years ago. The guns were trained elsewhere with even the higher judiciary coming in for some fire over the Supreme Court taking suo motu notice of actress Atiqa Odho being let off by airport authorities after detention for carrying two bottles of liquor in her luggage. What peeved a lot of people was that the Court could take notice of this but not to a petition filed in January to act against a cleric who had issued a fatwa against Asia Bibi, the Christian woman facing death sentence for blasphemy.
However, this comfort was short-lived. Though the federal government accepted journalists' demand for a commission headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, the past-midnight decision to assign the task to Mian Saqib Nisar was taken without consulting the Chief Justice. As a result, Justice Nisar has made his acceptance conditional to approval by the Chief Justice. The Government's contention is that the law does not mandate consultation with the Chief Justice before appointing a judge of the apex court to head a commission. But, Supreme Court Bar Association president Asma Jehangir said, “the government just cannot disturb benches of the apex court by picking judges of its choice to head such commissions with consulting the Chief Justice.”
Given that there was an identical hiccup in the setting up of the commission to enquire into the circumstances that led to the U.S. raid in Abbottabad, the government's decision to walk the same path has led to questions about its own seriousness in getting to the truth in both instances. So much so that now the Pakistan People's Party — which has always been regarded as an anti-establishment party and one of the few that does not owe its existence to the powerful military — is being called the security establishment's bedfellow.
“I have never worked for any well-funded international news organizations. Nor have I worked for the mainstream national media. My affiliations have always remained with alternative media outlets. This has left me with narrow options and very little space to move around in. Those who loom large on the political horizon by and large target mainstream information outlets and well-financed news organizations for the launch of their media campaigns, interviews and/or disclosures. Alternative media persons need to work twice as hard as others to draw their attention…,” wrote Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, who was tortured to death, in the preface to his book Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 that hit the stands just 10 days before his brutalised body was fished out of a canal.
But in death, Shahzad — who was the Pakistan bureau chief of the Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online — has turned out to be a game-changer in a country where journalists are often part of the collateral damage in the war on terror. Before his body was found on May 31, over 70 journalists had been killed in the country since 2000. And, in the fortnight after his end, at least three journalists have been killed — two while reporting a blast in Peshawar and a third in mob violence outside the Multan Press Club.
While some of these journalists killed in the line of duty were victims of targeted attacks, Shahzad's case shook media honchos to the core. Top guns of the industry — seldom seen in protest meetings over attacks on freedom of expression and minorities — took to the streets; rubbing shoulders with lesser mortals in the profession and, more importantly, began openly questioning the feared Inter Services Intelligence by name.
Had Shahzad been killed at any other time, the volte face by some of the media bigwigs would not have been so evident. But, Shahzad died at the end of a month which began with the U.S. raid in Abbottabad to take out al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and terrorists laying siege of a naval airbase for 17 hours three weeks later.
After the initial loss for words at these show-stopping events, the media — particularly, the mood-setting television news networks — stuck to the all-too-familiar narrative on security-related matters; pedalling conspiracy theories that sought to put the blame outside Pakistan. Of course, there were some notable exceptions who questioned the country's strategic policy that has harmed Pakistan most than any other country and called for introspection, especially by the military which has shaped not just the nation's history but also its thinking. But the mainstream narrative focussed on the U.S.' violation of Pakistani sovereignty in the Abbottabad raid and the “outside hand” in the “PNS Mehran” attack; prompting columnist Ayaz Amir to write: “Islam is not the state religion of Pakistan, denial is. And our national emblem should be the ostrich, given our proclivity to bury our heads in the sand and not see the landscape around us as it is.”
Shahzad changed that. Known to have contacts within terror networks and intelligence agencies, the unsaid view is that he had crossed some “red lines.” What these lines were or who drew them will probably never be known — given the track record of enquiries in Pakistan — but it drove home the fact that proximity to the security establishment does not necessarily ensure personal security.
Protest
Overnight, several prime time television anchors and columnists — known to toe a certain line — changed their tone, began asking searing questions and joined the 24-hour protest staged outside Parliament House on Wednesday to demand the setting up of a commission to enquire Shahzad's killing. Some of them did live talk shows from the site of the dharna and openly admitted that the media — which had been so supportive of the security establishment — had been forced by circumstances to turn against it.
