ISLAMABAD: Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani offered on Wednesday cooperation in the investigation into Tuesday’s sectarian killings on the Karakoram Highway by gunmen in military uniform. The army chief, who visited Skardu and forward locations at Minimerg and Domel sectors in Gilgit-Baltistan, received a briefing from local commanders on the incident and directed them to help the Gilgit-Baltistan government in maintaining security. Later, the COAS met troops deployed in the area under inhospitable conditions. “He commended their selfless devotion and fortitude in braving the rough weather and performing duties in an area where even survival is an achievement,” a statement from the ISPR said. