Eid festivity is in the air
* * * * * * * * * *
The preparations for Eid are in full swing and family members compel the earning members of their family to complete their Eid shopping in advance in order to avoid the rush, but there are also many of us who leave some accessories for the last moment.
The best part of Eid is ‘Chand Raa’t, which has its own significance. Many youngsters leave some of their items to be bought on ‘Chand Raat’, so that they can feel the festive mood of Eid beforehand and enjoy the hustle and bustle of bazaars. The only problem one faces in the markets few days before Eid is the parking space for vehicles. You have to take at least one or two rounds of the markets to get a space to squeeze your car in.The hustle and bustle of Eid can be seen on each and every face, as they become excited to complete their shopping in order to celebrate Eid with its full enthusiasm and zeal.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This Ramadan, let us resolve, that we would return to reading and understanding the Quran, so that every member of the society would contribute towards establishment of a true Islamic society, that will have justice, love, peace, tolerance and mercy as its principal cornerstones. May Allah Subhanahu Taala in His infinite Mercifulness guide us all towards greater individual and collective rectitude. I pray for all the readers and seek their prayers for glory in the eternal world (Ameen).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pakistan Picks New Intelligence Chief
The chief of the Pakistani Army appointed a new head of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence, the nation’s top spy organization, Tuesday in a move that consolidated his control over crucial espionage activities.The new spy chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shujaa Pasha, has experience as a commander in United Nations peacekeeping and counter-insurgency operations, according to sources familiar with his record. He replaced Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
IMF presses Pakistan to reduce GDP target to 4.5%
In a shocking development, International Monetary Fund has put spanner on the government of the day and linked its endorsement on home-made economic stabilization program with certain conditions including the downwards revision of GDP growth to 4.5 percent from its projected target of 5.5 percent, a senior official told Pakistan Observer.
The Fund also asked economic managers at Islamabad to increase the inflation target to 20 percent from the target of 11 percent fixed by the incumbent regime for ongoing fiscal 2008-09.Pakistan and the visiting technical mission of the IMF concluded its talks on Tuesday. During the talks, the Fund mission headed by Juan Carlos Di Tata handed over Ad Memorandum to Islamabad’s authorities on which they would submit their comments within this ongoing month.
However, the sources in the Finance Ministry said that the fiscal deficit would remain in the range of Rs582 billion in nominal terms for the current fiscal year. When he was asked if the fiscal deficit would remain in the range of 4.7 per cent of the real GDP terms, he said that it would certainly come down from 4.7 per cent of the GDP to around 4.3 per cent for the current fiscal as the fund is asking to further tighten the belt by reducing expenditures and mobilising revenue generations.The IMF also insists upon authorities to jack up tax revenue target from Rs1.250 trillion keeping in view higher inflation and depreciation of rupee by 24 per cent against dollar as revenue mobilisation will help Pakistan to curb its yawning budget deficit beyond its limits.“Instead of getting easy solution to bailout its beleaguered economy, Pakistan should focus upon long terms solution such as attracting private sector investment to restore higher growth trajectory,” the sources quoted IMF high-ups as saying during their meeting with Pakistani authorities.The nominal growth, the sources said, is likely to remain on higher side mainly because of unprecedented inflationary pressures, which never witnessed history of this country. But the real GDP growth will remain on much lower side compared to the initial estimates made by the government of Pakistan, the IMF assessment showed.On inflationary target, the IMF assessment shows that it will remain in the range of 20 per cent against earlier envisaged target of 11 per cent for the current fiscal year. Another Finance Ministry official, when contacted, said that the IMF mission would give advice within this ongoing month but it would not be binding on Pakistan because Islamabad was no more in the Fund program.
In a shocking development, International Monetary Fund has put spanner on the government of the day and linked its endorsement on home-made economic stabilization program with certain conditions including the downwards revision of GDP growth to 4.5 percent from its projected target of 5.5 percent, a senior official told Pakistan Observer.
The Fund also asked economic managers at Islamabad to increase the inflation target to 20 percent from the target of 11 percent fixed by the incumbent regime for ongoing fiscal 2008-09.Pakistan and the visiting technical mission of the IMF concluded its talks on Tuesday. During the talks, the Fund mission headed by Juan Carlos Di Tata handed over Ad Memorandum to Islamabad’s authorities on which they would submit their comments within this ongoing month.
However, the sources in the Finance Ministry said that the fiscal deficit would remain in the range of Rs582 billion in nominal terms for the current fiscal year. When he was asked if the fiscal deficit would remain in the range of 4.7 per cent of the real GDP terms, he said that it would certainly come down from 4.7 per cent of the GDP to around 4.3 per cent for the current fiscal as the fund is asking to further tighten the belt by reducing expenditures and mobilising revenue generations.The IMF also insists upon authorities to jack up tax revenue target from Rs1.250 trillion keeping in view higher inflation and depreciation of rupee by 24 per cent against dollar as revenue mobilisation will help Pakistan to curb its yawning budget deficit beyond its limits.“Instead of getting easy solution to bailout its beleaguered economy, Pakistan should focus upon long terms solution such as attracting private sector investment to restore higher growth trajectory,” the sources quoted IMF high-ups as saying during their meeting with Pakistani authorities.The nominal growth, the sources said, is likely to remain on higher side mainly because of unprecedented inflationary pressures, which never witnessed history of this country. But the real GDP growth will remain on much lower side compared to the initial estimates made by the government of Pakistan, the IMF assessment showed.On inflationary target, the IMF assessment shows that it will remain in the range of 20 per cent against earlier envisaged target of 11 per cent for the current fiscal year. Another Finance Ministry official, when contacted, said that the IMF mission would give advice within this ongoing month but it would not be binding on Pakistan because Islamabad was no more in the Fund program.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Muslims to look out for new moon
Prophet Muhammad is reported to have instructed the Muslims as follows:`Do not fast unless you see the crescent of Ramadan and do not give up fasting till you see the crescent of Shawwal.'
“But if the sky is overcast, count 30 days of Sha‘aban or Ramadan as the case may be,‘‘
.....................................................................................
Czech Muslims apologise for ambassador's death, no protest
The planned protest action by the Czech extreme right National Party (NS) against Islamism did not take place in Brno Wednesday, NS first deputy chairman Jan Skacel told CTK after a meeting with representatives of the Brno mosque outside which the demonstration was to be held.
He said Muslims have apologised for the bomb attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, in which Czech ambassador to Pakistan Ivo Zdarek died last weekend.
Skacel said, however, that "the National Party sticks to its negative stands on radical Islamism."
Brno Muslims expressed regret at Zdarek's death immediately after it. Today they repeated their stand to representatives of the National Party.
The police were on alert in connection with today's planned protest action, but there was no unrest.
Eventually, there were more journalists than police and National Party members outside the mosque.
He said Muslims have apologised for the bomb attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, in which Czech ambassador to Pakistan Ivo Zdarek died last weekend.
Skacel said, however, that "the National Party sticks to its negative stands on radical Islamism."
Brno Muslims expressed regret at Zdarek's death immediately after it. Today they repeated their stand to representatives of the National Party.
The police were on alert in connection with today's planned protest action, but there was no unrest.
Eventually, there were more journalists than police and National Party members outside the mosque.
________________________________
India faced with home-grown terrorism
Five arrests made over the past two weeks in connection with the Sept. 13 bomb blasts here are forcing the country with the world's second largest Muslim population to acknowledge that it cannot blame every bomb attack solely on Pakistan. India is seeing a rise in home-grown terrorism.
The portrait of an Indian terrorist has long been a caricature: poor Indian Muslims indoctrinated in radical seminaries and funded by Pakistan, India's neighbor and longtime enemy. But two of the suspects arrested Wednesday were software engineers, one ran a hotel.
It suggests that Indian terrorism is not motivated by dire poverty alone, but also by the perception of systemic prejudice against Muslims here. This is a bitterly controversial idea in the Hindu-majority nation sensitive to claims of intolerance, but the arrests are creating a small window for India to consider it more deeply.
"The role of Pakistan-based terrorist groups cannot be minimized, but the involvement of local elements in recent blasts adds a new dimension to the terrorist threat," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said this month after the New Delhi bombings.
"It's not only about Pakistan – we can't afford to oversimplify anymore," says Swapna Kona Nayudu, a security analyst at the Center for Land Warfare Studies in New Delhi. "We're going to have to look at the sociological fault lines."
These sociological fault lines do not appear to be grooming terrorists with global intentions or strong connections to Al Qaeda. Though an Indian bombed the Glasgow airport last year, Indian terrorism remains an inwardly focused phenomenon for now.
The group that claimed responsibility for the Delhi bombings, the "Indian Mujahideen" (IM), said the bombs were in response to police sweeps nationwide that indiscriminately arrested Muslims. Investigators in Mumbai (Bombay), where the arrests were made, pointed to Mohammed Sadiq Sheikh as the leader of the group. They say the software engineer formed the IM with Amir Raza, based in Pakistan, in 2005. The group claims involvement in recent bombings in Jaipur and the western state of Gujarat.
Though Indian authorities and experts still allege that Pakistan's intelligence agencies were involved, perhaps funding or guiding the IM, the police cast a picture of a distinctly Indian organization. All those killed, in custody, or implicated in the bombings come from one district in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. They sent their manifestos by e-mail to media outlets moments before the attacks.
"The one thing that the government can't avoid anymore is that there is a problem here," says Omair Ahmed, author of "Encounters," a book on militancy in India. "What that problem is, no one is willing to say."
He points to the findings of the Sachar Commission, a government-sponsored study released in 2006. It found that Muslims had slipped from middling status to the level of dalits – the group formerly known as "untouchables" – at the bottom of India's social and economic ladder. It cited the government's neglect of the Muslim community – in areas such as schooling, healthcare, and opportunity for government jobs – as a primary cause.
The portrait of an Indian terrorist has long been a caricature: poor Indian Muslims indoctrinated in radical seminaries and funded by Pakistan, India's neighbor and longtime enemy. But two of the suspects arrested Wednesday were software engineers, one ran a hotel.
It suggests that Indian terrorism is not motivated by dire poverty alone, but also by the perception of systemic prejudice against Muslims here. This is a bitterly controversial idea in the Hindu-majority nation sensitive to claims of intolerance, but the arrests are creating a small window for India to consider it more deeply.
"The role of Pakistan-based terrorist groups cannot be minimized, but the involvement of local elements in recent blasts adds a new dimension to the terrorist threat," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said this month after the New Delhi bombings.
"It's not only about Pakistan – we can't afford to oversimplify anymore," says Swapna Kona Nayudu, a security analyst at the Center for Land Warfare Studies in New Delhi. "We're going to have to look at the sociological fault lines."
These sociological fault lines do not appear to be grooming terrorists with global intentions or strong connections to Al Qaeda. Though an Indian bombed the Glasgow airport last year, Indian terrorism remains an inwardly focused phenomenon for now.
The group that claimed responsibility for the Delhi bombings, the "Indian Mujahideen" (IM), said the bombs were in response to police sweeps nationwide that indiscriminately arrested Muslims. Investigators in Mumbai (Bombay), where the arrests were made, pointed to Mohammed Sadiq Sheikh as the leader of the group. They say the software engineer formed the IM with Amir Raza, based in Pakistan, in 2005. The group claims involvement in recent bombings in Jaipur and the western state of Gujarat.
Though Indian authorities and experts still allege that Pakistan's intelligence agencies were involved, perhaps funding or guiding the IM, the police cast a picture of a distinctly Indian organization. All those killed, in custody, or implicated in the bombings come from one district in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. They sent their manifestos by e-mail to media outlets moments before the attacks.
"The one thing that the government can't avoid anymore is that there is a problem here," says Omair Ahmed, author of "Encounters," a book on militancy in India. "What that problem is, no one is willing to say."
He points to the findings of the Sachar Commission, a government-sponsored study released in 2006. It found that Muslims had slipped from middling status to the level of dalits – the group formerly known as "untouchables" – at the bottom of India's social and economic ladder. It cited the government's neglect of the Muslim community – in areas such as schooling, healthcare, and opportunity for government jobs – as a primary cause.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
When I went down to the enormous Islam Expo in Kensington Olympia last week one of the many things that struck me was how much wonderful Islamic fashion was on display.
Both religious and mainstream designers are really starting to realise that Muslim women are just as fashion conscious as the rest of us and are either creating new ranges of clothing or adjusting their designs to make them acceptably modest.
One fun recent development is a hijab that can be worn during sports (pictured). I'm not sure what the rules are in the UK on wearing hijab and playing sports in school but in Holland it's not allowed on health and safety grounds, primarily because most ordinary headscarves are held together with pins.
Pakistan's Zardari Tries to Keep His Distance from US
.............................................................
It was supposed to be a triumphant week for Asif Ali Zardari. Inaugurated as Pakistan's new President on Saturday, the sharp-suited, silver-tongued and often controversial widower of Benazir Bhutto was then to fly to New York City to make his debut on the world stage by addressing the United Nations General Assembly. Instead, he finds himself struggling to maintain his political footing in the face of contending pressures that threaten to knock him off balance.
Hours after his inauguration, "joy was turned into grief," as he put it, as a massive explosion ripped through the Marriott Hotel in the heart of his capital, killing 53 people and injuring over 250 in what local media dubbed "Pakistan's 9/11." The shock and anger provoked by the attack did spark a long-overdue debate on the increasingly lethal threat posed by al-Qaeda and Taliban militants sheltering in the mountainous tribal areas along the Afghan border and in the scenic Swat valley — not just to NATO forces in Afghanistan but also to Pakistan itself.
Still, Zardari finds himself precariously balancing, on the one hand, growing demands from Washington for more sustained and decisive action against the extremists, and on the other, widespread opposition at home to Pakistan's involvement in the Bush Administration's "war on terror." Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities.
Recent American actions have done little to make Zardari's life easier. Two days after the Marriott bombing, U.S. helicopters seeking to cross into Pakistan were repelled by gunfire from Pakistani troops and local tribesmen. An earlier ground assault in a remote village in South Waziristan had allegedly killed up to 20 civilians, and it sparked a chorus of criticism led by army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, who vowed to protect Pakistan's borders "at all costs."
Washington sees little choice but to step up operations inside Pakistan, seeing them as essential to reversing the security decline in Afghanistan where, according to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, "time is running out." Pakistan has failed to wipe out the sanctuaries in the tribal areas from which Taliban insurgents routinely stage attacks on NATO forces across the border. And after allegedly discovering evidence of the Inter Services Intelligence agency's abiding ties to militant networks, Washington no longer trusts the Pakistani military with its operational intelligence. The U.S. also believes that the Pakistani army, equipped for conventional warfare against India, is ill suited to the counterinsurgency mission in the tribal areas.
The problem for Zardari is that U.S. impatience with Pakistan's efforts against the militants risks undermining his government's efforts to win the allegiance of the tribes along the border in order to isolate the extremists, and to win political support more broadly. U.S. actions also complicate Zardari's relationship with the army, which has been a lot more strident in its opposition to such operations than the government has been. This has created pressure on Zardari to amplify his own opposition to U.S. attacks, which he this week termed a "violation of the U.N. charter." The Pakistani leader urged restraint from the U.S. during his first meeting with President Bush, on Tuesday in New York. According to leading Pakistani analysts, Zardari's prospects depend on him shaking off the growing perception at home that he is merely acting on Washington's orders. The Marriott bombing, they say, is his opportunity to launch a "homegrown" strategy to combat militancy, making it "Pakistan's own war."
As the militants launch more random attacks on Pakistani civilians, there are strong signs that growing numbers of Pakistanis are ready to embrace the fight against terrorism as their own. "It may have started off as America's war, but this is now clearly Pakistan's fight," says retired general turned liberal analyst Talat Masood, echoing a widely held view in the wake of the Marriott attack. To turn that sentiment into an effective campaign, however, Masood says the government will need support from previously ambivalent political parties — and to do that, it will have to demonstrate its independence from Washington.
Zaffar Abbas, an expert on militancy and a senior editor at Dawn newspaper, concurs. "If it is perceived to be an American war, the question being raised is, Why should we become a part of it?" he says. "The realization is not there in Washington that the more they talk about their own war, their demands asking for more to be done, it has a very negative impact within the country. If the policy instead comes from parliament, even if it is diluted to some extent, it will be Pakistan's own policy. It will lift the morale of confused troops and can galvanize the support of the people."
Opinion polls during the previous regime revealed that as General turned President Musharraf grew unpopular, so did the army he led and his U.S. backers. Over the past year, anti-American sentiment has become widespread even among secular liberals who felt betrayed by Washington's continuing to back a shopworn military dictator in the face of democratic opposition. The strong skepticism toward U.S. methods and intentions in Pakistan's civil society and its mass media means that Zardari may struggle to build and maintain support for a more muscular response to the extremists.
Over the past six months, the government's focus has been elsewhere — on internal political wrangling and the pressures of an economy on the verge of meltdown. It has initiated no national discussion in parliament on the issue, nor has it moved to draw in former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose rising popularity and clout among conservative elements could prove a decisive factor. Laments Abbas: "The mistake they are making is the same as General Musharraf made by not bringing on political forces [or] generating [supportive] public opinion, and [by] resorting to unilateral actions."
.............................................................
It was supposed to be a triumphant week for Asif Ali Zardari. Inaugurated as Pakistan's new President on Saturday, the sharp-suited, silver-tongued and often controversial widower of Benazir Bhutto was then to fly to New York City to make his debut on the world stage by addressing the United Nations General Assembly. Instead, he finds himself struggling to maintain his political footing in the face of contending pressures that threaten to knock him off balance.
Hours after his inauguration, "joy was turned into grief," as he put it, as a massive explosion ripped through the Marriott Hotel in the heart of his capital, killing 53 people and injuring over 250 in what local media dubbed "Pakistan's 9/11." The shock and anger provoked by the attack did spark a long-overdue debate on the increasingly lethal threat posed by al-Qaeda and Taliban militants sheltering in the mountainous tribal areas along the Afghan border and in the scenic Swat valley — not just to NATO forces in Afghanistan but also to Pakistan itself.
Still, Zardari finds himself precariously balancing, on the one hand, growing demands from Washington for more sustained and decisive action against the extremists, and on the other, widespread opposition at home to Pakistan's involvement in the Bush Administration's "war on terror." Former President Pervez Musharraf once described it as a delicate art of "tightrope walking"; the problem for Zardari is that the rope is fraying and the winds are growing fierce. According to a June poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 71% of Pakistanis oppose Pakistan's cooperation with the U.S. against Islamist militants. For critics of the policy, it has always been "an American war" forced on an unwilling country, and they blame it for bringing the Afghan conflict over the border and encouraging a wave of terrorism in Pakistan's major cities.
Recent American actions have done little to make Zardari's life easier. Two days after the Marriott bombing, U.S. helicopters seeking to cross into Pakistan were repelled by gunfire from Pakistani troops and local tribesmen. An earlier ground assault in a remote village in South Waziristan had allegedly killed up to 20 civilians, and it sparked a chorus of criticism led by army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, who vowed to protect Pakistan's borders "at all costs."
Washington sees little choice but to step up operations inside Pakistan, seeing them as essential to reversing the security decline in Afghanistan where, according to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, "time is running out." Pakistan has failed to wipe out the sanctuaries in the tribal areas from which Taliban insurgents routinely stage attacks on NATO forces across the border. And after allegedly discovering evidence of the Inter Services Intelligence agency's abiding ties to militant networks, Washington no longer trusts the Pakistani military with its operational intelligence. The U.S. also believes that the Pakistani army, equipped for conventional warfare against India, is ill suited to the counterinsurgency mission in the tribal areas.
The problem for Zardari is that U.S. impatience with Pakistan's efforts against the militants risks undermining his government's efforts to win the allegiance of the tribes along the border in order to isolate the extremists, and to win political support more broadly. U.S. actions also complicate Zardari's relationship with the army, which has been a lot more strident in its opposition to such operations than the government has been. This has created pressure on Zardari to amplify his own opposition to U.S. attacks, which he this week termed a "violation of the U.N. charter." The Pakistani leader urged restraint from the U.S. during his first meeting with President Bush, on Tuesday in New York. According to leading Pakistani analysts, Zardari's prospects depend on him shaking off the growing perception at home that he is merely acting on Washington's orders. The Marriott bombing, they say, is his opportunity to launch a "homegrown" strategy to combat militancy, making it "Pakistan's own war."
As the militants launch more random attacks on Pakistani civilians, there are strong signs that growing numbers of Pakistanis are ready to embrace the fight against terrorism as their own. "It may have started off as America's war, but this is now clearly Pakistan's fight," says retired general turned liberal analyst Talat Masood, echoing a widely held view in the wake of the Marriott attack. To turn that sentiment into an effective campaign, however, Masood says the government will need support from previously ambivalent political parties — and to do that, it will have to demonstrate its independence from Washington.
Zaffar Abbas, an expert on militancy and a senior editor at Dawn newspaper, concurs. "If it is perceived to be an American war, the question being raised is, Why should we become a part of it?" he says. "The realization is not there in Washington that the more they talk about their own war, their demands asking for more to be done, it has a very negative impact within the country. If the policy instead comes from parliament, even if it is diluted to some extent, it will be Pakistan's own policy. It will lift the morale of confused troops and can galvanize the support of the people."
Opinion polls during the previous regime revealed that as General turned President Musharraf grew unpopular, so did the army he led and his U.S. backers. Over the past year, anti-American sentiment has become widespread even among secular liberals who felt betrayed by Washington's continuing to back a shopworn military dictator in the face of democratic opposition. The strong skepticism toward U.S. methods and intentions in Pakistan's civil society and its mass media means that Zardari may struggle to build and maintain support for a more muscular response to the extremists.
Over the past six months, the government's focus has been elsewhere — on internal political wrangling and the pressures of an economy on the verge of meltdown. It has initiated no national discussion in parliament on the issue, nor has it moved to draw in former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose rising popularity and clout among conservative elements could prove a decisive factor. Laments Abbas: "The mistake they are making is the same as General Musharraf made by not bringing on political forces [or] generating [supportive] public opinion, and [by] resorting to unilateral actions."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
It was reported today that Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who is calling for restoration of Pre-November 2 Judiciary had harassed, Jasmine Manzoor, anchor for Business Plus TV when she was asking questions to the said. 
Nawaz Sharif lost his temper when asked routine questions about deals, etc, grabbed the tape and warned her that he would see how she left Raiwind if she aired it.
There was a press conference aired at 7:00 PM local time by Business Plus TV, in which Jasmine Manzoor and Rana Mubashir spoke about Nawaz Sharif’s behavior . It is also reported that ARY one world pulled out there story last minute when received threats.
(The Picture on the Right shows Nawaz sharif giving interview at his Raiwand Estate)
This is not just a question about Nawaz Sharif, rather it about the so called Leaders who call them selves democratic. There has been previous stories like these which had been reported.
It is also very much impressive of Mr.Sharif, Ex-Primer, that his fight is for restoration of Pre-November 2 Judiciary. There are many other concerns that has come up with respect to these democratic leaders.