In all this the democratically elected government got a bit of a breather for the first time since it was voted to power three years ago. The guns were trained elsewhere with even the higher judiciary coming in for some fire over the Supreme Court taking suo motu notice of actress Atiqa Odho being let off by airport authorities after detention for carrying two bottles of liquor in her luggage. What peeved a lot of people was that the Court could take notice of this but not to a petition filed in January to act against a cleric who had issued a fatwa against Asia Bibi, the Christian woman facing death sentence for blasphemy.
However, this comfort was short-lived. Though the federal government accepted journalists' demand for a commission headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, the past-midnight decision to assign the task to Mian Saqib Nisar was taken without consulting the Chief Justice. As a result, Justice Nisar has made his acceptance conditional to approval by the Chief Justice. The Government's contention is that the law does not mandate consultation with the Chief Justice before appointing a judge of the apex court to head a commission. But, Supreme Court Bar Association president Asma Jehangir said, “the government just cannot disturb benches of the apex court by picking judges of its choice to head such commissions with consulting the Chief Justice.”
Given that there was an identical hiccup in the setting up of the commission to enquire into the circumstances that led to the U.S. raid in Abbottabad, the government's decision to walk the same path has led to questions about its own seriousness in getting to the truth in both instances. So much so that now the Pakistan People's Party — which has always been regarded as an anti-establishment party and one of the few that does not owe its existence to the powerful military — is being called the security establishment's bedfellow.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The China Pakistan Nexus !
China is adamant that the West "must respect" Pakistan's sovereignty.
The message was delivered during Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani's recent four-day visit to Beijing, which celebrated no less than six decades of strategic relations - involving, among other issues, nuclear collaboration and support over the ultra-sensitive Kashmir question.
The Times of India reconstructed the message as a stark warning that: "any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China."
Chinese diplomacy dwells on too much sophistication for such a crude outburst; but even enveloped in red velvet, the message - in view of the non-stop US drone war over Pakistan's tribal areas, not to mention the "get Osama" raid in Abbottabad - was indeed a bombshell.
Whatever the merit of charges that Islamabad helps some Taliban factions - such as the Haqqani network in North Waziristan - the Pakistani politico-security-military establishment has had enough of being treated by Washington as a mere satrapy, or worse, a bunch of punks.
Pakistani popular opinion, from urban centers to tribal areas, roundly abhors Washington's drone war. And even before the Navy SEALS raid to get Osama the sordid Raymond Davis case was configured as the ultimate humiliation.
Davis, a CIA asset, shot two Pakistanis dead in broad daylight in Lahore; an American "extraction team" killed another one who was trying to save Davis from arrest; and then the CIA paid blood money to finally extract Davis out of the country. Sovereignty? What sovereignty?
Strategic ports
There's frantic spin in the US especially among the right that Pakistan must be taught a lesson because it "harbors terrorists". The mighty conceptual leap would be for these righteous, misinformed, armchair warriors to advocate teaching China a lesson.
Gwadar is an ultra-strategic deepwater port in the Arabian Sea, in Pakistani Balochistan, not far from the Iranian border and only 520 km away from the hyper-strategic Strait of Hormuz. Beijing financed close to 80 per cent of the construction of the port via the China Harbor Engineering Company Group. The port is currently managed by Singapore. The lease will end soon - and it will go to China.
Islamabad now wants the Chinese to build a naval base at Gwadar. That will be a monster geopolitical earthquake in a crucial node of "Pipelineistan" as well as the New Great Game in Eurasia.
Sleepy (for now) Gwadar has been building up for years as the key node of the IP (Iran-Pakistan) pipeline, which used to be the IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) or "peace" pipeline, before New Delhi got cold feet. For Washington, the prospect of a steel umbilical cord linking Iran and Pakistan has always been anathema.
What Washington wants - and has wanted badly since the Bill Clinton years - is the TAP (Trans-Afghan) pipeline, which then became TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India). Even millennial rocks in the Hindu Kush know TAP or TAPI will only be built when the war is over in Afghanistan, with the Taliban an inevitable part of the government.
