Chief Justice???

If Musharraf Committed Treason, The Chief Justice 'Abetted' Him, Will He Order To Hang Himself Too?



If former President Pervez Musharraf is charged with treason, he will not be alone. So should be the politicians who supported him and the Supreme Court judges who endorsed his coup in the year 2000. Almost all of the top judges in Pakistan today fall into this category. This is why the Supreme Court did not even mention the 1999 coup and restricted itself to condemning Musharraf for his 2007 emergency rule. The incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan was among the judges who endorsed Mr. Musharraf's coup. The Article 6 of the Constitution charges with treason not only violators like Musharraf but also the 'abettors' like the honorable judges who endorsed the violator. What a predicament.



By Danyal Aziz

Tuesday, 11 August 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan—Is Mr. Ansar Abbasi right about invoking Article 6 of the Constitution against former President Pervez Musharraf?



A dispassionate analysis of the said article of the Constitution proves that he is not right.



Article 6 states in clause 2 that "any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause 1 shall likewise be guilty of high treason".



Article 6 cannot be applied selectively on President Musharraf alone but will have to be applied equally on all those who 'abetted' him.



Musharraf abrogated the Constitution twice. First in October 1999. It was a coup against an elected prime minister. Very few judges objected to the takeover and a majority of the judges took oath under the PCO, Parliament was dissolved and remained suspended for more than three years (endorsed by the Supreme Court) until it was reinstated in November 2002. The second was in November 2007 when the so called emergency rule was imposed. Interestingly, this was not a coup. The move targeted the judiciary. The government and the Parliament remained intact and the emergency lasted for six weeks.



Once Mr. Musharraf is charged for treason, justice cannot be selectively applied only on the action of 3 November 2007 while ignoring the more serious action of October 1999. It will therefore be imperative to try Musharraf and his abettors both for October 1999 and November 2007.



Now comes the one million dollar question: Will Article 6 be applied on the abettors of the two arrogations?



The 'abettors' in the Article 6 include senior members of the present Supreme Court who abetted the coup in 1999. All members of the present Supreme Court of Pakistan had pledged their allegiance to Musharraf by taking the PCO oath in 2000.



The abettors of the coups led by generals Ayub, Yahya, and Zia ul Haq can be set aside because they and most of their abettors are no longer alive. But the 'abettors' of General Musharraf's coup are around. All of them will have to be charged for treason along with Gen. Musharraf. That is the only that across-the-board justice will be done.



Do Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir want to proceed with this mass trial?



My advice is this: Let's get out of the Musharraf-phobia and move on with life and the more important issues that the Nation is facing.



The writer is a Pakistani commentator who lives in Rawalpindi. He can be reached at danyal_aziz47@yahoo.com

Coup d'Etat Underway in Honduras: OBAMA’S FIRST COUP D’ETAT

President Zelaya of Honduras has just been kidnapped

[Note: As of 11:15am, Caracas time, President Zelaya is speaking live on Telesur from San Jose, Costa Rica. He has verified the soldiers entered his residence in the early morning hours, firing guns and threatening to kill him and his family if he resisted the coup. He was forced to go with the soldiers who took him to the air base and flew him to Costa Rica. He has requested the U.S. Government make a public statement condemning the coup, otherwise, it will indicate their compliance.]

Caracas, Venezuela - The text message that beeped on my cell phone this morning read “Alert, Zelaya has been kidnapped, coup d’etat underway in Honduras, spread the word.” It’s a rude awakening for a Sunday morning, especially for the millions of Hondurans that were preparing to exercise their sacred right to vote today for the first time on a consultative referendum concerning the future convening of a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution. Supposedly at the center of the controversary is today’s scheduled referendum, which is not a binding vote but merely an opinion poll to determine whether or not a majority of Hondurans desire to eventually enter into a process to modify their constitution.

Such an initiative has never taken place in the Central American nation, which has a very limited constitution that allows minimal participation by the people of Honduras in their political processes. The current constitution, written in 1982 during the height of the Reagan Administration’s dirty war in Central America, was designed to ensure those in power, both economic and political, would retain it with little interference from the people. Zelaya, elected in November 2005 on the platform of Honduras’ Liberal Party, had proposed the opinion poll be conducted to determine if a majority of citizens agreed that constitutional reform was necessary. He was backed by a majority of labor unions and social movements in the country. If the poll had occured, depending on the results, a referendum would have been conducted during the upcoming elections in November to vote on convening a constitutional assembly. Nevertheless, today’s scheduled poll was not binding by law.

In fact, several days before the poll was to occur, Honduras’ Supreme Court ruled it illegal, upon request by the Congress, both of which are led by anti-Zelaya majorities and members of the ultra-conservative party, National Party of Honduras (PNH). This move led to massive protests in the streets in favor of President Zelaya. On June 24, the president fired the head of the high military command, General Romeo Vásquez, after he refused to allow the military to distribute the electoral material for Sunday’s elections. General Romeo Vásquez held the material under tight military control, refusing to release it even to the president’s followers, stating that the scheduled referendum had been determined illegal by the Supreme Court and therefore he could not comply with the president’s order. As in the Unted States, the president of Honduras is Commander in Chief and has the final say on the military’s actions, and so he ordered the General’s removal. The Minister of Defense, Angel Edmundo Orellana, also resigned in response to this increasingly tense situation.

But the following day, Honduras’ Supreme Court reinstated General Romeo Vásquez to the high military command, ruling his firing as “unconstitutional’. Thousands poured into the streets of Honduras’ capital, Tegucigalpa, showing support for President Zelaya and evidencing their determination to ensure Sunday’s non-binding referendum would take place. On Friday, the president and a group of hundreds of supporters, marched to the nearby air base to collect the electoral material that had been previously held by the military. That evening, Zelaya gave a national press conference along with a group of politicians from different political parties and social movements, calling for unity and peace in the country.

As of Saturday, the situation in Honduras was reported as calm. But early Sunday morning, a group of approximately 60 armed soldiers entered the presidential residence and took Zelaya hostage. After several hours of confusion, reports surfaced claiming the president had been taken to a nearby air force base and flown to neighboring Costa Rica. No images have been seen of the president so far and it is unknown whether or not his life is still endangered.

President Zelaya’s wife, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, speaking live on Telesur at approximately 10:00am Caracas time, denounced that in early hours of Sunday morning, the soldiers stormed their residence, firing shots throughout the house, beating and then taking the president. “It was an act of cowardness”, said the first lady, referring to the illegal kidnapping occuring during a time when no one would know or react until it was all over. Casto de Zelaya also called for the “preservation” of her husband’s life, indicating that she herself is unaware of his whereabouts. She claimed their lives are all still in “serious danger” and made a call for the international community to denounce this illegal coup d’etat and to act rapidly to reinstate constitutional order in the country, which includes the rescue and return of the democratically elected Zelaya.

Presidents Evo Morales of Bolivia and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela have both made public statements on Sunday morning condeming the coup d’etat in Honduras and calling on the international community to react to ensure democracy is restored and the constitutional president is reinstated. Last Wednesday, June 24, an extraordinary meeting of the member nations of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), of which Honduras is a member, was convened in Venezuela to welcome Ecuador, Antigua & Barbados and St. Vincent to its ranks. During the meeting, which was attended by Honduras’ Foreign Minister, Patricia Rodas, a statement was read supporting President Zelaya and condenming any attempts to undermine his mandate and Honduras’ democratic processes.

Reports coming out of Honduras have informed that the public television channel, Canal 8, has been shut down by the coup forces. Just minutes ago, Telesur announced that the military in Honduras is shutting down all electricity throughout the country. Those television and radio stations still transmitting are not reporting the coup d’etat or the kidnapping of President Zelaya, according to Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas. “Telephones and electricity are being cut off”, confirmed Rodas just minutes ago via Telesur. “The media are showing cartoons and soap operas and are not informing the people of Honduras about what is happening”. The situation is eerily reminiscent of the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chávez in Venezuela, when the media played a key role by first manipulating information to support the coup and then later blacking out all information when the people began protesting and eventually overcame and defeated the coup forces, rescuing Chávez (who had also been kidnapped by the military) and restoring constitutional order.

Honduras is a nation that has been the victim of dictatorships and massive U.S. intervention during the past century, including several military invasions. The last major U.S. government intervention in Honduras occured during the 1980s, when the Reagain Administration funded death squads and paramilitaries to eliminate any potential “communist threats” in Central America. At the time, John Negroponte, was the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras and was responsible for directly funding and training Honduran death squads that were responsable for thousands of disappeared and assassinated throughout the region.

On Friday, the Organization of American States (OAS), convened a special meeting to discuss the crisis in Honduras, later issuing a statement condeming the threats to democracy and authorizing a convoy of representatives to travel to OAS to investigate further. Nevertheless, on Friday, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Phillip J. Crowley, refused to clarify the U.S. government’s position in reference to the potential coup against President Zelaya, and instead issued a more ambiguous statement that implied Washington’s support for the opposition to the Honduran president. While most other Latin American governments had clearly indicated their adamant condemnation of the coup plans underway in Honduras and their solid support for Honduras’ constitutionally elected president, Manual Zelaya, the U.S. spokesman stated the following, “We are concerned about the breakdown in the political dialogue among Honduran politicians over the proposed June 28 poll on constitutional reform. We urge all sides to seek a consensual democratic resolution in the current political impasse that adheres to the Honduran constitution and to Honduran laws consistent with the principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”

As of 10:30am, Sunday morning, no further statements have been issued by the Washington concerning the military coup in Honduras. The Central American nation is highly dependent on the U.S. economy, which ensures one of its top sources of income, the monies sent from Hondurans working in the U.S. under the “temporary protected status” program that was implemented during Washington’s dirty war in the 1980s as a result of massive immigration to U.S. territory to escape the war zone. Another major source of funding in Honduras is USAID, providing over US$ 50 millon annually for “democracy promotion” programs, which generally supports NGOs and political parties favorable to U.S. interests, as has been the case in Venezuela, Bolivia and other nations in the region. The Pentagon also maintains a military base in Honduras in Soto Cano, equipped with approximately 500 troops and numerous air force combat planes and helicopters.

Foreign Minister Rodas has stated that she has repeatedly tried to make contact with the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras, Hugo Llorens, who has not responded to any of her calls thus far. The modus operandi of the coup makes clear that Washington is involved. Neither the Honduran military, which is majority trained by U.S. forces, nor the political and economic elite, would act to oust a democratically elected president without the backing and support of the U.S. government. President Zelaya has increasingly come under attack by the conservative forces in Honduras for his growing relationship with the ALBA countries, and particularly Venezuela and President Chávez. Many believe the coup has been executed as a method of ensuring Honduras does not continue to unify with the more leftist and socialist countries in Latin America.

evagolinger@hotmail.com or evagolinger@gmail.com

Mr. Asif Ali Zardari: Sold Out

Why is Mr. Zardari so eager to build ties with India at the expense of Pakistan? These are my sentiments in response to last week’s op-ed in Pakistani newspapers written by Mr. Asif Ali Zardari to commemorate Ms. Benazir Bhutto’s birthday. I am a young Pakistani woman residing in Canada. And, needless to say, I am not impressed.



By Sadia Khalid

Thursday, 2 July 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM



OTTAWA, Canada—In this time of recession, when the people aren’t getting the rightful price of their property, there is only one commodity cheaper than anything else and ready to be sold out: Mr. Asif Ali Zardari



He is shamelessly confessing (in his article published on 20 June 2009 in daily Jang newspaper) that the events of 9/11, the attacks on Indian Parliament and Mumbai’s Taj Mahal Hotel were somehow linked to Pakistan. The fact that even the Indians couldn’t come up with evidence to their allegations [they are battling with multiple separatist and freedom-fighting groups inside India] exposes Mr. Zardari’s slave mindset and how he is beholden to his masters.



The op-ed piece was supposed be about Benazir Bhutto. But Mr. President turned it into an attack on ‘radicals and extremists’ and on dictatorship, forgetting that he came to power thanks to the actions of one such dictatorship.



There are only two possibilities if we analyze this shameless confession; either his intellect is very poor or he is sold out to those who were behind those attacks. But an intelligent guess is: He is sold out and because of his poor intellect, he is unable to grasp the reality: He is President of Pakistan because of that ‘dictatorship’ and Pakistanis won’t his newfound love for democracy, especially one grew in the lap of dictatorship.



He is more eager to build a strong relationship between India and Pakistan then between him and people of Pakistan. He is forgetting that it is India who has failed to maintain the neighborly relationship not even with Pakistan but also its other neighbors like China, Nepal and Srilanka.



There is still time for Mr. Zardari to review his thoughts and stop acting like a prostitute. Otherwise he would be long gone leaving behind another name in the list of traitors of Pakistan. Pakistan is a sovereign country; the blood that runs in this nation’s veins is that of noble founders and faithful people. This sovereign country will soon rise. The people of Pakistan are eager to stand together to sing their national anthem. Mr. Zardari needs to make his place among such people, his own countrymen and not bet on foreign help.



Ms. Khalid can be reached at Sadia.kq@hotmail.com

My Graceless Indian Friends

I have to say that the Indians are as graceless in defeat as the Sri Lankans are gracious in defeat – and in victory. Some of them do nothing except read our articles and then have a seizure. I’m thinking of starting a website. If I do, I will seriously consider posting all the demented letters I have received from my “much-better-than-us-at-everything” Indian neighbors, except the ones with abuse and downright filth.



By Humayun Gauhar

Saturday, 4 July 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—I feel my readers expect me to write about Pakistan winning the Twenty20 World Cup at Lord’s last Sunday. There’s no denying it, I feel like writing about it too. It’s good to get away from the madding crises around us and talk of something nice for a change, especially when there is a humorous side to it as well.



One for the jealous ones!



Sure Pakistan needed some good news, as everyone is ranting on, but I find the contention rather overdone. After all, a cricket match is only a cricket match. It is not tantamount to defeating terrorists and ending foreign interference in our land much less ending all our problems. Have you ever thought about it though, that none of Pakistan’s security problems are homegrown but were begotten outside its borders and we have been left holding the baby every time like mutts? The freedom uprising in Indian subjugated Kashmir is a British-Indian creation but it is we who are landed with Kashmiri refugees and freedom fighters, including in their latest incarnation, the Lashkar-e-Tayba. The four million Afghan refugees living off us for nearly three decades are a Soviet creation. So are the Mujahideen to free Afghanistan from Soviet occupation. The Mujahideen-turned-Taliban – holy warriors of God turned terrorists in American eyes – are a creation of American abandonment and most recently of the US and NATO stepping into Soviet shoes and occupying and subjugating Afghanistan just like the Soviets did, though under different but equally facetious pretexts. The non-Afghan fighters that we are landed with that coalesced under the Al-Qaeda umbrella were created by their own countries – our Muslim brothers don’t forget – when they did not allow them back home and made them stateless non-persons. The mini-insurgency in Balochistan has historically been supported by the late Soviet Union and now Russia with India always in cahoots while our ‘great allies’ the Americans have looked the other way. I can go on and on but at the end of the day the fault, dear countrymen, lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we allow this to happen.



Let’s get back to cricket. For me the good aspect of the victory was that for a brief moment Pakistan showed that it is a nation with people celebrating in every nook and cranny of the country over a pleasant issue and not something as tragic as an earthquake or a war. Without wishing to make a big thing out of it, it does show that we are not as disunited as advertised. The only thing we lack is something good to unite around.



I have to say that the Indians are as graceless in defeat as the Sri Lankans are gracious in defeat – and in victory. So dignified, but that came through clear as crystal after the terrorist attack on them in Lahore. Not 24 hours after our victory I got a letter from a peculiar Indian without grace who writes to me and other columnists in Pakistan often (don’t these guys have anything better to do than to regularly read our articles and then have a seizure?) saying that Pakistan has copied India in everything. “We won the ODI World Cup first then you went and won it in 1992,” said this graceless Indian. “Then we won the T 20 the first time round and next you have gone and won it. Why don’t you follow our example in something that matters?” My graceless Indian correspondent forgets that India first unleashed nuclear terror in the subcontinent in 1974 and we perforce had to follow suit and acquired a fearful nuclear arsenal of our own.