Mr. Sharif also showed up at Geo News “Yak-jahti” camp and supported media’s independence. Where as the President Pervez Musharraf, an ex-Uniformed President and ex-Army General, allowed 57 television channels to open and broadcast news and current affairs. The question that you might see after looking at this video at youtube know as “President Pervez Musharraf vs. Syed Adnan Kakakhel”, one just keeps on thinking what is wrong here, dictator are democratic and democrats are dictators.
The question to ask is how and when will we have these norms in our so-called democratic leaders? And do we really need some dictator like Musharraf to teach them these norms?
There was a press conference aired at 7:00 PM local time by Business Plus TV, in which Jasmine Manzoor and Rana Mubashir spoke about Nawaz Sharif’s behavior . It is also reported that ARY one world pulled out there story last minute when received threats.
(The Picture on the Right shows Nawaz sharif giving interview at his Raiwand Estate)
This is not just a question about Nawaz Sharif, rather it about the so called Leaders who call them selves democratic. There has been previous stories like these which had been reported.
It is also very much impressive of Mr.Sharif, Ex-Primer, that his fight is for restoration of Pre-November 2 Judiciary. There are many other concerns that has come up with respect to these democratic leaders.
Mr. Sharif also showed up at Geo News “Yak-jahti” camp and supported media’s independence. Where as the President Pervez Musharraf, an ex-Uniformed President and ex-Army General, allowed 57 television channels to open and broadcast news and current affairs. The question that you might see after looking at this video at youtube know as “President Pervez Musharraf vs. Syed Adnan Kakakhel”, one just keeps on thinking what is wrong here, dictator are democratic and democrats are dictators.
The question to ask is how and when will we have these norms in our so-called democratic leaders? And do we really need some dictator like Musharraf to teach them these norms?
Pakistan: Head Breaking News.
U.S. respects Pakistan's sovereignty: President Bush
Updated at: 1901 PST, Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The crucial meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari continues in New York.According to Geo News, the meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly is taking place against the bloody backdrop of a weekend suicide bomb blast at the Marriott hotel in Pakistan's capital Islamabad which left 53 people dead and more than 260 wounded.In the meeting, President Bush termed Pakistan a key ally in war against terror and reiterated that the U.S. respects the sovereignty of Pakistan.Both leaders are also discussing war against terror, economic cooperation and other important bilateral issues.
Pakistan: Opinion
We Muslims who despair of terrorism
The admired Scots-Pakistani novelist Suhayl Saadi and his wife, Alina Mirza, who runs a Pakistani film festival in Glasgow, are dear friends. They got married at the Marriot in Islamabad, just bombed by Islamicist murderers who sent in a delivery of lethal explosives in a lorry, during Ramadan. Nice work, guys. Allah will surely reward you aplenty for the slaughter of the blameless, sent off with less ceremony than goats and chickens who, at least, are prayed for as their throats are cut. Ah but they only razed a temple of Western decadence, and many Muslims who worked or went there weren't "real" Muslims, only Shias and disobedient women, reprobates and sinners for sure.
The couple are devastated, rendered hopeless – for the first time that I can remember. For years, in spite of Pakistan's many failures, they have kept up a fierce optimism, as if heartfelt belief would, one day, drive away the evil forces that circulate and in parts overrun their ancestral homeland.
There are many more like them, Pakistani-Britons who are proud of the culture of Pakistan, its creative movers and shakers, and millions of extraordinary, generous people. But their pride and idealism are fast draining away.
My father came from Karachi. He fled the place in the 1920s and went back only once, a fortnight before he died in 1970. He never recovered from the experience. It was as if his heart gave up. The country was in the grip of the military again and savagery ruled. It still does. I have never felt the desire to go look for cousins, aunts and uncles.
The newly elected President, Asif Zardari, husband of Benazir Bhutto, new best friend of the United States, is one of that nation's dodgiest characters. He replaced a military dictator, who replaced another allegedly corrupt politician, Nawaz Sharif, now a big player in the latest political configuration.
Armageddon is on its way as Pakistan dissolves at its north-western borders into that lawless territory that is Afghanistan. American interventions, demands and military incontinence in the region bolster Islamic reactionaries and guerrillas.
India meanwhile, with many similar endemic problems and ruthless governance in Kashmir, nevertheless flowers economically and still holds on to democracy and fundamental freedoms. Sadly Pakistan "proves" what the rest of the world believes, and not without reason, that Muslims are incapable of decent leadership or progressive politics and move instinctively to political and personal tyranny.
Look around and the evidence punches you in both eyes. Saudi Arabia, Iran and various nations in the Middle East and most "Islamic" states elsewhere are failing entities where the people are either afraid or oppressing others. I, a Muslim who fights daily against the unjust treatment of Muslims in the West, have to face the blinding truth that although we have serious external enemies, more Muslims are hurt, wounded, killed and denied by other Muslims who feel themselves to be virtuous.
Lest our detractors rub their hands with satisfaction, I tell them loud and clear, this is not exoneration of Guantanamo Bay, the destruction of Iraq, Belmarsh, Israel's criminal treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, the fascists in Cologne who tried this week to run an anti-Islam rally, the viciously anti-Muslim BNP and the many ways Europe humiliates us Muslims.
But I am saying that Muslims enthusiastically participate in "rendition", torture co-religionists in prisons, bomb fellow-worshippers from Iraq to Pakistan and beyond, subjugate their women, cut off hands and necks, keep their young cowering or brainwash them to the point when they are unfit to inhabit this century. If we respect and care for our own so little why should the rest of the world give a damn?
The admired Scots-Pakistani novelist Suhayl Saadi and his wife, Alina Mirza, who runs a Pakistani film festival in Glasgow, are dear friends. They got married at the Marriot in Islamabad, just bombed by Islamicist murderers who sent in a delivery of lethal explosives in a lorry, during Ramadan. Nice work, guys. Allah will surely reward you aplenty for the slaughter of the blameless, sent off with less ceremony than goats and chickens who, at least, are prayed for as their throats are cut. Ah but they only razed a temple of Western decadence, and many Muslims who worked or went there weren't "real" Muslims, only Shias and disobedient women, reprobates and sinners for sure.
The couple are devastated, rendered hopeless – for the first time that I can remember. For years, in spite of Pakistan's many failures, they have kept up a fierce optimism, as if heartfelt belief would, one day, drive away the evil forces that circulate and in parts overrun their ancestral homeland.
There are many more like them, Pakistani-Britons who are proud of the culture of Pakistan, its creative movers and shakers, and millions of extraordinary, generous people. But their pride and idealism are fast draining away.
My father came from Karachi. He fled the place in the 1920s and went back only once, a fortnight before he died in 1970. He never recovered from the experience. It was as if his heart gave up. The country was in the grip of the military again and savagery ruled. It still does. I have never felt the desire to go look for cousins, aunts and uncles.
The newly elected President, Asif Zardari, husband of Benazir Bhutto, new best friend of the United States, is one of that nation's dodgiest characters. He replaced a military dictator, who replaced another allegedly corrupt politician, Nawaz Sharif, now a big player in the latest political configuration.
Armageddon is on its way as Pakistan dissolves at its north-western borders into that lawless territory that is Afghanistan. American interventions, demands and military incontinence in the region bolster Islamic reactionaries and guerrillas.
India meanwhile, with many similar endemic problems and ruthless governance in Kashmir, nevertheless flowers economically and still holds on to democracy and fundamental freedoms. Sadly Pakistan "proves" what the rest of the world believes, and not without reason, that Muslims are incapable of decent leadership or progressive politics and move instinctively to political and personal tyranny.
Look around and the evidence punches you in both eyes. Saudi Arabia, Iran and various nations in the Middle East and most "Islamic" states elsewhere are failing entities where the people are either afraid or oppressing others. I, a Muslim who fights daily against the unjust treatment of Muslims in the West, have to face the blinding truth that although we have serious external enemies, more Muslims are hurt, wounded, killed and denied by other Muslims who feel themselves to be virtuous.
Lest our detractors rub their hands with satisfaction, I tell them loud and clear, this is not exoneration of Guantanamo Bay, the destruction of Iraq, Belmarsh, Israel's criminal treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, the fascists in Cologne who tried this week to run an anti-Islam rally, the viciously anti-Muslim BNP and the many ways Europe humiliates us Muslims.
But I am saying that Muslims enthusiastically participate in "rendition", torture co-religionists in prisons, bomb fellow-worshippers from Iraq to Pakistan and beyond, subjugate their women, cut off hands and necks, keep their young cowering or brainwash them to the point when they are unfit to inhabit this century. If we respect and care for our own so little why should the rest of the world give a damn?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Pakistan blames US raids for hotel bombing
The Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari, will plead with President George Bush today to change a policy which is being blamed for one of his country's worst terrorist atrocities.
Mr Zardari's talks with President Bush in New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, have been scheduled amid heightened security fears in the wake of the bombing.
Yesterday BA cancelled all flights to Pakistan as a precaution, although a spokesman said there was no direct threat against the airline, which operates six flights each week. A number of foreign embassies and businesses in the country are also said to be re-examining the security situation.
The Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari, will plead with President George Bush today to change a policy which is being blamed for one of his country's worst terrorist atrocities.
Mr Zardari's talks with President Bush in New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, have been scheduled amid heightened security fears in the wake of the bombing.
Yesterday BA cancelled all flights to Pakistan as a precaution, although a spokesman said there was no direct threat against the airline, which operates six flights each week. A number of foreign embassies and businesses in the country are also said to be re-examining the security situation.
The gloves are off in Pakistan
Pakistani authorities have compared Saturday evening's devastating truck suicide attack on the Marriott Hotel in the capital Islamabad to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. In terms of its psychological effect, the blast, which killed more than 80 people, injured hundreds and burnt out the hotel, has traumatized the nation, and, like 9/11, marks the beginning of a new battle: this time not the "war on terror", but the war by terrorists. Pakistan is now the declared battleground in this struggle by Islamic militants to strike first against American interests before the United States' war machine completes its preparations tostorm the sanctuaries of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
The attack on one of the hotels in the chain of the US Marriott group was one of the worst in Pakistan's history and involved the sophisticated use of over 600 kilograms of TNT explosive blended with RDX and phosphorous, detonated when a truck rammed into a security barricade in front of the hotel Among the dead were the Czech ambassador to Pakistan, two US Marines, members of the US embassy staff, Saudi nationals and other European diplomats. More than 250 people were injured and dozens of parked cars were destroyed.
There was immediate speculation the attack was prompted by the fact of many marines living in the top floor of the hotel. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani claimed the real target was his residence, where President Asif Ali Zardari, army chiefs of staff and the entire cabinet were gathered for an Iftar (Muslim breaking of the Ramadan fast) dinner. Security was so tight, the theory goes, that the driver instead went to the nearby Marriott. But on Monday afternoon, Rehman Malik, the Pakistani prime minister's advisor for the interior, told a group of reporters at the Islamabad airport: "An Iftar Dinner was scheduled at Marriot on September which was hosted by National Assembly Speaker Dr Fahmida Mirza and where all dignitaries including the prime minister, president, cabinet and all services chiefs were invited.
However, at the eleventh hour the dinner was shifted to rime minster's house which saved Pakistan's entired military and political leadership.""Perhaps, the earlier information of the dinner was leaked to the militants and therefore they hit Marriot hotel,"Rehman added. However, Asia Times Online's investigations, including talks with highly placed security experts, indicate that the Marriott attack signals the opening of a major battle which is about to start in Pakistan in a new phase of the "war on terror". Preparations for a new battle Saturday's blast occurred on the day of Zardari's first presidential address to a joint session of parliament, after which he was due to depart for New York for the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. He was also scheduled to meet leading US officials to discuss contentious issues in the "war on terror", especially the US's aggressive military incursions into Pakistan's tribal areas in recent weeks to attack al-Qaeda figures and militants.