In this ongoing, epic IP (or IPI) versus TAP (or TAPI) battle, what is never mentioned is that the winner after all may be... China.
New Delhi knows a pipeline crossing Afghanistan is, well, a pipe dream. But still it has not committed itself to IPI - in part because of relentless Washington pressure, in part because it does not trust Pakistan.
China, on the other hand, has already proposed itself for an IP expansion. This means that starting at Gwadar, another pipeline would be built, by the Chinese of course, crossing Balochistan and then following the Karakoram highway northwards all the way to Xinjiang, China's Far West.
Those who have already traveled the spectacular, 1,400 km-long Karakoram highway from Kashgar in Xinjiang, Western China, via the Khunjerab pass to, of all places, Abbottabad in Pakistan, know it for what it is - a graphic example of strategic Sino-Pak collaboration. Further on down the road, Beijing engineering will connect the Karakoram highway with a railway across Balochistan towards Gwadar.
Pakistanis involved with the development of Gwadar love to bill it as the new Dubai. Well, it might as well become Western Hong Kong.
No wonder Beijing's strategic analysts are tasting what could be the geopolitical equivalent of the finest shark-fin soup; the Chinese Navy positioned at the heart of the Arabian Sea, a stone's throw from the Persian Gulf; a great deal of its Middle East oil imports shipped to nearby Gwadar - and then by pipeline or railway all the way to Kashgar; and the Chinese economy profiting from extra gas supplied by Iran and, in a near future, Qatar.
Keep on truckin'
It's not only China possibly winning a crucial "Pipelineistan" chapter plus an Arabian Sea base to add to its "string of pearls" network. In terms of its AfPak vulnerability, Washington may be contemplating a triple X defeat.
For obvious reasons the Pentagon cannot use Chinese or Iranian seaports to supply no less than 100,000 US troops, 50,000 NATO troops and over 100,000 private contractors in Afghanistan - legions of mercenaries included - which dabble in over 400 military bases all across the country. Nearly 80 per cent of this monstrous quantity of supplies transit through Pakistan. And that means, essentially, Karachi.
So one cannot imagine the "kinetic military action" (White House copyright) in AfPak without a non-stop serpent of trucks leaving Karachi and entering Pakistan via Torkham or Chaman every single day.
All the stuff Kabul - and the immense Bagram Air Base close by - needs goes through Torkham, at the end of the fabled Khyber Pass. All the stuff Kandahar needs goes through Chaman, in Pakistani Balochistan, not far from Quetta, where Mullah Omar theoretically lives when he's not being pronounced dead by the Pentagon.
The Pentagon of course could rely on alternative routes such as the interminable Northern Distribution Network (NDN) from Riga in Latvia to Termez in Uzbekistan, which connects via a bridge over the Oxus to Afghanistan. But NDN is not only long but also impractical; it does not allow too much cargo; and the Uzbeks forbid the transport of lethal weapons.
As for the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan, that's only for troops coming in and out, and for storage of jet fuel.
The bottom line is that Islamabad knows the Pentagon simply cannot conduct the AfPak war without the Karachi-Torkham (300 trucks/tankers a day) and Karachi-Chaman (200 trucks/tankers a day) routes delivering like clockwork.
So if you break the balls of the Islamabad establishment to a tipping point and Taliban networks will have a free hand at attacking US/NATO convoys to Kingdom Come. Compare it with Beijing acknowledging Pakistan's "contribution and sacrifices in the war against terrorism".
On message
Beijing actively helped Islamabad's nuclear weapons program. Next August, China will launch a satellite into orbit for Pakistan. Roughly 75 per cent of Pakistan's weapons are made in China. Soon 260 Chinese fighter jets will become the core of the Pakistani Air Force.
Even before Beijing delivered the message that Pakistan's sovereignty shouldn't be messed about, the Pakistani military had already delivered their own message.
It concerned that most photographed rotor of the stealth Black Hawk helicopter that crashed beside Osama Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad. The Pakistanis threatened they would let the Chinese tinker with it - and that would certainly yield some ace reverse engineering.
It didn't happen. But still they didn't get the message in a Washington whose leeway over Islamabad is a strategic rent that goes basically to Pakistan's military. If the US congress would cut it - threats abound - there's no question Beijing would be delighted to make up the difference.
Washington may still have a sterling opportunity to get the message next month, when the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meets in Astana, Kazakhstan. There's a strong possibility that Pakistan may be enthroned as a full member, upgraded from its current status of observer.
This means, in practice, Pakistan as a member of the still embryonic Asian answer to NATO. An attack on any NATO member is an attack on them all, according to its charter. The same would apply to the SCO. Ladies and gentlemen, draw your conclusions - and start dancing to the sound of the Sino-Pak shuffle.
The message was delivered during Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani's recent four-day visit to Beijing, which celebrated no less than six decades of strategic relations - involving, among other issues, nuclear collaboration and support over the ultra-sensitive Kashmir question.
The Times of India reconstructed the message as a stark warning that: "any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China."
Chinese diplomacy dwells on too much sophistication for such a crude outburst; but even enveloped in red velvet, the message - in view of the non-stop US drone war over Pakistan's tribal areas, not to mention the "get Osama" raid in Abbottabad - was indeed a bombshell.
Whatever the merit of charges that Islamabad helps some Taliban factions - such as the Haqqani network in North Waziristan - the Pakistani politico-security-military establishment has had enough of being treated by Washington as a mere satrapy, or worse, a bunch of punks.
Pakistani popular opinion, from urban centers to tribal areas, roundly abhors Washington's drone war. And even before the Navy SEALS raid to get Osama the sordid Raymond Davis case was configured as the ultimate humiliation.
Davis, a CIA asset, shot two Pakistanis dead in broad daylight in Lahore; an American "extraction team" killed another one who was trying to save Davis from arrest; and then the CIA paid blood money to finally extract Davis out of the country. Sovereignty? What sovereignty?
Strategic ports
There's frantic spin in the US especially among the right that Pakistan must be taught a lesson because it "harbors terrorists". The mighty conceptual leap would be for these righteous, misinformed, armchair warriors to advocate teaching China a lesson.
Gwadar is an ultra-strategic deepwater port in the Arabian Sea, in Pakistani Balochistan, not far from the Iranian border and only 520 km away from the hyper-strategic Strait of Hormuz. Beijing financed close to 80 per cent of the construction of the port via the China Harbor Engineering Company Group. The port is currently managed by Singapore. The lease will end soon - and it will go to China.
Islamabad now wants the Chinese to build a naval base at Gwadar. That will be a monster geopolitical earthquake in a crucial node of "Pipelineistan" as well as the New Great Game in Eurasia.
Sleepy (for now) Gwadar has been building up for years as the key node of the IP (Iran-Pakistan) pipeline, which used to be the IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) or "peace" pipeline, before New Delhi got cold feet. For Washington, the prospect of a steel umbilical cord linking Iran and Pakistan has always been anathema.
What Washington wants - and has wanted badly since the Bill Clinton years - is the TAP (Trans-Afghan) pipeline, which then became TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India). Even millennial rocks in the Hindu Kush know TAP or TAPI will only be built when the war is over in Afghanistan, with the Taliban an inevitable part of the government.
In this ongoing, epic IP (or IPI) versus TAP (or TAPI) battle, what is never mentioned is that the winner after all may be... China.
New Delhi knows a pipeline crossing Afghanistan is, well, a pipe dream. But still it has not committed itself to IPI - in part because of relentless Washington pressure, in part because it does not trust Pakistan.
China, on the other hand, has already proposed itself for an IP expansion. This means that starting at Gwadar, another pipeline would be built, by the Chinese of course, crossing Balochistan and then following the Karakoram highway northwards all the way to Xinjiang, China's Far West.
Those who have already traveled the spectacular, 1,400 km-long Karakoram highway from Kashgar in Xinjiang, Western China, via the Khunjerab pass to, of all places, Abbottabad in Pakistan, know it for what it is - a graphic example of strategic Sino-Pak collaboration. Further on down the road, Beijing engineering will connect the Karakoram highway with a railway across Balochistan towards Gwadar.
Pakistanis involved with the development of Gwadar love to bill it as the new Dubai. Well, it might as well become Western Hong Kong.