Does that matter? Not to forget that India has some 79 percent of its people living in abject poverty on $2 a day or less and we have followed suit though have not yet been able to catch up with the neighbors that we’re landed with, with ‘only’ 73 percent of our population living in poverty. That must matter. But why labor the point in a happy moment?



Okay, let’s get down to cricket, but before I do so I have to mention this other graceless idiot – sorry Indian (same difference as the Indians would say) – who wrote to me only today saying that Shahid Afridi is graceless and doesn’t have a brain. Give me more brainless Afridis, I say! They are better than the brainy Indians. At least they bring the bear home. I must stress, though, that not for a minute do I mean that all Indians are idiots. Far from it. But the many that are do provide great diversion in difficult times. Thank God for them. Never would I wish them away. More power to their elbows.



India’s problem is frustration. It tried its best to isolate Pakistan from international cricket but we are still a cricketing force to reckon with after winning the T 20 World Cup. Considering that our boys hardly got an international game after 2007 they still became T 20 World Champions. India’s effort has gone down the drain. Chin up boys, next time round you might win again. Then you can start jumping and hopping and screaming “India Shining” or “Shining India” or whatever it is that you want us to believe.



Okay, finally to cricket. I promise you I will not get diverted this time, though I am waiting anxiously for the graceless and demented letters I am going to receive from my Indian neighbors in response to this article. “You don’t know anything. You don’t know India. We are much better than you in everything and anything. Why, we can even do the Indian rope trick. Can you?” And so on and so stupid forth. I’m thinking of starting a website. If I do, I will seriously consider posting all the demented letters I have received from my “much-better-than-us-at-everything” Indian neighbors, except the ones with abuse and downright filth. I might even reply to some, something I have never done, much to their chagrin. When they don’t answer my questions, why the hell should I answer theirs? For example, it has been quite a while since I asked them to explain how rubber dinghies brimming with terrorists could evade the might of the great Indian navy and coast guard in full cry during an exercise on the high seas aimed at thwarting just such an eventuality? That’s not the half of it. They managed to land at Bombay’s main pier, hail taxis under the noses of the great Indian police, load them with crates of weapons, go off and buy provisions from a market and then proceed to occupy the most high profile buildings in the city. It defies credulity. All I get in response is: “Your government has admitted that Ajmal Kasab is a Pakistani.” Okay, so he is a Pakistani. Big deal. We have many Indian terrorists in our jails as well but your government has never had the grace to admit who they are. And in any case, it doesn’t answer my questions. Was Kasab one of the passengers on one of the rubber dinghies or was he in situ already? When did he get to India? Who were the Indians who were helping them? Nothing. Not a squeak.



Yet, India’s two-time proxy prime minister (Sonia is the one they really want) goes on and on like a broken gramophone record, that we will not resume the dialogue for peace until you finish terrorism in your country first. Who the hell is going to explain to this otherwise educated gentleman that until his country finishes state terrorism, terrorism against India within our country or anywhere else will not finish? But it is our fault too for living the pipedream that India will one day agree to an acceptable Kashmir solution or that there will be peace between our countries in our lifetimes. The most we can hope for is the absence of war and needling one another – what they call ‘normalization’. We should forget about love, peace and friendship and stop wasting each other’s time. And we should stop being so stupid as to expect India to consciously shoot itself in the foot by agreeing to a Kashmir solution, causing further fragmentation.



This column appeared in The Nation on Sunday, 28 June 2009. Mr. Gauhar can be reached at humayun.gauhar@gmail.com

Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

U. S. Naval Institute

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.

While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy...the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

Pirates of the Mediterranean

Paul Craig Roberts
V Dare
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

On June 30, the government of Israel committed an act of piracy when the Israeli Navy in international waters illegally boarded the “Spirit of Humanity,” kidnapped its 21-person crew from 11 countries, including former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and Nobel Laureate Mairead MaGuire, and confiscated the cargo of medical supplies, olive trees, reconstruction materials, and children’s toys that were on the way to the Mediterranean coast of Gaza. The “Spirit of Humanity,” along with the kidnapped 21 persons is being towed to Israel as I write.

Gaza has been described as the “world’s largest concentration camp.” It is home to 1.5 million Palestinians who were driven by force of American-supplied Israeli arms out of their homes, off their farms, and out of their villages so that Israel could steal their land and make the Palestinian land available to Israeli settlers.

What we have been witnessing for 60 years is a replay in modern times, despite the United Nations and laws strictly preventing Israel’s theft of Palestine, of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers. An Israeli government spokesman recently rebuked the President of the United States, a country, the Israeli said, who stole all of its land from Indians, for complaining about Israel’s theft of Palestine.

I knew the “Spirit of Humanity” would fall to Israeli piracy the minute I received on June 25 from an official of an Israeli peace organization a “public advisory” that the government of Cyprus had withheld permission for the “Spirit of Humanity” to leave for Gaza. The US State Department had advised that “The Israeli Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israel still considers Gaza an area of conflict and that any boats attempting to sail to Gaza will not be permitted to reach its destination.” The “Spirit of Humanity” obtained permission to leave Cyprus when all aboard signed a waiver absolving Cyprus of all responsibility for the crew’s safety at the hands of the Israelis.

As President Obama has called for humanitarian aid to be sent to Gaza, and as the International Red Cross has damned the inhumanity of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the question that immediately comes to mind is why did not the United States send sufficient US Navy escort to see the “Spirit of Humanity” safely through international waters to Gaza? We send ships against Somalian pirates, why not against Israeli ones?

We all know the answer. The US talks a good “human rights” game, but never delivers–especially if the human rights abuser is Israel. After all, Israel owns the US Congress and President Obama. Israel even has an Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli Defense Forces as the Chief-of-Staff in Obama’s White House. Israel owns millions of American “Christian Zionists” and “rapture evangelicals.” When it comes to Israel, the American government is a puppet state. It does what it is told.

Macho Americans might stand tall, but not when Israel snaps its fingers.

Israel, of course, will get away with a mere act of piracy. After all, Israel has been getting away with its war crimes and violations of international law for 60 years. If the UN tries to do anything, the US will veto it, as the US has done for decades.

What will happen to the kidnapped foreign nationals? Most likely they will be released and sent back to their respective countries. Israel, of course, will keep the stolen “Spirit of Humanity” to foreclose any further attempts by human rights activists to run Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza.

On the other hand, Israel might declare its captives to be terrorists on the ground that the Gazans elected in a free election Hamas as their government. Hamas, unlike Israel, is declared to be a terrorist organization by the puppet American State Department in Washington. Thus the human rights activists onboard the “Spirit of Humanity” are aiding and abetting terrorists by delivering goods to them. The US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutes American citizens and charities for sending aid to Palestinians on the grounds that Palestinians, if not everyone a terrorist, are governed by terrorists.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a Nobel Laureate and a former member of the US House of Representatives, along with the rest of the crew, are handed over to the Americans for indefinite detention and for torturing and waterboarding in the American torture facility at Bagram. I am certain that “Homeland Security” and the US Government are desperate to be rid of all of critics, and knocking off a Nobel Laureate and a member of the House sets a precedent for getting rid of the rest of us.

Meanwhile, California, which has become a failed state, has been denied bailout money from Washington. Israel, which has been a failed state for 60 years, can, unlike the American state of California, always count of Washington to deliver the money and the weapons to keep Israel going.

The same week that “our” government in Washington told the Governor of California “not one red cent,” President Barak Obama handed over $2.775 billion to Israel.

Online Journal (June 29) reported that the handover to Israel of the unemployed Americans’ tax dollars took place in a “tiny Capitol room” to which members of the press were denied access. I mean, really, who wants the media writing about US taxpayer dollars for Israel’s nuclear weapons while Americans are being kicked out of their homes. Not that, of course, the “Christian” supporters of Israel would mind.

Unlike every other recipient of US military largesse, Israel is permitted to bypass the Pentagon and to deal directly with US suppliers. Consequently, the Israel Lobby’s influence multiplies, because military suppliers fight for Israel in congressional committees in order to get Israel’s business. This lets Israel turn the screws on Iran. According to Grant F. Smith writing in Online Journal, Republican US Representative Mark Steven from Illinois has received $221,000 in campaign contributions from Israel political action committees (PACs). Therefore, it was a sure thing that he would introduce legislation preventing the Import-Export bank from providing loan guarantees to countries doing business with Iran.

Americans think that they are a superpower, but in fact they are a stupor-power. A puppet state if truth be known.

There is a great deal of evidence, even in Time magazine that Israel is a child abuser. “God’s Chosen People” routinely abuses captured Palestinian children. The Israelis also abuse Palestinian children by shooting them down in the streets.

Don’t take my word for it. The Geneva-based Defense for Children International says, according to Time Magazine, that “the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child prisoners appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized, suggesting complicity at all levels of the political and military chain of command.”

According to Time Magazine, “Often, children suffer lasting traumas from jail. Says Saleh Nazzal from the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoner Affairs, ‘When soldiers burst into a house and drag away a child, he loses his feeling of being protected by his family. He comes back from prison alienated from his family, his friends. They don’t like going back to school or even leaving the house. They start wetting their beds.’ Says Mona Zaghrout, a YMCA counselor who helps kids returning from prison: ‘They come out of prison thinking and acting like they are men. Their childhood is gone.’ And they often turn to another father figure–the armed militant groups fighting the Israeli occupation.’”

And so it goes. There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it. Israel need the Americans’ taxpayers money to that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, need more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil.

And the brainwashed American public goes along year after year

Israel threatens to shoot international activists

The postwar humanitarian crisis in Gaza takes a turn for the worse with the Israeli Navy intercepting a relief ship headed toward the coastal strip.

A group of 21 activists sailing to Gaza said Tuesday that Israeli forces had threatened to gun down their boat unless they changed direction.

"There is a patrol boat around us and we were told that if we did not turn back they would open fire," Reuters quoted Irish activist Derek Graham as saying.

"We are continuing our course to Gaza," he added.

The Free Gaza Movement activists had left the Cypriot port of Larnaca earlier on Monday to deliver three tons of medical supplies, some tool kits and copper wiring to Gaza.

The activists onboard included an Irish Nobel peace laureate and a former US congresswoman.

Tel Aviv has tightened a blockade on Gaza, which is home to some 1.5 million people, since the democratically elected government of Hamas took power of the strip two years ago.

Israel's consistent blockades have cost Palestinians dearly with unemployment and poverty rates in the territory being amongst the highest in the world.

According to the official statistics agency of the Palestinian Authority, a steady decline is to be expected in the economy of the West Bank and Gaza.

With more than six months after Israel's three-week attack on the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are fighting to survive the acute shortages of fuel, food and medical supplies.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said Friday that Israel's full-scale offensive on Gaza has taken a heavy toll on the territory's agriculture sector and has heightened risks of food insecurity and undernourishment.

Brookings Publication mentions possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation’ to Trigger Iran Invasion

Jurriaan Maessen

Prisonplanet.com
June 29, 2009

In a recent policy paper published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia by the new world order, including bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering by an all-out military assault of Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of the firm intent of the globalists to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources in the same effort.

The group of authors- a cozy little convergence of globalists- contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but is really nothing more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.

To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:

‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’

This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):

‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’

But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favourable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.

‘(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’

Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset. They mean to rally the ‘international community’ through bribery and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.
Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the bravura of their manuscript.

‘We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.’

As the geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:

‘Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’

And exactly in line with their masters tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.

‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’

Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it. Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:

‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’

Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):

‘Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?‘Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:



‘Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.’

The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called ‘Inspiring an Insurgency’, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists lute their nation:

‘The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.’

Isn’t that a familiar sight? Could one way to ‘highlight’ group grievances be to mass distribute the death of a poor woman and then claim it’s all thanks to Twitter?

All this hinting at another false-flag attack underway and prepping the international community for a future invasion of Iran is becoming increasingly serious as the warmongering is being stepped up. This is the time to fix our eyes upon these globalists and their think tanks. If their blatant arrogance permits them to openly publish their bloodthirsty musings, we should be vigilant enough to pass this knowledge around lest we have another 9/11 on our hands.

Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

Iran’s Presidential Elections, Islamic Populism and Liberation Theology

by Prof. Akbar E. Torbat

In Iran’s presidential elections, on June 12, 2009, the incumbent president Mahmud Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory. His main contender Mir-Hossein Mousavi could only secure about one third of the votes. The following is an explanation of what has happened and why Ahmadinejad has gained popularity to be reelected despite the Western media showing him differently.

Iran’s Presidential Elections 2009

A day before the election, the Iranian political activist Nasser Zarafshan said “a Ukraine-type velvet revolution” is in the cards to be played by the West in order to dominate Iran. A well financed high-tech campaign using YouTube, Facebook and twitter on the Internet and text messaging communication was underway in Iran. Yet, these means of communication are only known to a small fraction of Iran’s population. In addition, thousands of expensive posters, CDs, and other items prepared by pro-Mousavi green camp quickly flooded the streets of Tehran. The Western Media and especially the Farsi Language television programs such as the Persian BBC and Voice of America had potent impacts on the so called “reformists” or the neoliberal candidates’ supporters, but not Ahmadinejad’s constituencies that are masses not affected by such modern propagandas. The Western media boasted Mousavi’s image without knowing much about who he was. Obviously, he could not be painted as “Iran’s Gandhi” as some Western reporters ridiculously touted. Mousavi is not a charismatic leader and does not have an impressive record. In fact he was an Islamic fanatic when he became prime minster. He helped to shut down the Iranian universities for three years in order to launch the so called “Cultural Revolution”. Also, during his repressive premiership, thousands of Iranian political prisoners were executed. He has been out of politics for about 20 years and has not been socially active. He does not have broad view of what is happening in the world and especially in the neighboring countries.

In this election, behind the scene, the former president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was the key architect of Mousavi’s election campaign and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei backed Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani wishes to dominate the Islamic regime’s political structure replacing the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is at the top echelon of the clerical regime. Rafsanjani is very wealthy and is the most favorite cleric by the West. He does not seem to mind letting the West control Iran’s oil resources in exchange for ruling Iran by himself. In the past, people have called him “King Akbar”. In such situation, if he succeeds, the Islamic Republic could be turned into a Persian Gulf type monarchy or sheikhdom instead of a Western democracy as is dreamed by some Iranian political elites. However, Rafsanjani has been under pressure because of his corruption in arms purchases during Iran-Iraq war and the money he and his family members received to give oil contracts to the French oil company Total and his roles in ordering political assassinations of many of dissidents at home and abroad. Before the elections, Mousavi’s campaign spent conspicuously in the city of Tehran under the banner of Green color. Where he got the money from is an unanswered question.

The Presidential candidates in Iran are vetted by a twelve member body that is called Council of Guardian. In this election only three candidates from within the Islamic regime were selected by the Guardian Council to contest Ahmadinejad; the other nominees were not allowed to run. In the election, the incumbent President faced the last Iranian prime minister, Mir-Hossein Mousavi; a cleric and a former Parliament speaker, Mehdi Karroubi; and a former senior military commander, Mohsen Rezaei. However, none of the three contenders were delivering any new agenda on how to deal with the countries’ problems; they only criticized what the incumbent president had not done well in their view. Nearly 40 million Iranians or 85% of the eligible voters participated in the election. This was the highest turnout in ten presidential elections held in Iran. The official results as announced on June 14 by the Interior Ministry were: Ahmadinejad 24.5 million (63.62%), Mousavi 13.2 million (33.75%), Rezaei 0.67 million (1.73%), and Karroubi 0.33 million (0.85%) of the votes. The invalid votes canceled were 0.40 million (1.4%). The Spokesman for the Interior Ministry Ali Asghar Sharifi-Rad said the results were accurate and the representatives of all candidates had been present at the polling stations and signed off the final tallies.

Disputing the Election Results

Surprisingly, some well known Iranians became tools of Western media propaganda during and after the elections. An Iranian professor at Columbia University, an Iranian academic in the Hoover Institution, and a well known Iranian filmmaker residing in France were among many who jumped the bandwagon to claim the election was rigged. None of them showed any credible evidence to prove how a candidate who had more than 10 million votes compared to his main contender was not legitimately elected. Many filled the media with false claims, saying genuine results could not be declared as fast as they had been by the Iranian media. They misled the public because in reality about 3 hours after the poles were closed, Iranian media started announcing the election results of only 20% of the votes counted, and that was followed with more up-to-date data until the final tallies were announced at a later time. At the end, the announced results in favor of the incumbent were close to what had been predicted by several respected polling agencies (for example see The Washington Post June 15) in the runoff to the elections.

The three candidates who did not have any credible evidence for the alleged rigging asked for annulling the elections from the very beginning. They never wanted a recount because their representatives had been present at the polling stations and had already signed off on the results. They knew the numbers were not on their side as was largely predicted. In the following days, the main contender, Mousavi, brought his supporters to the streets of Tehran, the only major city he had won, to pressure the regime for annulling the results. This did not prevent millions of Iranians from coming out to the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities to express their support for the status quo versus the West campaign to put its most favorite candidate who was Rafsanjani’s proxy in power. After a few days of protests in the streets of Tehran in which a number of people were killed; on June 19 in a powerful speech at Tehran University, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei called for an end to street protests and assured the public that the government by no means had betrayed the votes of the nation. He blamed the Zionists and the Western powers, “specially the malicious British government”, for the post election protests and the riots.

Ahmadinejad's Populism

In 2005, Ahmadinejad advocated populist economic policies during his presidential campaign, which included “putting oil money on impoverished peoples’ dining table (Sofreh).” As a result, he gained strong grassroots’ support from urban poor and rural dwellers. Ahmadinejad became the first enduring non-cleric president who wanted to pursue the initial goals of the revolution that included economic justice and political sovereignty. When he became president, he implemented some small-scale development projects, including building hospitals, bridges, roads, and schools in the rural areas, financed by the oil money. Ahmadinejad gained support from underprivileged Iranians who favor his economic justice program. He was also supported by those who believe he has promoted Iran’s technological and defense progress. There are about three million impoverished women in Iran who weave carpets in their homes. Ahmadinejad brought a law to give them full insurance. Also, Ahmadinejad initiated distribution of some government-owned enterprises’ shares called “Justice Shares,” to redistribute state wealth to the low income Iranians. Justice shares are mutual fund shares of the state-owned enterprises that are privatized.

The election in Iran depicted a class struggle between those who live comfortably in modern urban centers and want Western style social life versus impoverished people in rural areas and smaller cities who seek better life in the traditional Islamic culture. The former had strong support from the West for social change, while the latter relied on the status quo in the country. The affluent Iranians do not like Ahmadinejad but the urban poor and those in the rural areas love him. As has been reported by the Christian Science Monitor, Ahmadinejad is greeted like a rock star when he visits small cities and rural Iran.

Some university professors and student groups do not like Ahmadinejad because they consider him to be an Islamic fanatic. In December 2005, Abbasali Amir Zanjani, a cleric was appointed the Chancellor of Tehran University. The appointment caused strong backlash from the intellectuals and the university students against the President. Zanjani was finally replaced in February 2008 by an economist Farhad Rahbar. Also, early forced retirement of a number of professors in Tehran University caused wide student protests. Tehran University is the first university established in Iran and has been historically the center of intellectual activism. As a result, Ahmadinejad became unpopular within some circles of Iranian intellectuals. But that has not affected his popularity among the majority of lower-middle class and impoverished Iranians.

Radical Islam and Liberation Theology

Ahmadinejad has been able to make alliance with some countries in Latin America. Latin America’s Catholic Church and radical Islam have something in common. Both religious movements have support of the masses to challenge domination of their countries by the Western imperial powers. There is a similarity between radical Islamists in Iran and the supporters of liberal theologians’ movements in Latin America. They both have common ideology to resist the West hegemony. Liberation theology, originated in Catholic Church, emphasizes effort to bring justice to the poor and oppressed. Liberation theology uses democratic socialism as a political theory to combat poverty. Radical Islam similarly uses political aspects of Islam as a force for creating national liberation and economic justice. Ali Shariati is known to be the first Islamist thinker who merged Islam political ideology and liberation theology. He was influenced by Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara, but unlike them who rejected religion in supporting national liberation, Shariati tailored Iran’s Islamic ideological roots as a means to mobilize masses for national liberation. However, Shariati was against clerical rule. He died mysteriously before the revolution in 1977, widely believed to be a victim of the Shah’s secret police (Savak) assassination. He did not live to see the clerics dominating political leadership in Iran.

Ahmadinejad pursues the same brand of Islamic radicalism as Shariati. He has been able to use religion to challenge the hegemony of the West as the liberation theologian leaders have done in Latin America. In this context Ahmadinejad joins similar brand of political figures such as Luiz Lula da Silva of Brazil, Hugo Chavez Venezuela, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, and Bolivian President Evo Morales who enjoy popularity among the Roman Catholic Church followers. However, there is an important distinction between the Islamic Republic and the Latin American governments. The Islamic Republic is a quasi-theocracy run by the clerics, while the Latin American countries are secular republics that are only supported by the Church. In the past, some Muslim political leaders have advocated Islamic Socialism. Examples are: Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Zulfakar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan, and Jamal Abdul Nasser in Egypt. Ahmadinejad too has strived for a socially just Islamic State in Iran. It remains to be seen whether he can succeed.

Akbar E. Torbat (atorbat@csudh.edu ) teaches at the College of Business Administration and Public Policy, California State University – Dominguez Hills. He has published a number of articles in scholarly journals concerning Iran. He received his Ph.D. in political economy from the University of Texas at Dallas.

US 'has agents working inside Iran'

The US has intelligence agents in Iran but it is not clear if they are providing help to the protest movement there, a former US national security adviser has told Al Jazeera.

Brent Scowcroft said on Wednesday that "of course" the US had agents in Iran amid the ongoing pressure against the Iranian government by protesters opposed to the official result of its presidential election.

But he added that he had no idea whether US agents had provided help to the opposition movement in Iran, which claims that the authorities rigged the June 12 election in favour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president.

"They might do. Who knows?" Scowcroft told Josh Rushing for Al Jazeera's Fault Lines programme.

"But that's a far cry from helping protesters against the combined might of the Revolutionary Guard, the militias and so on - and the [Iranian] police, who are so far completely unified."

Limited options

Scowcroft's admission that Washington has agents stationed in Iran comes a day after the US president issued tougher rhetoric against the government in Iran.

Barack Obama's sterner tone came after days of deadly clashes between the opposition and Iranian security forces and militias.

Obama has been criticised by US conservative politicians for not taking a stronger line against Tehran amid the government crackdown, but Scowcroft, a former adviser to presidents Gerald Ford and the senior George Bush, said the US could only do so much.

"We don't control Iran. We don't control the government, obviously," he said.

"There is little we can do to change the situation domestically in Iran right now and I think an attempt to change it is more likely to be turned against us and against the people who are demonstrating for more freedom.

"Therefore, I think we need to look at what we can do best, which is to try to influence Iranian behaviour in the region."

At least 19 people have been killed in post-election violence in Iran, which broke out at the scene of protests questioning the veracity of the poll results.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger to Ahmadinejad, has rejected the official results of the vote and has called for a fresh election to be held, while Mehdi Karoubi, another defeated candidate in the election, has called the new government "illegitimate".

But the Guardian Council, Iran's highest legislative body, has said that there were no incidences of major fraud in the vote and has declared that the official results will stand.

REAL LIFE DRAMA IN THE AIR Remembering 12th October, 1999

October, 1999 Capt Sarwat of Pakistan International Airlines Airbus-300, an old buddy, and I had gone to Colombo , SriLanka for Airlanka Golf classic tournament.

On the 10th October, after returning from the 18th hole (towards the finish of the game) that I saw General Pervez Musharraf (chief of Joint staff and Chief of the army staff) teeing- off with the Bangladeshi COAS for a friendly match. Gen Musharraf had gone to Colombo to represent Pakistan on the 50th anniversary of Sri Lankan armed forces. On the 12th October we were to return back to Pakistan and our flight route was Colombo-Male (Maldives )- Karachi . The flight time between Male and Karachi was almost three and a half hours. Capt. Sarwat was Commander of the flight PK/805 and I was traveling as a passenger in the club class but being cockpit crew of PIA I could visit the cockpit with the consent of the Capt. of the flight. The First officer of the flight was Mr. Shami {who was on his first clearance check flight to Sri Lanka } and the flight engineer Mr. Amir. Gen Pervez Musharraf boarded the plane with his wife and two of his personal staff officers. Gen. Musharraf and his wife were seated in the front extreme right hand side seats and the PSO's occupied the last two seats on the same side. There were a total of 198 persons aboard that flight out of which almost 50 were children from the American school with six foreign teachers.

The flight to Male was bumpy due to rain and clouds. At Male, which was a transit stop, Gen. Musharraf, his wife and the PSO's disembarked to see the strange looking island which had nothing but just a runway strip. At Male, Capt. Sarwat after getting the weather information of Karachi and Nawabshah decided to refuel the aircraft, keeping Nawabshah airfield as an alternative (Nawabshah airfield is almost 110 nautical miles north east of Karachi ). It meant that the aircraft could reach Karachi and in contingency could divert to Nawabshah and keep flying in air for another 45 minutes before landing at Nawabshah which is normally the fuel policy of the airlines throughout the world.

The departure from Male was uneventful. The airplane started cruising at 29000 feet, I was sitting in the cockpit jump seat and occasionally would stand up to stretch and walk in the cabin. During the flight, the air guards and the cabin crew requested Gen Pervez Musharraf for individual and group photographs. Capt Sarwat also came to the club class from the cockpit to greet the VIP.

After two and half hours of flight and now cruising at 33000 feet, we established contact with Karachi air traffic controller. The first thing the Karachi radio controller asked was how much fuel was on board? What was our alternate airfield? And how many passengers were on board? I was standing behind the flight Engineer's seat and listening to the whole conversation through the cockpit speakers. On hearing this I did point out to Capt. Sarwat "Isn't it strange for Karachi to be asking this?" to which he nodded "yes". It was a clear night and probably the third of moon was out but we could later on see Karachi very clearly. The initial approach given to us was direct Marvi (shortest route) but after a while Karachi changed the clearance via Nansi (the longer route) and gave us descent clearance to 10000ft. As the airplane reached almost within 60 miles the Karachi tower said "PK /805 you are not cleared to land at Karachi ". "Can we proceed to Nawabshah?" Capt Sarwat asked ATC after pondering for a little while as to what must be going on down below. "Nawabshah is also closed" came the reply. "But Nawabshah is our alternate!" said Capt Sarwat forcefully. Karachi ATC said "you will land at your own risk you cannot land in Pakistan . All airfields are closed". "We do not have fuel for any other airfield!" Capt. Sarwat replied but once again but there was complete silence from the ATC.

The Karachi ATC was questioned thrice but all in vain ---- there was no answer. During the ATC conversation it seemed quite obvious that someone behind the controller was passing the instruction because more than three or more persons could be heard in the background of the reception. A KLM flight which was somewhere in air and listening to this conversation also shouted, "Karachi why don't you give the reason to the PK 805". While the commotion was on, Capt Sarwat assumed that perhaps it may be due to the VIP sitting aboard. Sarwat knowing my air force background asked me and the other crew "Partner what do you think, should I tell the general about this?" I butted in and said why not, let's get whatever help we can!"

Capt called the purser and asked him to inform the personal staff officers of the general. Both the PSO's were informed and they came rushing into the cockpit. After listening to the Capt. they went to inform the General. Meanwhile Capt Sarwat asked the flight engineer as to how much fuel was left, and if we could make it to Muscat . "No way, we have only five and a half tons of fuel left at this 10000 feet altitude" he calculated. Meanwhile General Musharraf had entered the cockpit. During the discussion between the flight crew members, two other alternate airfields for diversion were considered. Chahbahar in Iran and Ahmedabad in India . After a little discussion with the flight engineer regarding remaining fuel and new airfield and night landing facility, Chahbahar was not considered as an alternate airfield. "Do we have the approach and landing information on Ahmedabad? Please open and consult Jeppesen (the flight crew bible} immediately" Sarwat asked the co-pilot.

General Musharraf was listening to the conversation and he asserted "We will not go to India, that is not an option", to which Capt Sarwat said "okay General as you say." Now the Gen said that he wanted to talk to the Corp commander Karachi , immediately. After a while the PSO gave the mobile telephone number to the flight engineer and wrote the land telephone number of the Corp. Commander. Karachi . The flight engineer Amir tried many times to dial the telephone but there was no dial tone. In this hurry and in presence of the general, the flight engineer mishandled his flash light and broke its glass. The flight engineer Amir said we are not getting the connection through and it seems as if the telephone lines have been cut. The general then asked as to why we couldn't speak on the long range radio- the high frequency. The flight engineer tried to establish contact through company high frequency phone patch but it was all quiet, and no answer was received.

The other airplanes flying in Karachi vicinity were instructed by the Karachi ATC to divert because Karachi airport was closed. An aircraft of Pakistan Air Force which was in inbound to Karachi from Islamabad was instructed by the Karachi air traffic controller to land at Nawabshah, immediately. But the PAF Captain was not willing to accept this order and asserted that the PAF flight would go back to Islamabad . While the argument between the PAF aircraft and Karachi ATC were going on the Capt Sarwat changed the radio frequency. However later on I investigated about the PAF flight and I found out that it was a Boeing 737 VIP aircraft, which was on routine maintenance trip to Karachi but was forced to land at Nawabshah airfield. The police at Nawabshah, with special instructions was waiting for the two engine jet aircraft. Since it is difficult for a common man to distinguish between a Boeing 737 and an Airbus A-300, therefore Nawabshah police cordoned off the aircraft after parking. But as the doors were opened Pakistani Army soldiers rushed to the aircraft and shouted at the police to buzz off otherwise they would be shot at. The Police dispersed and now the army took charge of the aircraft. An Army officer entered the aircraft. To their dismay, they found the wife and children of the PAF Capt sitting inside, "Where is the General?" inquired the army officer. "What General?" asked the crew? PAF crew told them that they were going to Karachi from Islamabad . "But we were told that you are coming from Colombo " said the officer surprised

In the air at the very same time, the first officer of the aircraft saw two blips on traffic collision avoidance system and shouted "We are being intercepted; probably there are two fighter aircraft".

The conversation in the cockpit our plane had become tense and was blended with other actions in the cockpit, which had become rather twice demanding. I noticed that at no point any of the crew or the VIP lost their cool. The general insisted several times that we land at Karachi . He also inquired as to why we couldn't land at the air force runways at Karachi . But probably due to the fighter aircraft and no knowledge as to what was happening below on ground, with no runway lights landing at PAF Airfields was considered as the last option. If we could not land at Karachi or at Nawabshah due to runway blockade with tractors and bulldozers etc then Shahrah-e-Faisal or Masroor was the last option anyways. At this point Capt Sarwat changed to PIA company radio channel. Sarwat was asked about the remaining fuel. Someone at the company channel directed PK805 to proceed and land at Nawabshah, then refuel the airplane with 30 tones of fuel and once again get airborne and wait for further instructions.

After a few minutes, the Karachi ATC came on air and cleared PK805 to divert to Nawabshah. . Capt Sarwat then heaved a sigh of relief and said "Let's go to Nawabshah". The Airbus climbed like a missile to 20000 feet in no time since there was hardly any fuel left in the aircraft and it was rather light. At about 60 miles north of Karachi PK805 was redirected to come and land at Karachi by the Karachi ATC. A quick turnabout and descent was initiated. Someone from the ATC asked to speak to the general. Capt Sarwat gave his microphone to the general and said, "Sir please speak".

"This is Pervez Musharraf, who is there?" the general inquired very assertively. "I am Gen. Iftikhar sir, your retirement was announced two hours before but we are in control. Please land at Karachi "Where is the Corp Commander?" the general questioned "He is in the next room waiting for you "was the reply. Both the PSO's were listening and the younger PSO (a Major) said" Sir, ask him the name of his dog". Probably he wanted to be sure in recognizing the GOC, but the general who had kept his cool all along said confidently, "He is my man, don't worry!"(Later on this officer on ground happened to be a friend of mine who told me that General Musharraf had given him two puppies and that's how the PSO wanted to determine his identity)

Meanwhile he plane was reaching for its final approach. Suddenly the low fuel warning light of right wing fuel tank came on with an audio chime. The cockpit was dead silent and everyone was waiting to feel the touchdown as soon as possible. We had waited almost one hour and ten minutes in the air. The remaining fuel of 1.2 ton in the wing tanks, if reliable, was only available for approximately ten minutes of flight time. At twelve miles short of landing, the left wing fuel tank warning light also appeared with chime.

After touch down PK 805 was asked to park at the remote area (Bay 66) and was informed that no other person than the VIP will come out of the aircraft. After the engines shut down, the army soldiers who were almost two hundred cordoned-off the aircraft. The General was looking from the cockpit window and seemed relaxed. Before disembarking from the aircraft the general shook hands with all of us and said, "Thank you, don't worry all is well, he's my man." And he immediately passed his very first order through his PSO, "Tell them I don't want anyone to leave the country."

The General, his wife, who was trying to control her tears, and the two PSO's disembarked from the plane and were greeted by the Corp. Commander and the GOC with salutes from the soldiers. They all went inside a building for a short conference, which took almost 15 min after which the whole contingent drove away very fast. PK805 was not allowed to start the engines perhaps because of the security and almost no remaining fuel and was thus towed to the international arrival side (Bay 23). During the whole episode I was the quietest and the closest observer in the cockpit and was thoroughly impressed to watch total professionalism from Capt Sarwat and his crew. Not to mention the way General carried himself and remained confident and totally composed throughout the whole episode.

Capt. Tariq

Taliban Losses Are No Sure Gain for Pakistani's

By:JANE PERLEZ and PIR ZUBAIR SHAH

For the past month and a half the Pakistani military has claimed success in retaking the Swat Valley from the Taliban clawing back its own territory from insurgents who only a short time ago were extending their reach toward the heartland of the country.Yet from a helicopter flying low over the valley last week the low rise buildings of Mingora the largest city in Swat now deserted and under a 24 hour curfew appeared unscathed. In the surrounding countryside farmers had harvested wheat and red onions on their unscarred land.

All that is testament to the fact that the Taliban mostly melted away without a major fight possibly to return when the military withdraws or to fight elsewhere military analysts say. About two million people have been displaced in Swat and the surrounding area as the military has carried out its campaign.The reassertion of control over Swat has at least temporarily denied the militants a haven they coveted inside Pakistan proper. The offensive has also won strong support from the United States which has urged Pakistan to engage the militants.

But the Taliban’s decision to scatter leaves the future of Swat and Pakistan’s overall stability under continued threat military analysts and some politicians say.The tentative results in Swat also do not bode well for the military’s new push in the far more treacherous terrain of South Waziristan another insurgent stronghold where officials have vowed to take on the leader of the Pakistani Taliban Baitullah Mehsud who remains Pakistan’s most wanted man.

Signs abound that the military’s campaign in Swat is less than decisive. The military extended its deadline for ending the campaign. Even in the areas where progress has been made the military controls little more than urban centers and roads say those who have fled the areas. The military has also failed to kill or capture even one top Taliban commander.

It was “very disappointing ” said Aftab Ahmed Sherpao a senior politician from the region that none of the commanders had been eliminated. It turned out he said that early reports of the capture of Ibn Amin a particularly brutal commander from Matta were incorrect.

Many Taliban fighters have infiltrated the camps set up for those displaced by the fighting and are likely to return with them to Swat said Himayatullah Mayar the mayor of Mardan the city where many of the refugees are staying. “Most of the Taliban shaved their beards and they are living here with their families ” he said.As of two weeks ago the police had arrested 150 people in the camps suspected of being members of the Taliban Mr. Mayar said. This figure did not include suspects arrested by the Intelligence Bureau Pakistan’s domestic intelligence outfit and the Directorate forInter Services Intelligence the country’s main spy agency he said.

Meanwhile the government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has yet to announce a full plan for how it will provide services like courts policing and health care that will allow the refugees to return home and the government to fully assert control.Those plans appear to be mired in conflict and mutual suspicion between the military and the civilian government raising serious questions about whether the authorities can secure Swat and other areas and keep them from being taken back by the Taliban military experts said.

“I’ve told the president and the prime minister and the chief of the army this is the time to act. Just take basic things and implement them ” said Gen. Nadeem Ahmad the commander of the Special Support Group an arm of the Pakistani military that is providing temporary buildings and some food for the displaced. “This is not talking rocket science.”On a notepad General Ahmad had drawn a chart of the four elements of what he called “lasting peace.” They were good government improved delivery of services including rebuilt schools speedy justice (something the Taliban had provided) and social equity.

He appeared to be skeptical that those aspects could be delivered within what he called an essential one year time frame. He said he had warned the leaders “If you don’t deliver it will be trouble. You will come back and do the operation again.”Having witnessed past episodes of deal making with the Taliban the people of Swat say they want tangible proof that the military is serious this time and that they will be safe if they return home.

From the start a rallying cry has been a demand that the army kill or capture Taliban leaders a ruthless group of highly trained fighters some with links to Al Qaeda. But the army has not been able to show any evidence that it killed any of the Taliban leaders.The daily newspaper The News said in a recent editorial that unless Maulana Fazlullah the Taliban’s main commander in Swat and Mr. Mehsud the country’s top enemy were captured “the Taliban are going to live to fight another day.”

Indeed most of the damage from the recent fighting appears confined to small agricultural hamlets outside Mingora according to interviews with displaced people. Some said they had heard from recent arrivals to the camps that areas 500 yards off the roads remained in control of the militants.

The “outlook was bleak” in Swat because the civilian government did not have the money or the skills to rebuild said Shuja Nawaz the author of a history of the Pakistani military and now the director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington.Most of the two million displaced people are still living in tent camps and cramped quarters with relatives and even strangers in cities as far flung as the southern port of Karachi.

Many displaced people were fed up with the cruelties inflicted under Taliban rule and have backed the military campaign. But as the fighting drags on in places the mood among them grows increasingly despondent.Some displaced people said that they were angry at the army for indiscriminate shelling in civilian areas. Others said they were confused about why the military operation was even necessary.

“We had no problem with the Taliban ” Umar Ali a poultry trader from Qambar in Swat said as he sat on the veranda of a home in Swabi a town filled with displaced people. “We’re here because of the military shelling. I’m a trader and the thing that affects my life is the curfew.”

Earlier Pakistani campaigns against the Taliban do not offer an encouraging precedent. In Bajaur a part of the tribal areas two main economic centers the market towns of Loe Sam and Inayat Kalay remain in ruins nearly eight months after the army smashed them in pursuit of the Taliban and claimed victory.

Lobbying dollars flowing out of Pakistan at super speed

By Shaheen Sehbai

WASHINTGON: At least 11 big and small, known and unknown, lobbying companies have been hired by Pakistan and state-owned Pakistani organisations in the US, paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars every month, some of them having mysterious names and almost dubious credentials.

Although lobbying is a legal profession in Washington, the way it is conducted has earned it the nickname of “officially certified corruption” and what the Pakistan government, Pakistan Embassy and Pakistani organisations are doing may come close to this unofficial definition, analysts say.

The information about these lobbying firms is public record and is available on official websites of US government agencies and organisations. But somehow Pakistani clients of these lobbying firms have tried to camouflage their widely spread activities under different names and different categories so that at one time not more than two or three companies could be officially acknowledged as government lobbyists.