Already, though, events had been set in motion to shape this new battlefield. Approximately 20 kilometers from Islamabad lies Tarbella, the brigade headquarters of Pakistan's Special Operation Task Force (SOTF). Recently, 300 American officials landed at this facility, with the official designation as a "training advisory group", according to documents seen by Asia Times Online. However, high-level contacts claim this is not as simple as a training program. In the mid-1990s, during the government of Nawaz Sharif, a special US Central Intelligence Agency unit was based at the same facility, tasked with catching Osama bin Laden. They left after Pervez Musharraf came to power in a coup in 1999. Now, the US has bought a huge plot of land at Tarbella, several square kilometers, according to sources directly handling the project. Recently, 20 large containers arrived at the facility. They were handled by the Americans, who did not allow any Pakistani officials to inspect them. Given the size of the containers, it is believed they contain special arms and ammunition and even tanks and armored vehicles - and certainly have nothing to do with any training program. There is little doubt in the minds of those familiar with the American activities at Tarbella that preparations are being made for an all-out offensive in North-West Frontier Province against sanctuaries belonging to the Taliban and al-Qaeda led by bin Laden. Pakistani security sources maintain more American troops will arrive in the coming days. Pakistan recently offered ceasefire agreements to militants in the North Waziristan and South Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. These were not only summarily rejected, but followed with attacks in the two Waziristans on security forces, and then the Marriott operation.
For both the militants and the United States, the gloves have come off. Clearly, Washington is concerned at the lack of progress in clipping the wings of the militancy in Pakistan (read al-Qaeda fugitives) and that the Taliban have bases in Pakistan to fuel their insurgency in Afghanistan.
In the crucial few weeks before the US presidential elections there is nothing the George W Bush administration would like more than a real smoking gun to justify the long years of its "war on terror". The soldiers now based Tarbella are on the trail. But so are the militants.
Pakistani authorities have compared Saturday evening's devastating truck suicide attack on the Marriott Hotel in the capital Islamabad to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. In terms of its psychological effect, the blast, which killed more than 80 people, injured hundreds and burnt out the hotel, has traumatized the nation, and, like 9/11, marks the beginning of a new battle: this time not the "war on terror", but the war by terrorists. Pakistan is now the declared battleground in this struggle by Islamic militants to strike first against American interests before the United States' war machine completes its preparations tostorm the sanctuaries of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
The attack on one of the hotels in the chain of the US Marriott group was one of the worst in Pakistan's history and involved the sophisticated use of over 600 kilograms of TNT explosive blended with RDX and phosphorous, detonated when a truck rammed into a security barricade in front of the hotel Among the dead were the Czech ambassador to Pakistan, two US Marines, members of the US embassy staff, Saudi nationals and other European diplomats. More than 250 people were injured and dozens of parked cars were destroyed.
There was immediate speculation the attack was prompted by the fact of many marines living in the top floor of the hotel. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani claimed the real target was his residence, where President Asif Ali Zardari, army chiefs of staff and the entire cabinet were gathered for an Iftar (Muslim breaking of the Ramadan fast) dinner. Security was so tight, the theory goes, that the driver instead went to the nearby Marriott. But on Monday afternoon, Rehman Malik, the Pakistani prime minister's advisor for the interior, told a group of reporters at the Islamabad airport: "An Iftar Dinner was scheduled at Marriot on September which was hosted by National Assembly Speaker Dr Fahmida Mirza and where all dignitaries including the prime minister, president, cabinet and all services chiefs were invited.
However, at the eleventh hour the dinner was shifted to rime minster's house which saved Pakistan's entired military and political leadership.""Perhaps, the earlier information of the dinner was leaked to the militants and therefore they hit Marriot hotel,"Rehman added. However, Asia Times Online's investigations, including talks with highly placed security experts, indicate that the Marriott attack signals the opening of a major battle which is about to start in Pakistan in a new phase of the "war on terror". Preparations for a new battle Saturday's blast occurred on the day of Zardari's first presidential address to a joint session of parliament, after which he was due to depart for New York for the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. He was also scheduled to meet leading US officials to discuss contentious issues in the "war on terror", especially the US's aggressive military incursions into Pakistan's tribal areas in recent weeks to attack al-Qaeda figures and militants.
Already, though, events had been set in motion to shape this new battlefield. Approximately 20 kilometers from Islamabad lies Tarbella, the brigade headquarters of Pakistan's Special Operation Task Force (SOTF). Recently, 300 American officials landed at this facility, with the official designation as a "training advisory group", according to documents seen by Asia Times Online. However, high-level contacts claim this is not as simple as a training program. In the mid-1990s, during the government of Nawaz Sharif, a special US Central Intelligence Agency unit was based at the same facility, tasked with catching Osama bin Laden. They left after Pervez Musharraf came to power in a coup in 1999. Now, the US has bought a huge plot of land at Tarbella, several square kilometers, according to sources directly handling the project. Recently, 20 large containers arrived at the facility. They were handled by the Americans, who did not allow any Pakistani officials to inspect them. Given the size of the containers, it is believed they contain special arms and ammunition and even tanks and armored vehicles - and certainly have nothing to do with any training program. There is little doubt in the minds of those familiar with the American activities at Tarbella that preparations are being made for an all-out offensive in North-West Frontier Province against sanctuaries belonging to the Taliban and al-Qaeda led by bin Laden. Pakistani security sources maintain more American troops will arrive in the coming days. Pakistan recently offered ceasefire agreements to militants in the North Waziristan and South Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan. These were not only summarily rejected, but followed with attacks in the two Waziristans on security forces, and then the Marriott operation.
For both the militants and the United States, the gloves have come off. Clearly, Washington is concerned at the lack of progress in clipping the wings of the militancy in Pakistan (read al-Qaeda fugitives) and that the Taliban have bases in Pakistan to fuel their insurgency in Afghanistan.
In the crucial few weeks before the US presidential elections there is nothing the George W Bush administration would like more than a real smoking gun to justify the long years of its "war on terror". The soldiers now based Tarbella are on the trail. But so are the militants.
FACTBOX - Pakistan's tribal areas
Sep 22, 2008
North-western Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun lands are home to militants bent on bringing hard-line Islamic rule to Pakistan, defeating Western forces in Afghanistan and launching attacks in Western countries. Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and his number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, are believed to be hiding in the region.
The government has said it expected an investigation into a suicide truck bomb attack on an Islamabad hotel on Saturday, which killed 53 people, would lead to al Qaeda and Taliban militants in north-western strongholds on the Afghan border.
Here are some details about the Pashtun tribal areas.
The tribal areas
- The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) cover about 27,220 sq km of mountainous territory and are home to about six million people, most of them Pashtun. They border Afghanistan and Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP), where militancy is spreading.
- The seven agencies that make up the FATA are Khyber, Kurram, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, North Waziristan and South Waziristan. Many residents sympathise with the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, their fellow Pashtuns.
- The area is awash with weapons. Few of Pakistan's federal laws apply and outside interference is resented. Under a system inherited from colonial Britain, a government "political agent" administers through tribal elders who are meant to maintain peace and keep open roads such as the Khyber Pass, a vital supply route for Western forces in Afghanistan.
The militants
- Al Qaeda members have lived in the area for years, particularly in Bajaur, security officials say.
- An umbrella group, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Taliban Movement of Pakistan, is led by Baitullah Mehsud. He is accused of a wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan since mid-2007, including the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mehsud is based in South Waziristan and main allied factions are in North Waziristan and Bajaur.
- These factions are closest to the Afghan Taliban, are most involved in the Afghan insurgency and harbour most of an estimated several thousand foreign militants in the region.
- Fighters from these groups infiltrated the Swat Valley in NWFP, where violence surged last year and has carried on intermittently despite a peace pact signed in May.
- Other factions, usually formed by a tribe or clan, espouse the hardline, Taliban cause but have not joined the TTP.
- Some criminal gangs also profess to be Taliban.
Government policy
- Pakistani troops rarely entered the area before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. A succession of military forays and peace pacts since then has failed to stem the militants' growing strength and spread.
- The military launched an offensive in Bajaur in August and the government says more than 600 militants have been killed. Fighting has also been heavy in Swat. - The government says it has a three-pronged strategy to tackle the militants: making peace with those who renounce violence, economic development and using force as a last resort.
US policy
- The US military said recently the greatest challenge to long-term Afghan security was insurgent sanctuaries in FATA.
- Frustrated by a surge in Taliban violence in Afghanistan, the United States has stepped up missile strikes on militant targets in the tribal areas.
- On September 3, US commandos launched a helicopter-borne ground assault on a village in South Waziristan, infuriating the Pakistani military, which vowed to defend Pakistani territory.
- The United States has promised $750 million in aid to develop the FATA.
Sep 22, 2008
North-western Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun lands are home to militants bent on bringing hard-line Islamic rule to Pakistan, defeating Western forces in Afghanistan and launching attacks in Western countries. Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and his number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, are believed to be hiding in the region.
The government has said it expected an investigation into a suicide truck bomb attack on an Islamabad hotel on Saturday, which killed 53 people, would lead to al Qaeda and Taliban militants in north-western strongholds on the Afghan border.
Here are some details about the Pashtun tribal areas.
The tribal areas
- The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) cover about 27,220 sq km of mountainous territory and are home to about six million people, most of them Pashtun. They border Afghanistan and Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP), where militancy is spreading.
- The seven agencies that make up the FATA are Khyber, Kurram, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, North Waziristan and South Waziristan. Many residents sympathise with the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, their fellow Pashtuns.
- The area is awash with weapons. Few of Pakistan's federal laws apply and outside interference is resented. Under a system inherited from colonial Britain, a government "political agent" administers through tribal elders who are meant to maintain peace and keep open roads such as the Khyber Pass, a vital supply route for Western forces in Afghanistan.
The militants
- Al Qaeda members have lived in the area for years, particularly in Bajaur, security officials say.
- An umbrella group, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Taliban Movement of Pakistan, is led by Baitullah Mehsud. He is accused of a wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan since mid-2007, including the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mehsud is based in South Waziristan and main allied factions are in North Waziristan and Bajaur.
- These factions are closest to the Afghan Taliban, are most involved in the Afghan insurgency and harbour most of an estimated several thousand foreign militants in the region.
- Fighters from these groups infiltrated the Swat Valley in NWFP, where violence surged last year and has carried on intermittently despite a peace pact signed in May.
- Other factions, usually formed by a tribe or clan, espouse the hardline, Taliban cause but have not joined the TTP.
- Some criminal gangs also profess to be Taliban.
Government policy
- Pakistani troops rarely entered the area before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. A succession of military forays and peace pacts since then has failed to stem the militants' growing strength and spread.
- The military launched an offensive in Bajaur in August and the government says more than 600 militants have been killed. Fighting has also been heavy in Swat. - The government says it has a three-pronged strategy to tackle the militants: making peace with those who renounce violence, economic development and using force as a last resort.
US policy
- The US military said recently the greatest challenge to long-term Afghan security was insurgent sanctuaries in FATA.
- Frustrated by a surge in Taliban violence in Afghanistan, the United States has stepped up missile strikes on militant targets in the tribal areas.
- On September 3, US commandos launched a helicopter-borne ground assault on a village in South Waziristan, infuriating the Pakistani military, which vowed to defend Pakistani territory.
- The United States has promised $750 million in aid to develop the FATA.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Pakistan president's 'recorded' speech shown live by PTV
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari on Sunday ordered an inquiry into the mess created by state-run Pakistan Television (PTV) during his address to the nation after the suicide attack outside Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that claimed 53 lives and injured over 250 people on Sept 20, Pakistan daily Dawn reported.
Pakistan’s Minister of Information has been told to initiate an inquiry into the incident by the Pakistan president, who is leaving for the US to attend the UN General Assembly session, the Pakistan daily has learnt. Following the orders of the president, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has constituted a team to investigate the matter.
PTV Chairman & MD, Dr Shahid Masood, who was to accompany Zardari on his US visit was ordered to stay back in Pakistan till the inquiry into the incident was completed, according to the Dawn .
According to the newspaper’s sources, soon after the Pakistan president decided to address the nation after the attack on the Marriott hotel, the Information Ministry directed the PTV authorities to make arrangements for the speech. After the PTV team reached the Pakistan president’s residence, it was decided that the speech would be recorded rather than broadcast live and clear instructions were provided to the PTV chief to organize recording equipment accordingly, Dawn’s sources added. After approving the draft of the address, the President, as a part of the routine exercise, took a few minutes to rehearse the speech.
The PTV cameras and recording systems were activated to monitor the rehearsal. However, what was conveyed to Zardari as a ‘recording’ of the rehearsal was actually the live broadcast of the rehearsal. The Pakistan president's rehearsal was telecast live by PTV and this live feed was picked by two other private networks. Dr Shahid Masood was present on the scene throughout the episode, Dawn’s sources confirmed. “The PTV Chairman was clearly directed that the speech would be recorded and the President does not wish a live broadcast but the PTV chairman organised live telecast and the state media even provided clean feed to two other channels demonstrates the length to which Dr Masood can go to damage the government,” a source at president Zardari’s residence told the Pakistan daily.
Shock over Pakist
an terror bomb
There is shock across the papers at the scale of the suicide bombing of the Marriott hotel in Pakistan.
A huge crater pictured on the front page of the Daily Telegraph reveals the devastation in the capital Islamabad.
The photograph, also in the Guardian and the Daily Mail, shows tiny-looking figures picking through a lunar landscape of dirt and concrete.
At least 53 people were killed, writes the Telegraph, and local commentators have called it "Pakistan's 09/11".
'Staring into abyss'
The leader column in the Independent says that Pakistan is staring "into an abyss" following the explosion.
The paper is concerned that in the past few months terrorists have succeeded in several large-scale suicide bombings.
It lists Pakistan's ambivalence towards radical Islam, its weak economy and growing sectarian violence as factors.
The Times says it is a "shocking blow" to Pakistan, especially as the hotel was destroyed even though the lorry and explosives had been stopped outside.
============== =
Pakistan’s 9/11’ kills 60
* Injures 200;Nation mourns
*Terrorists hit back hours after Zardari’s warning
* US national among the dead, several foreigners injured
* Nearby Frontier House, Chief Justice’s House, IT Towers and PTV building damaged
* Rehman Malik says government received intelligence reports two days ago
A massive suicide truck bomb Saturday devastated the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least 40 people and wounding hundreds of others in what was believed to be the bloodiest terrorist strike ever in the Pakistani capital.The bodies of doormen and security guards, stripped naked by the force of the blast, lay outside the flame-blacked hotel. Dozens of guests and staff were feared trapped inside amid worries that the five-story structure could collapse.The attack on the hotel, which is favored by foreigners and the Pakistani elite despite being previously targeted by extremists, came as diners packed the restaurants to break the day-long fast of the Muslim month of Ramadan with the traditional Iftar evening meal.
================
analysis: Rush to victory?
The US is in the grip of what is being billed as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and we may yet see the Bush administration as well as the next regime looking at the war in the region as a useful diversionIn addition to other things, this also seems much like a case of sheer bad timing.
The war in Pakistan’s tribal areas was always going to be a formidable enterprise given the mistakes that have been made all around, particularly in the form of gravely flawed US policies in the region.But what has made matters worse is the impending US presidential election. Sorely in need of some foreign policy success that could possibly tip the balance in the electoral race, the Bush administration is now focusing on Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Declaring success in Iraq on the basis of lower casualty figures over the last few months, it has now turned its attention to Afghanistan and effectively declared Pakistan’s tribal areas of a piece with the theatre of war in Afghanistan.Effectively this means US forces have the right of hot pursuit within Pakistani territory. While a pronouncement to this effect was made recently by the US Chairman Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, it turns out that President Bush had already signed a ‘finding’ in July sanctioning such operations in Pakistan. There also does not appear to be any significant difference in perspective with regard to the issue of formally extending the war to Pakistan between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.It could be argued that Pakistan over the years has refused to recognise the nature of the very serious problem that it confronts in the area.
But now that a new elected government is finally in place, what would be the point of putting it under extreme pressure with actions that will inevitably create more enemies in the area, alienate public opinion and make the government’s position untenable?Going by media reports, the prime minister, the newly inducted president and the chief of army staff have, in their recent interactions with US officials at the highest level, sought more time to address the issue. There is certainly no quick and easy solution in sight, which is something that the US administration also recognises.But this is where the election imperative kicks in. Presumably, the view is that getting some leading Al Qaeda figures in the closing stages of the campaign may just swing an increasingly close race in favour of the Republican candidate. Hence the frequent use of missiles launched by Predator drones and, now, ground operations by US forces on Pakistan’s side of the border. But what about the high cost in terms of innocent lives?After Pakistan’s protest at the Angur adda raid by US forces on September 3, a drone incursion was repelled by Pakistan Air Force jets. In another incident denied by both sides, Pakistani troops reportedly fired at US commandos seeking to cross the border.
Shortly thereafter, Mullen, on an unscheduled visit, pledged that US forces will fully respect Pakistan’s sovereignty but within hours there was another missile attack by US forces.Once again after Pakistan’s protest we have the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte declaring that “Unilateral actions are not a durable or a viable solution...the best way forward for both of our countries is to try and deal with the situation in that border area on a cooperative basis...”Given the election imperative, however, this is unlikely to represent a policy shift.This election-driven US pressure is clearly proving to be counterproductive also with regard to the process of a gradual adjustment of the civil-military imbalance critical to the democratic transition in Pakistan. Consider the fairly elaborate statement declaring that Pakistan’s sovereignty will be defended at all costs, effectively putting US forces on notice. It came not from the president or the prime minister but from the COAS. Similarly it was the Pakistan Air Force chief, Air Marshal Tanvir Mahmood, who told a television interviewer that he had the capacity to deter incursions by Predator drones but could not go ahead in the absence of orders to act from the government.Meanwhile, it is not quite clear just what was achieved by President Asif Zardari’s trip to the UK after he cancelled his visit to China — twice. But more significantly, it is the COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani who will be visiting China next week for a five-day trip and along with his counterpart is also scheduled to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao.Discarding both appeasement as well as the use of indiscriminate firepower we have to tread a difficult path in the area. The writ of the state must be asserted over territory within our borders and violations of sovereignty resisted. But, whatever strategy we are to adopt it cannot possibly succeed if there is a sense that the key players are pulling in different directions.To make matters worse, the US is in the grip of what is being billed as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and we may yet see the Bush administration as well as the next regime looking at the war in the region as a useful diversion when difficult economic conditions at home push many to ask awkward questions pertaining to systemic failure and accountability.
Meanwhile, Russia may also take a tougher line in the region that could lead to a more aggressive US stance, with the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan losing the most. Equally, there is a broad-based popular movement in Kashmir that could be used by hawks in both India and Pakistan for their own ends, further undermining our ability to deal with the crisis on our western border. Not least, it is not just the US elections we have to keep in mind, elections are due in both India and Afghanistan in 2009 and that may not be of much help either.In other words it is time to get our act together.
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari on Sunday ordered an inquiry into the mess created by state-run Pakistan Television (PTV) during his address to the nation after the suicide attack outside Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that claimed 53 lives and injured over 250 people on Sept 20, Pakistan daily Dawn reported.
Pakistan’s Minister of Information has been told to initiate an inquiry into the incident by the Pakistan president, who is leaving for the US to attend the UN General Assembly session, the Pakistan daily has learnt. Following the orders of the president, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has constituted a team to investigate the matter.
PTV Chairman & MD, Dr Shahid Masood, who was to accompany Zardari on his US visit was ordered to stay back in Pakistan till the inquiry into the incident was completed, according to the Dawn .
According to the newspaper’s sources, soon after the Pakistan president decided to address the nation after the attack on the Marriott hotel, the Information Ministry directed the PTV authorities to make arrangements for the speech. After the PTV team reached the Pakistan president’s residence, it was decided that the speech would be recorded rather than broadcast live and clear instructions were provided to the PTV chief to organize recording equipment accordingly, Dawn’s sources added. After approving the draft of the address, the President, as a part of the routine exercise, took a few minutes to rehearse the speech.
The PTV cameras and recording systems were activated to monitor the rehearsal. However, what was conveyed to Zardari as a ‘recording’ of the rehearsal was actually the live broadcast of the rehearsal. The Pakistan president's rehearsal was telecast live by PTV and this live feed was picked by two other private networks. Dr Shahid Masood was present on the scene throughout the episode, Dawn’s sources confirmed. “The PTV Chairman was clearly directed that the speech would be recorded and the President does not wish a live broadcast but the PTV chairman organised live telecast and the state media even provided clean feed to two other channels demonstrates the length to which Dr Masood can go to damage the government,” a source at president Zardari’s residence told the Pakistan daily.
Shock over Pakist
an terror bombThere is shock across the papers at the scale of the suicide bombing of the Marriott hotel in Pakistan.
A huge crater pictured on the front page of the Daily Telegraph reveals the devastation in the capital Islamabad.
The photograph, also in the Guardian and the Daily Mail, shows tiny-looking figures picking through a lunar landscape of dirt and concrete.
At least 53 people were killed, writes the Telegraph, and local commentators have called it "Pakistan's 09/11".
'Staring into abyss'
The leader column in the Independent says that Pakistan is staring "into an abyss" following the explosion.
The paper is concerned that in the past few months terrorists have succeeded in several large-scale suicide bombings.
It lists Pakistan's ambivalence towards radical Islam, its weak economy and growing sectarian violence as factors.
The Times says it is a "shocking blow" to Pakistan, especially as the hotel was destroyed even though the lorry and explosives had been stopped outside.
============== =
Pakistan’s 9/11’ kills 60
* Injures 200;Nation mourns
*Terrorists hit back hours after Zardari’s warning
* US national among the dead, several foreigners injured
* Nearby Frontier House, Chief Justice’s House, IT Towers and PTV building damaged
* Rehman Malik says government received intelligence reports two days ago
A massive suicide truck bomb Saturday devastated the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least 40 people and wounding hundreds of others in what was believed to be the bloodiest terrorist strike ever in the Pakistani capital.The bodies of doormen and security guards, stripped naked by the force of the blast, lay outside the flame-blacked hotel. Dozens of guests and staff were feared trapped inside amid worries that the five-story structure could collapse.The attack on the hotel, which is favored by foreigners and the Pakistani elite despite being previously targeted by extremists, came as diners packed the restaurants to break the day-long fast of the Muslim month of Ramadan with the traditional Iftar evening meal.
================
analysis: Rush to victory?
The US is in the grip of what is being billed as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and we may yet see the Bush administration as well as the next regime looking at the war in the region as a useful diversionIn addition to other things, this also seems much like a case of sheer bad timing.
The war in Pakistan’s tribal areas was always going to be a formidable enterprise given the mistakes that have been made all around, particularly in the form of gravely flawed US policies in the region.But what has made matters worse is the impending US presidential election. Sorely in need of some foreign policy success that could possibly tip the balance in the electoral race, the Bush administration is now focusing on Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Declaring success in Iraq on the basis of lower casualty figures over the last few months, it has now turned its attention to Afghanistan and effectively declared Pakistan’s tribal areas of a piece with the theatre of war in Afghanistan.Effectively this means US forces have the right of hot pursuit within Pakistani territory. While a pronouncement to this effect was made recently by the US Chairman Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, it turns out that President Bush had already signed a ‘finding’ in July sanctioning such operations in Pakistan. There also does not appear to be any significant difference in perspective with regard to the issue of formally extending the war to Pakistan between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.It could be argued that Pakistan over the years has refused to recognise the nature of the very serious problem that it confronts in the area.
But now that a new elected government is finally in place, what would be the point of putting it under extreme pressure with actions that will inevitably create more enemies in the area, alienate public opinion and make the government’s position untenable?Going by media reports, the prime minister, the newly inducted president and the chief of army staff have, in their recent interactions with US officials at the highest level, sought more time to address the issue. There is certainly no quick and easy solution in sight, which is something that the US administration also recognises.But this is where the election imperative kicks in. Presumably, the view is that getting some leading Al Qaeda figures in the closing stages of the campaign may just swing an increasingly close race in favour of the Republican candidate. Hence the frequent use of missiles launched by Predator drones and, now, ground operations by US forces on Pakistan’s side of the border. But what about the high cost in terms of innocent lives?After Pakistan’s protest at the Angur adda raid by US forces on September 3, a drone incursion was repelled by Pakistan Air Force jets. In another incident denied by both sides, Pakistani troops reportedly fired at US commandos seeking to cross the border.
Shortly thereafter, Mullen, on an unscheduled visit, pledged that US forces will fully respect Pakistan’s sovereignty but within hours there was another missile attack by US forces.Once again after Pakistan’s protest we have the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte declaring that “Unilateral actions are not a durable or a viable solution...the best way forward for both of our countries is to try and deal with the situation in that border area on a cooperative basis...”Given the election imperative, however, this is unlikely to represent a policy shift.This election-driven US pressure is clearly proving to be counterproductive also with regard to the process of a gradual adjustment of the civil-military imbalance critical to the democratic transition in Pakistan. Consider the fairly elaborate statement declaring that Pakistan’s sovereignty will be defended at all costs, effectively putting US forces on notice. It came not from the president or the prime minister but from the COAS. Similarly it was the Pakistan Air Force chief, Air Marshal Tanvir Mahmood, who told a television interviewer that he had the capacity to deter incursions by Predator drones but could not go ahead in the absence of orders to act from the government.Meanwhile, it is not quite clear just what was achieved by President Asif Zardari’s trip to the UK after he cancelled his visit to China — twice. But more significantly, it is the COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani who will be visiting China next week for a five-day trip and along with his counterpart is also scheduled to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao.Discarding both appeasement as well as the use of indiscriminate firepower we have to tread a difficult path in the area. The writ of the state must be asserted over territory within our borders and violations of sovereignty resisted. But, whatever strategy we are to adopt it cannot possibly succeed if there is a sense that the key players are pulling in different directions.To make matters worse, the US is in the grip of what is being billed as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and we may yet see the Bush administration as well as the next regime looking at the war in the region as a useful diversion when difficult economic conditions at home push many to ask awkward questions pertaining to systemic failure and accountability.
Meanwhile, Russia may also take a tougher line in the region that could lead to a more aggressive US stance, with the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan losing the most. Equally, there is a broad-based popular movement in Kashmir that could be used by hawks in both India and Pakistan for their own ends, further undermining our ability to deal with the crisis on our western border. Not least, it is not just the US elections we have to keep in mind, elections are due in both India and Afghanistan in 2009 and that may not be of much help either.In other words it is time to get our act together.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Pakistan: Opinion
Reject Talibanisation
Burning of schools and video shops, disallowing polio vaccination for babies, and banning female health workers sums up the process of Talibanisation. Do they want anything other than keeping females in shuttlecock burqas, barring them from education and jobs, and having men roam around holding guns? The Taliban are currently conducting a violent campaign against the people and the state of Pakistan, apparently to establish what they consider will be a ‘proper’ Islamic state. However, let us assume they take over. Are they going to re-build the roads, hospitals, libraries, schools, bridges, restaurants and anything else they have blown up? Given their record, I doubt it very much.They will instead throw us back into the dark ages with no progress, no education and no rights. It is about time we said a firm ‘no’ to Talibanisation. Our government is doing the right thing, but we as citizens should campaign against this creeping menace as well.
Burning of schools and video shops, disallowing polio vaccination for babies, and banning female health workers sums up the process of Talibanisation. Do they want anything other than keeping females in shuttlecock burqas, barring them from education and jobs, and having men roam around holding guns? The Taliban are currently conducting a violent campaign against the people and the state of Pakistan, apparently to establish what they consider will be a ‘proper’ Islamic state. However, let us assume they take over. Are they going to re-build the roads, hospitals, libraries, schools, bridges, restaurants and anything else they have blown up? Given their record, I doubt it very much.They will instead throw us back into the dark ages with no progress, no education and no rights. It is about time we said a firm ‘no’ to Talibanisation. Our government is doing the right thing, but we as citizens should campaign against this creeping menace as well.
After vows to respect sovereignty, U.S. strikes in Pakistan
A U.S. missile strike Wednesday in Pakistan further inflamed relations between the two anti-terrorism allies, just hours after the American military chief vowed to "respect Pakistan's sovereignty."
The strike against suspected militants in Pakistan's tribal area, which runs along the Afghan border, is thought to be the sixth such attack this month. It came as Washington is demanding that Islamabad do more to prevent Taliban and al Qaida extremists from using its territory.
Pakistani leaders have condemned the U.S. military interventions, which include the first documented American ground raid in the country earlier this month. The strikes have caused an uproar in Pakistan
A U.S. missile strike Wednesday in Pakistan further inflamed relations between the two anti-terrorism allies, just hours after the American military chief vowed to "respect Pakistan's sovereignty."
The strike against suspected militants in Pakistan's tribal area, which runs along the Afghan border, is thought to be the sixth such attack this month. It came as Washington is demanding that Islamabad do more to prevent Taliban and al Qaida extremists from using its territory.
Pakistani leaders have condemned the U.S. military interventions, which include the first documented American ground raid in the country earlier this month. The strikes have caused an uproar in Pakistan
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Pakistan troops 'to stop US raids'
................................
Pakistan troops ordered to open fire on US raiders
Pakistan's army said Tuesday that its forces have orders to open fire if U.S. troops launch another raid across the Afghan border, raising the stakes in a dispute over how to tackle militant havens in Pakistan's unruly border zone.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the U.S. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, arrived in Pakistan late Tuesday amid the increased tensions. Mullen planned to meet with top civilian and military leaders to discuss a range of issues, including ways to improve coordination and cooperation along the Pakistan-Afghan border.
Pakistan's government has faced rising popular anger over a Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos into South Waziristan, a base for Taliban militants killing ever more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan says about 15 people were killed, all of them civilians.
The new firing orders were disclosed by Pakistani army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the U.S. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, arrived in Pakistan late Tuesday amid the increased tensions. Mullen planned to meet with top civilian and military leaders to discuss a range of issues, including ways to improve coordination and cooperation along the Pakistan-Afghan border.
Pakistan's government has faced rising popular anger over a Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos into South Waziristan, a base for Taliban militants killing ever more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan says about 15 people were killed, all of them civilians.
The new firing orders were disclosed by Pakistani army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Top Pentagon Official in Surprise Visit to Pakistan
====================
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, America’s top military official, made a hastily arranged visit to Pakistan on Tuesday for talks about a recent incursion by American commandos based in neighboring Afghanistan.
The visit by the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, came as an uproar continued to grow in Pakistan about the incursion on Sept. 3, which severely strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, its top Muslim ally in the war against terrorism. The visit also coincided with conflicting accounts about a possible second American raid on Monday, as well as a warning by the Pakistan military that it would shoot at any foreign forces who crossed the border.
A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the army reserved the right to use force to defend the country and its people, but he said there was “no change in policy.”
A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the army reserved the right to use force to defend the country and its people, but he said there was “no change in policy.”
Pakistan Allegedly Repulses U.S. Raid
___________________
Pakistan reportedly opens fire on U.S. forces in tribal area
Pakistani troops fire on US soldiers near Afghan border, reports say
Security officials say soldiers were trying to enter South Waziristan by helicopter
American Military Repudiates Reports
U.S. and Pakistani military officials denied reports that Pakistani troops turned back a U.S. attack in Pakistan's tribal areas on Monday by firing warning shots toward U.S. troops as they attempted to cross from Afghanistan in pursuit of Taliban insurgents.
A Pakistani intelligence official said several U.S. helicopters were seen hovering near the Pakistani village of Angor Adda in the tribal area of South Waziristan. By the official's account, the helicopters landed just inside Afghanistan and several U.S. soldiers got out of them.
Pakistani troops fired warning shots in the air as the U.S. troops tried to enter Pakistani territory from Afghanistan, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly on military operations. The brief standoff ended about 4:30 a.m., the intelligence official said.
Local villagers gave similar accounts, the Reuters news agency reported.
But Maj. Murad Khan, a spokesman for the Pakistani military, denied reports of gunfire. "There was no firing in the area and there was no violation of Pakistani airspace," Khan said. "We have heard there were U.S. helicopters hovering at our border area, but they were deep inside Afghanistan."
Last week, Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, condemned the attacks, saying Pakistan is prepared to defend its territory "at all cost." Kiyani's statement followed comments by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that increased U.S. incursions in Pakistan are likely.
Pakistan's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, is expected to discuss the issue of cross-border strikes with Bush during a visit to the United Nations in New York next week.
___________________
Pakistan reportedly opens fire on U.S. forces in tribal area
Pakistani troops fire on US soldiers near Afghan border, reports say
Security officials say soldiers were trying to enter South Waziristan by helicopter
American Military Repudiates Reports
U.S. and Pakistani military officials denied reports that Pakistani troops turned back a U.S. attack in Pakistan's tribal areas on Monday by firing warning shots toward U.S. troops as they attempted to cross from Afghanistan in pursuit of Taliban insurgents.
A Pakistani intelligence official said several U.S. helicopters were seen hovering near the Pakistani village of Angor Adda in the tribal area of South Waziristan. By the official's account, the helicopters landed just inside Afghanistan and several U.S. soldiers got out of them.
Pakistani troops fired warning shots in the air as the U.S. troops tried to enter Pakistani territory from Afghanistan, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly on military operations. The brief standoff ended about 4:30 a.m., the intelligence official said.
Local villagers gave similar accounts, the Reuters news agency reported.
But Maj. Murad Khan, a spokesman for the Pakistani military, denied reports of gunfire. "There was no firing in the area and there was no violation of Pakistani airspace," Khan said. "We have heard there were U.S. helicopters hovering at our border area, but they were deep inside Afghanistan."
Last week, Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, condemned the attacks, saying Pakistan is prepared to defend its territory "at all cost." Kiyani's statement followed comments by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that increased U.S. incursions in Pakistan are likely.
Pakistan's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, is expected to discuss the issue of cross-border strikes with Bush during a visit to the United Nations in New York next week.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
US faces the F-16s it supplied Pakistan
The United States is suddenly faced with the uncomfortable scenario of confronting the very same weapons and military hardware, including F-16 fighter jets, it has armed Pakistan with for decades.