No wonder Beijing's strategic analysts are tasting what could be the geopolitical equivalent of the finest shark-fin soup; the Chinese Navy positioned at the heart of the Arabian Sea, a stone's throw from the Persian Gulf; a great deal of its Middle East oil imports shipped to nearby Gwadar - and then by pipeline or railway all the way to Kashgar; and the Chinese economy profiting from extra gas supplied by Iran and, in a near future, Qatar.
Keep on truckin'
It's not only China possibly winning a crucial "Pipelineistan" chapter plus an Arabian Sea base to add to its "string of pearls" network. In terms of its AfPak vulnerability, Washington may be contemplating a triple X defeat.
For obvious reasons the Pentagon cannot use Chinese or Iranian seaports to supply no less than 100,000 US troops, 50,000 NATO troops and over 100,000 private contractors in Afghanistan - legions of mercenaries included - which dabble in over 400 military bases all across the country. Nearly 80 per cent of this monstrous quantity of supplies transit through Pakistan. And that means, essentially, Karachi.
So one cannot imagine the "kinetic military action" (White House copyright) in AfPak without a non-stop serpent of trucks leaving Karachi and entering Pakistan via Torkham or Chaman every single day.
All the stuff Kabul - and the immense Bagram Air Base close by - needs goes through Torkham, at the end of the fabled Khyber Pass. All the stuff Kandahar needs goes through Chaman, in Pakistani Balochistan, not far from Quetta, where Mullah Omar theoretically lives when he's not being pronounced dead by the Pentagon.
The Pentagon of course could rely on alternative routes such as the interminable Northern Distribution Network (NDN) from Riga in Latvia to Termez in Uzbekistan, which connects via a bridge over the Oxus to Afghanistan. But NDN is not only long but also impractical; it does not allow too much cargo; and the Uzbeks forbid the transport of lethal weapons.
As for the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan, that's only for troops coming in and out, and for storage of jet fuel.
The bottom line is that Islamabad knows the Pentagon simply cannot conduct the AfPak war without the Karachi-Torkham (300 trucks/tankers a day) and Karachi-Chaman (200 trucks/tankers a day) routes delivering like clockwork.
So if you break the balls of the Islamabad establishment to a tipping point and Taliban networks will have a free hand at attacking US/NATO convoys to Kingdom Come. Compare it with Beijing acknowledging Pakistan's "contribution and sacrifices in the war against terrorism".
On message
Beijing actively helped Islamabad's nuclear weapons program. Next August, China will launch a satellite into orbit for Pakistan. Roughly 75 per cent of Pakistan's weapons are made in China. Soon 260 Chinese fighter jets will become the core of the Pakistani Air Force.
Even before Beijing delivered the message that Pakistan's sovereignty shouldn't be messed about, the Pakistani military had already delivered their own message.
It concerned that most photographed rotor of the stealth Black Hawk helicopter that crashed beside Osama Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad. The Pakistanis threatened they would let the Chinese tinker with it - and that would certainly yield some ace reverse engineering.
It didn't happen. But still they didn't get the message in a Washington whose leeway over Islamabad is a strategic rent that goes basically to Pakistan's military. If the US congress would cut it - threats abound - there's no question Beijing would be delighted to make up the difference.
Washington may still have a sterling opportunity to get the message next month, when the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meets in Astana, Kazakhstan. There's a strong possibility that Pakistan may be enthroned as a full member, upgraded from its current status of observer.
This means, in practice, Pakistan as a member of the still embryonic Asian answer to NATO. An attack on any NATO member is an attack on them all, according to its charter. The same would apply to the SCO. Ladies and gentlemen, draw your conclusions - and start dancing to the sound of the Sino-Pak shuffle.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Pakistan Army Attacks back at the MURTIDS ! Watch video !
Watch how Pakistan Army strikes back. Pakistan Army using what they call lame tactics to get the Queen Bee. God be with them and we will Inshallah defeat the Murtids.
http://sawantspeak.blogspot.com/2009/10/pak-army-torture-exposed.html
The video says it all ! Pakistan army strikes at the inner core. Get the PICTURE!
http://sawantspeak.blogspot.com/2009/10/pak-army-torture-exposed.html
The video says it all ! Pakistan army strikes at the inner core. Get the PICTURE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)