The lobbying debate was fired by Geo TV’s talk show “Meray Mutabiq” hosted by Dr Shahid Masood on Saturday night but details gathered by The News revealed much more than the programme could cover.

All lobbyists are registered in the US as “foreign agents” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and have to disclose their activities and operations under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. All this data is then made available to the public through information posted on their official websites.

Under FARA data seven Pakistani entities are listed as clients of at least 11 lobbying companies. One such firm was de-listed in March and its client was the PPP.

Likewise lobbyists’ info, an official organisation that keeps all the data on lobbyists for the last 40 years and is the best recognised source of latest information on lobbying and lobbyists, lists seven Pakistani entities, which have hired the 11 lobbying firms in the US. These in their order of listing include:

- Council on Pakistan Relations (CPR): This is said to be based in Michigan but no other information is available except an expensive Washington DC address, 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, one block away from the White House and next to the famous Willard Hotel. There is a website for this organisation, www.pakistanrelations.org, but it does not name any one or any organisation, which can be identified. The details of the website are also hidden and when The News tried to find who owned the website and where it was located, Go-Daddy.com, the domain provider listed it as a secret/private website. Go-Daddy.com charges $10 extra to keep all the information about the website owner secret. CPR has hired one of the most expensive firms in Washington, Cassidy and Associates which has former Assistant Secretary Robin Raphel as one of the senior vice presidents. General Musharraf had also hired this company in October 2007 at $1.2 million per year to lobby for him just before the imposition of the emergency in Nov 07.

- Pakistan American Business Association: This is described as a non-profit organisation and has hired a big firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, ranked by The National Law Journal in 2006 as one of the 100 largest law firms in the country. Who are these Pak-American businessmen and where are they getting the huge dollars to pay this firm and for what results is not yet known.

- Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has hired Benazir Bhutto’s personal lobbyist, Mark Siegel’s firm Locke Lord Strategies on a one-time payment of $150,000 to lobby for PIA’s landing rights in the US.

- Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) until recently had three lobbyists, BKSH, a subsidiary of Burson Marsteller, Mark Siegel’s firm LLS and a firm owned by one T Dean Reed. Lakhs of dollars were paid by PPP before the elections 2008 when Benazir Bhutto was trying to win over the US leaders to replace General Musharraf. On March 9, 2009 PPP terminated the contract of BKSH.

- Embassy of Pakistan in Washington: The latest information on lobbyists.info shows that the Pakistan Embassy has currently retained three main lobbying firms: Moses Boyd, Mark Siegel’s LLS and Ogilvy Public Relations (one of the names in this firm’s list of associates is Irfan Kamal. Who is he and what role he plays, whether any, is not known).

- Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan: Under this name, a mysterious firm named ‘Team Eagle’ has been hired as one of the two lobbying companies, the other bang White & Case LLP in which one Pakistani name, Imran R Mir, is mentioned as an associate.

- Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting: Under this name only one name of a Pakistan-based company Asiatic Advertising is registered. No details of transactions are available for this firm.

These seven Pakistani organisations have thus hired 11 firms, separately and mysteriously in some cases, but what output and results are these companies providing is unknown and not clear. It would be a suitable case for parliamentary oversight bodies like the Public Accounts Committee to look into the details of these firms and how much they were paid for what results.

The data provided by US government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) until June 2008 is as follows. This lists some of the firms hired and paid by the Musharraf regime and some by the PPP government. It is amusing to note that the purpose of payment in some cases is just ridiculous like training Pakistani officials in the Embassy on how to deal with US media. The following is the data as listed on FARA web site:

- BKSH & Associates #5402, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005

Pakistan People’s Party (t) Nature of Services: Public Relations.

The registrant contacted congressional staffers, members of the Congress, and the US government officials to check on status of Resolution 445 and to assist the foreign principal in its effort to promote democracy in Pakistan and in providing its views on the current political, economic and humanitarian situation on the ground in Pakistan. The registrant also contacted congressional staffers to discuss upcoming visit of representatives of the foreign principal to the United States. $31,299.65 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.

- Burson-Marsteller #2469 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3544

Pakistan People’s Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.

The registrant developed media monitoring reports, spoke with media representatives, secured and attended meetings for party representatives, and secured and staffed interviews for party representatives on behalf of the foreign principal. $49,837.13 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.

- Cassidy & Associates, Inc #5643 700 13th Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005

Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Lobbying.

The registrant contacted congressional staffers and the US government officials to promote a better understanding of the foreign principal’s political, social and economic developments. $100,000.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008. Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 160 of 229 Pakistan.

- Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP #5835 1101 New York Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-4213

Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Embassy 60 Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.

The registrant provided services to the foreign principal including developing action plans that advance Pakistan’s commercial and trade objectives vis-‡-vis the US government and the private sector. $294,042.83 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.

- JWT Asiatic, a division of WPP Marketing Communications (Pvt.) Ltd #5722 ABN Amro Bank Building 16 Abdullah Haroon Road Karachi, Pakistan.

Government of Pakistan 60 Nature of Services: Advertising. Activities: None Reported Finances: None Reported.

- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004

Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP); Asif Ali Zardari, Co-Chairperson of the PPP 60.

Nature of Services: Lobbying.

The registrant agreed to promote the democratic transition of Pakistan and to encourage the international investigation of the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Finances: None Reported

- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004

The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 60. Nature of Services: Lobbying.

The registrant will conduct strategic and governmental affairs communications on behalf of the foreign principal. Finances: None Reported

Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 161 of 229 Pakistan.

- Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide #5807 1111 19th Street, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036

Embassy of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.

On behalf of the foreign principal, the registrant provided media training to embassy staff, drafted informational materials for distribution to journalists and other media outlets, facilitated the embassy’s interactions with journalists and other media outlets, and provided strategic guidance with respect to the United States media. $256,809.00 for the six-month period ending May 31, 2008.

- Reed, T Dean #5044 37277 Branchriver Road Purcellville, VA 20132-1922

Pakistan Peoples Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Public Relations.

The registrant provided public relations advice and consultation to the foreign principal and the editing of a newsletter. $10,500.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008.

- Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc. #5401 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 600 West Washington, DC 20001

Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Embassy (t) 60

Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.

The registrant monitored, advised and evaluated legislative issues, as well as arranged meetings and accompanied Pakistani government officials to meetings with members of the Congress, and congressional staffers to discuss general US-Pakistan issues. Representatives of the registrant also traveled to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani government officials. $330,000.00 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.

Courtesy: The News International, 28-06-09

Confirmation of PPPISTAN, portraits of Founders of Pakistan removed from Presidency!

Just a couple of days ago, a reception ceremony in the Pakistan President Avenue was organized to honor the victorious Pakistan Cricket Team. One thing that should have been noticed but was not noticed probably, was that in the avenue, there were big portraits of former Pakistani PM Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, former PM Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, current President Asif Ali Zardari and their son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. The real portraits by which the Presidency should have been graced with, were missing, I am referring to the portraits of founders of Pakistan i.e. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Dr. Allama Iqbal.

My mind is flooded with lots of questions right now. Is this the personal property of Asif Ali Zardari? Or is it their family house? No way! This is the constitutional avenue that is a big responsibility for the President. Please don’t get my wrong, I in no way mean to disrespect the Bhutto family, I respect them. But the thing is if the President is allowed to throw away the main portraits and replace with the portraits of his family, then former President Pervez Musharraf’s family’s portraits should have been there too.

This is the thing that is making me sick. The President House is the temporary residency for the President of Pakistan, and the Public Avenue of the Presidency should have remained uninfluenced. It should have been graced with the photos of founders of Pakistan and the respectable historical personalities like Liaquat Ali Khan, Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar etc.

I respect everyone’s opinion so my readers are welcomed to share their views here in the comments, as for me, I strongly condemn and Protest against such kind of blunders at the Presidency.

Road to Guntanamo

The terrifying first-hand account of three Pakistani British citizens who were held for two years without charges in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Known as the "Tipton Three," in reference to their home town in Britain, the three were eventually returned to Britain and released, still having had no formal charges ever made against them at any time during their ordeal.