The unsavoury prospect of having to take a crack at the its one-time ally has surfaced most starkly in the skies over the Afghan-Pakistan border this weekend after the Pakistan Air Force deployed its US-supplied F-16s to challenge the violation of its airspace by US drones, and in one case, an airborne assault that landed US Navy Seals inside Pakistani territory. The turnaround of Pakistan from an ally to a potential enemy has alarmed lawmakers, some of whom are now questioning the continued supply of arms to Islamabad. On Tuesday, a Democrat-controlled House Foreign Relations panel has scheduled a hearing whose snarky title -- ''Defeating al-Qaida's Air Force: Pakistan's F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism'' == betrays the unease over the Bush Administration’s relentless arming of Pakistan. Al-Qaida has no known air force.
On Sunday, the Pakistani media reported tribal sources as saying a PAF jets were seen patrolling the skies on the country’s western borders with Afghanistan in the afternoon, soon after a US predator was seen flying in the area. ''Neither the CIA-operated Predator nor the Pakistani jet fighter took any offensive action as the two planes didn’t encounter each other,'' a report in the Pakistani newspaper The News, said. Pakistan’s army chief Pervez Kiyani has vowed to defend the country against US incursions ''at all costs.''
The War in Pakistan
U.S. attacks on Taliban and al-Qaeda targets are risky -- but necessary.
Pakistan could end cooperation in war on terror
FOR MORE than six years, the Bush administration has relied on Pakistan's government and army to combat Taliban and al-Qaeda networks based in the country's tribal territories along the border with Afghanistan. The result has been the strengthening of both networks in the rugged and virtually lawless region; a steady increase in Taliban assaults on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan; and ominous reports that al-Qaeda is using its bases to prepare for new attacks on Western targets, including the United States. By now it is clear that Pakistani army and security forces lack the capacity to defeat the extremists -- and may even support some of the Taliban commanders.
Pakistan's army has arranged truces with some of the extremists that don't preclude them from fighting in Afghanistan. U.S officials say that the Pakistani intelligence service was complicit in a July 7 suicide bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.
In these circumstances President Bush's reported decision in July to step up attacks by U.S. forces in the tribal areas was both necessary and long overdue. According to a count by the Associated Press, there have been seven missile strikes by remotely controlled Predator aircraft in the past month, as well as one ground assault by helicopter-borne American commandos. At least two of the targets have been Taliban commanders reportedly considered friendly by Pakistani intelligence -- including Jalaluddin Haqqani, the alleged author of the Indian embassy bombing. The results of the attacks are hard to gauge, since U.S. officials refuse to discuss them; reports from the remote areas, often by sources sympathetic to the Taliban, frequently allege that most or all of the casualties are civilians.
To its credit, the Bush administration has tried to execute this shift in tactics while preserving its alliance with the Pakistani army and the new civilian government. It's a tricky balancing act: The latest attacks have prompted outraged public statements by the army commander in chief and the prime minister, and there have even been threats to retaliate against American forces. But army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani was briefed by senior U.S. commanders at a summit meeting on an aircraft carrier last month, and his forces still are in line for billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Pakistan's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, also will desperately need U.S. support to extract the country from a worsening economic crisis and move forward with an ambitious program to counter extremism in the tribal territories with economic development.
There's a risk that the missile strikes will prompt a breach between the U.S. and Pakistani armies, or destabilize Mr. Zardari's democratically elected administration, which is the friendliest Washington could hope for in a country with strong anti-American sentiment. Some experts argue that U.S. attacks only increase support for the Taliban. But the group already appears to have a stranglehold on large parts of the tribal territories. U.S. commanders say that victory in Afghanistan is impossible unless Taliban bases in Pakistan are reduced. And no risk to Pakistan's political system or its U.S. relations is greater than that of a second 9/11 staged from the tribal territories. U.S. missile and commando attacks must be backed by the best intelligence and must minimize civilian casualties. But they must continue.
U.S. attacks on Taliban and al-Qaeda targets are risky -- but necessary.
Pakistan could end cooperation in war on terror
FOR MORE than six years, the Bush administration has relied on Pakistan's government and army to combat Taliban and al-Qaeda networks based in the country's tribal territories along the border with Afghanistan. The result has been the strengthening of both networks in the rugged and virtually lawless region; a steady increase in Taliban assaults on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan; and ominous reports that al-Qaeda is using its bases to prepare for new attacks on Western targets, including the United States. By now it is clear that Pakistani army and security forces lack the capacity to defeat the extremists -- and may even support some of the Taliban commanders.
Pakistan's army has arranged truces with some of the extremists that don't preclude them from fighting in Afghanistan. U.S officials say that the Pakistani intelligence service was complicit in a July 7 suicide bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.In these circumstances President Bush's reported decision in July to step up attacks by U.S. forces in the tribal areas was both necessary and long overdue. According to a count by the Associated Press, there have been seven missile strikes by remotely controlled Predator aircraft in the past month, as well as one ground assault by helicopter-borne American commandos. At least two of the targets have been Taliban commanders reportedly considered friendly by Pakistani intelligence -- including Jalaluddin Haqqani, the alleged author of the Indian embassy bombing. The results of the attacks are hard to gauge, since U.S. officials refuse to discuss them; reports from the remote areas, often by sources sympathetic to the Taliban, frequently allege that most or all of the casualties are civilians.
To its credit, the Bush administration has tried to execute this shift in tactics while preserving its alliance with the Pakistani army and the new civilian government. It's a tricky balancing act: The latest attacks have prompted outraged public statements by the army commander in chief and the prime minister, and there have even been threats to retaliate against American forces. But army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani was briefed by senior U.S. commanders at a summit meeting on an aircraft carrier last month, and his forces still are in line for billions of dollars in U.S. aid. Pakistan's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, also will desperately need U.S. support to extract the country from a worsening economic crisis and move forward with an ambitious program to counter extremism in the tribal territories with economic development.
There's a risk that the missile strikes will prompt a breach between the U.S. and Pakistani armies, or destabilize Mr. Zardari's democratically elected administration, which is the friendliest Washington could hope for in a country with strong anti-American sentiment. Some experts argue that U.S. attacks only increase support for the Taliban. But the group already appears to have a stranglehold on large parts of the tribal territories. U.S. commanders say that victory in Afghanistan is impossible unless Taliban bases in Pakistan are reduced. And no risk to Pakistan's political system or its U.S. relations is greater than that of a second 9/11 staged from the tribal territories. U.S. missile and commando attacks must be backed by the best intelligence and must minimize civilian casualties. But they must continue.
Friday, September 12, 2008
CANADA VOWS TO PULL TROOPS
"You have to put an end date on these things,"
=======================
Canada's prime minister vowed Wednesday to pull troops from Afghanistan in 2011, saying for the first time that Canadian forces will leave that country.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has been a steadfast ally of President Bush in the post-Sept. 11 fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, said Canadians do not want to keep soldiers in Afghanistan beyond then and that 10 years of war were enough.
"You have to put an end date on these things," Harper said. "We intend to end it"
=======================
"You have to put an end date on these things,"
=======================
Canada's prime minister vowed Wednesday to pull troops from Afghanistan in 2011, saying for the first time that Canadian forces will leave that country.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has been a steadfast ally of President Bush in the post-Sept. 11 fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, said Canadians do not want to keep soldiers in Afghanistan beyond then and that 10 years of war were enough.
"You have to put an end date on these things," Harper said. "We intend to end it"
=======================
Did President Bush Authorize Ground Assaults in Pakistan?
________
______
The global War on Terror is focused today lots of activity is taking place in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Pakistani troops today claimed that they killed up to 100 militants in the northwestern tribal area near the border of Afghanistan.
Now, this comes as we learn that President Bush reportedly approved orders allowing U.S. Special Operations to conduct ground attacks in Pakistan without the permission of that country's government.
So, how will this affect the war in the region?
We're joined by FOX News contributor, Colonel David Hunt. He's a former green beret and who spent a whole bunch of time in that region
Colonel Hunt, thanks for joining us tonight. How likely is it that Pakistan had no idea about this mission that was taking place?
COL. DAVID HUNT, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I think we told them, intelligence sources told them and CIA told them. We didn't ask permission. We told them we were coming.
This particular unit you're talking about was called "detachment one." It's a Marine Corps Special Operations Unit. And the operation has got some problems with it. There's allegations of civilian deaths. But overall, it's much more aggressive on our part, the U.S.'s part to finally go after the safe havens in Pakistan. You cannot solve what's going on in Afghanistan without solving the border region along the Pakistan-Afghani border.
NAUERT: OK. Now, some of our guys have been going into Pakistan for years, in fact, very quietly, but what is different about this? Are we are seeing it just on a larger scale?
HUNT: We're seeing — yes. We're seeing a more directed concentrated effort. The realization that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have grown in strength inside the Pakistan border, partly because we do not have the political will to go after them. Now, we seem to be — as we're winding down in Iraq — we seem to be putting what needs to be now pressure on the Afghanistan situation, which has gotten, for now, decidedly worse over the last two to three years.
NAUERT: OK. Now, Pakistan has a new president, apparently the U.S. supports this guy, but is he going to be any tougher, any more willing to cooperate with us than President Musharraf was, who we gave a whole bunch of money to but he didn't necessarily put it in the right place or the places we wanted him to?
HUNT: Yes. I want to say something like "lipstick on a pig" right now, but I'm sure I can fit that in. The truth is, that unless we put serious pressure on the new president of Pakistan, it will not work. What we thought we had with Musharraf, it didn't. There is active support inside the Pakistani military and intelligence services for the Taliban. And you add that to the lawlessness along the border in Pakistan, it's a recipe for disaster and it's causing our sector — the U.S. sector in Kabul a lot of trouble and the NATO sectors even more trouble in Afghanistan.
NAUERT: Yes, that's a whole another issue. We'll have to talk about that one another day. But Colonel David Hunt, thank you so much for joining us tonight. We'll talk to you again real soon.
HUNT: You're welcome.
*****************
Pakistan order to kill US invaders
--------------------------
KEY corps commanders of Pakistan's 600,000-strong army issued orders last night to retaliate against "invading" US forces that enter the country to attack militant targets.
The move has plunged relations between Islamabad and Washington into deep crisis over how to deal with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban
What amounts to a dramatic order to "kill the invaders", as one senior officer put it last night, was disclosed after the commanders - who control the army's deployments at divisional level - met at their headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi under the chairmanship of army chief and former ISI spy agency boss Ashfaq Kayani.
Leading English-language newspaper The News warned in an editorial that the US determination to attack targets inside Pakistan was likely to be "the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had", with even "moderates" outraged by it.
The "retaliate and kill" order came amid reports of unprecedentedly fierce fighting in the Bajaur Agency of Pakistan's tribal areas, an al-Qa'ida stronghold frequently mentioned as the most likely lair of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The order to retaliate against incursions by "foreign troops", directed specifically at the 120,000 Pakistani soldiers deployed along the border with Afghanistan, follows US President George W. Bush's authorisation of US attacks in Pakistan.
Washington's determination to launch such attacks has caused outrage across Pakistan, with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani last night strongly backing a warning by General Kayani that Pakistan would not allow its territorial integrity to be violated.
The "kill" order against invading forces, and the sharp deterioration in relations with the US, has far-reaching implications for the war on terror.
Anger at all levels in Pakistani society was summed up last night in The News, not normally sympathetic to the militants.
"There is an escalating sense of furious impotence among the ordinary people of Pakistan," the newspaper said.
"Many - perhaps most - of them are strongly opposed to the spread of Talibanisation and extremist influence across the country: people who might be described as 'moderates'.
"Many of them have no sympathy for the mullahs and their burning of girls' schools and their medieval mindset.
"But if you bomb a moderate sensibility often enough, it has a tendency to lose its sense of objectivity and to feel driven in the direction of extremism.
"If America bombs moderate sensibilities often enough, you may find that its actions are the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had.
*******************
Pakistan warns US against border incursions
Pakistan has rejected US claims that the rules of engagement gave the coalition forces in Afghanistan the right to enter its territory, saying the nation's sovereignty will be defended at all costs.
"The rules of engagement with the coalition forces are well defined and within that the right to conduct operations against the militants inside own territory is solely the responsibility of the respective armed forces," Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said in a statement in Islamabad on Wednesday.
"There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border," he added.
The statement "dispelled a perception that some of the air strikes carried out inside Pakistan by drones and warplanes of the US-led coalition had been authorised by Islamabad", Dawn said on Thursday.
Although this is not the first time NATO forces have attacked inside Pakistan, the increase in the frequency of attacks in days before last week's presidential election here was seen by many as a major shift in the US policy towards Pakistan.
*******************
Bush gave secret OK for Pakistan attacks
Order allows ground assaults for the first time
President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.
The classified orders mark a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to confront the militants' increasingly secure base in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
U,.S. officials say they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but will not ask for its permission.
"The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable," said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued."
The CIA has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military's Special Operations forces relax what have until now been firm restrictions on conducting ground raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.
Pakistan's top army officer, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said on Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate U.S. incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."
It was unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country.
________
______The global War on Terror is focused today lots of activity is taking place in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Pakistani troops today claimed that they killed up to 100 militants in the northwestern tribal area near the border of Afghanistan.
Now, this comes as we learn that President Bush reportedly approved orders allowing U.S. Special Operations to conduct ground attacks in Pakistan without the permission of that country's government.
So, how will this affect the war in the region?
We're joined by FOX News contributor, Colonel David Hunt. He's a former green beret and who spent a whole bunch of time in that region
Colonel Hunt, thanks for joining us tonight. How likely is it that Pakistan had no idea about this mission that was taking place?
COL. DAVID HUNT, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I think we told them, intelligence sources told them and CIA told them. We didn't ask permission. We told them we were coming.
This particular unit you're talking about was called "detachment one." It's a Marine Corps Special Operations Unit. And the operation has got some problems with it. There's allegations of civilian deaths. But overall, it's much more aggressive on our part, the U.S.'s part to finally go after the safe havens in Pakistan. You cannot solve what's going on in Afghanistan without solving the border region along the Pakistan-Afghani border.
NAUERT: OK. Now, some of our guys have been going into Pakistan for years, in fact, very quietly, but what is different about this? Are we are seeing it just on a larger scale?
HUNT: We're seeing — yes. We're seeing a more directed concentrated effort. The realization that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have grown in strength inside the Pakistan border, partly because we do not have the political will to go after them. Now, we seem to be — as we're winding down in Iraq — we seem to be putting what needs to be now pressure on the Afghanistan situation, which has gotten, for now, decidedly worse over the last two to three years.
NAUERT: OK. Now, Pakistan has a new president, apparently the U.S. supports this guy, but is he going to be any tougher, any more willing to cooperate with us than President Musharraf was, who we gave a whole bunch of money to but he didn't necessarily put it in the right place or the places we wanted him to?
HUNT: Yes. I want to say something like "lipstick on a pig" right now, but I'm sure I can fit that in. The truth is, that unless we put serious pressure on the new president of Pakistan, it will not work. What we thought we had with Musharraf, it didn't. There is active support inside the Pakistani military and intelligence services for the Taliban. And you add that to the lawlessness along the border in Pakistan, it's a recipe for disaster and it's causing our sector — the U.S. sector in Kabul a lot of trouble and the NATO sectors even more trouble in Afghanistan.
NAUERT: Yes, that's a whole another issue. We'll have to talk about that one another day. But Colonel David Hunt, thank you so much for joining us tonight. We'll talk to you again real soon.
HUNT: You're welcome.
*****************
Pakistan order to kill US invaders
--------------------------
KEY corps commanders of Pakistan's 600,000-strong army issued orders last night to retaliate against "invading" US forces that enter the country to attack militant targets.
The move has plunged relations between Islamabad and Washington into deep crisis over how to deal with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban
What amounts to a dramatic order to "kill the invaders", as one senior officer put it last night, was disclosed after the commanders - who control the army's deployments at divisional level - met at their headquarters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi under the chairmanship of army chief and former ISI spy agency boss Ashfaq Kayani.
Leading English-language newspaper The News warned in an editorial that the US determination to attack targets inside Pakistan was likely to be "the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had", with even "moderates" outraged by it.
The "retaliate and kill" order came amid reports of unprecedentedly fierce fighting in the Bajaur Agency of Pakistan's tribal areas, an al-Qa'ida stronghold frequently mentioned as the most likely lair of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The order to retaliate against incursions by "foreign troops", directed specifically at the 120,000 Pakistani soldiers deployed along the border with Afghanistan, follows US President George W. Bush's authorisation of US attacks in Pakistan.
Washington's determination to launch such attacks has caused outrage across Pakistan, with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani last night strongly backing a warning by General Kayani that Pakistan would not allow its territorial integrity to be violated.
The "kill" order against invading forces, and the sharp deterioration in relations with the US, has far-reaching implications for the war on terror.
Anger at all levels in Pakistani society was summed up last night in The News, not normally sympathetic to the militants.
"There is an escalating sense of furious impotence among the ordinary people of Pakistan," the newspaper said.
"Many - perhaps most - of them are strongly opposed to the spread of Talibanisation and extremist influence across the country: people who might be described as 'moderates'.
"Many of them have no sympathy for the mullahs and their burning of girls' schools and their medieval mindset.
"But if you bomb a moderate sensibility often enough, it has a tendency to lose its sense of objectivity and to feel driven in the direction of extremism.
"If America bombs moderate sensibilities often enough, you may find that its actions are the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had.
*******************
Pakistan warns US against border incursions
Pakistan has rejected US claims that the rules of engagement gave the coalition forces in Afghanistan the right to enter its territory, saying the nation's sovereignty will be defended at all costs.
"The rules of engagement with the coalition forces are well defined and within that the right to conduct operations against the militants inside own territory is solely the responsibility of the respective armed forces," Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said in a statement in Islamabad on Wednesday.
"There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border," he added.
The statement "dispelled a perception that some of the air strikes carried out inside Pakistan by drones and warplanes of the US-led coalition had been authorised by Islamabad", Dawn said on Thursday.
Although this is not the first time NATO forces have attacked inside Pakistan, the increase in the frequency of attacks in days before last week's presidential election here was seen by many as a major shift in the US policy towards Pakistan.
*******************
Bush gave secret OK for Pakistan attacks
Order allows ground assaults for the first time
President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.
The classified orders mark a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to confront the militants' increasingly secure base in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
U,.S. officials say they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but will not ask for its permission.
"The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable," said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued."
The CIA has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military's Special Operations forces relax what have until now been firm restrictions on conducting ground raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.
Pakistan's top army officer, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said on Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate U.S. incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."
It was unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country.
Monday, September 8, 2008
US-India nuclear deal called “foolish and risky”
The US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement approved by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna is a “foolish and risky deal” that will make every country free to sell nuclear technology to India while “asking virtually nothing from India in return”, in the process undermining the very international system that India so ardently seeks to join, according to a critical assessment published here on Sunday.Mira Kamdar, a fellow at Asia Society, New York, writes in the Washington Post that while India needs energy, “this foolish, risky deal is not the way to get any of these things. India’s democracy has already paid a crippling price, and now the planet may too”. The Indo-US nuclear co-operation agreement was approved by the NSG at its meeting in Vienna this weekend. However, it still has to find congressional approval, an exercise that it may not be possible to complete during the short time left to do that. The deal, Kamdar argues, risks triggering a new arms race in Asia. If it passes, a “miffed and unstable Pakistan will seek nuclear parity with India, and China will fume at a transparent US ploy to balance Beijing’s rise by building up India as a counterweight next door”. The pact will gut global efforts to contain the spread of nuclear materials and encourage other countries to flout the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that India is now being rewarded for failing to sign. Kamdar believes that the deal will divert billions of dollars away from India’s real development needs in sustainable agriculture, education, health care, housing, sanitation and roads. It will also distract India from developing clean energy sources, such as wind and solar power, and from reducing emissions from its many coal plants. Instead, the pact will focus the nation’s efforts on an energy source that will, under the rosiest of projections, contribute a mere 8 percent of India’s total energy needs — and that will not happened until 2030. The deal will generate billions of dollars in lucrative contracts for major US and Indian companies as well as help resuscitate the moribund US nuclear power industry. France and Russia, both of which support the deal, will reap huge profits in India. According to one estimate, the deal will generate more than $100 billion in business over the next 20 years, as well as a large number of jobs in India and the United States..Kamdar writes that India will get unfettered access to nuclear fuel and technology without doing anything in return. It will not have to open all its reactors to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which means that both the new technologies India will now be able to acquire and the fuel it now has on hand can be ploughed into its nuclear weapons programme. “More ominously, the deal will tell other would-be nuclear powers — and nuclear rogues — that the old barriers to non-proliferation need not be taken seriously. They certainly have not been taken seriously by the US. Other, less high-minded powers will surely follow the shortsighted example being set by Delhi and Washington. Russia has emphatically signalled that it has had enough of global norms that it considers unfair and is keen to return to old-fashioned realpolitik. The prospect of meaningful steps toward disarmament by the existing nuclear powers is slim and dwindling.” The deal will not magically transform India into China’s economic or military equal. Even if India managed to match China reactor for reactor and missile for missile, it could do so only at the expense of precisely the investments in human and physical infrastructure that could make India into a truly great power, prosperous and secure. This is the real tragedy of the US-India nuclear deal, she concludes. . 
Third-world feminism
Although women from the so-called third world have always been engaged in the feminism movement, some criticise mainstream Western feminism on the grounds that it is ethnocentric and does not take into account the unique experiences of women from third world countries or the existence of feminism(s) indigenous to third world countries.
Third world women accuse mainstream Western feminists of looking at women's experiences as homogeneous, based on the perspectives of middle-class white Western women. According to Mohanty, third world women feel mainstream feminism bases its understanding of women on "internal racism, classism and homophobia".
Issues important for feminists
Most modern feminist political activists commonly campaign on issues such as reproductive rights, including the right to safe, legal abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care, violence within a domestic partnership, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, street harassment, discrimination and rape.
Many feminists today argue that feminism is a grass-roots movement that seeks to cross boundaries based on social class, race, culture and religion. They also argue that an effective feminist movement should be culturally specific and address issues relevant to the women of the society in question such as female genital cutting in Africa and the Middle East and the "glass ceiling" issue in developed economies. They also debate the extent to which certain issues such as rape, incest and mothering are universal. Themes explored in feminism include patriarchy, stereotyping, sexual objectification and oppression
Although women from the so-called third world have always been engaged in the feminism movement, some criticise mainstream Western feminism on the grounds that it is ethnocentric and does not take into account the unique experiences of women from third world countries or the existence of feminism(s) indigenous to third world countries.
Third world women accuse mainstream Western feminists of looking at women's experiences as homogeneous, based on the perspectives of middle-class white Western women. According to Mohanty, third world women feel mainstream feminism bases its understanding of women on "internal racism, classism and homophobia".
Issues important for feminists
Most modern feminist political activists commonly campaign on issues such as reproductive rights, including the right to safe, legal abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care, violence within a domestic partnership, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, street harassment, discrimination and rape.
Many feminists today argue that feminism is a grass-roots movement that seeks to cross boundaries based on social class, race, culture and religion. They also argue that an effective feminist movement should be culturally specific and address issues relevant to the women of the society in question such as female genital cutting in Africa and the Middle East and the "glass ceiling" issue in developed economies. They also debate the extent to which certain issues such as rape, incest and mothering are universal. Themes explored in feminism include patriarchy, stereotyping, sexual objectification and oppression
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)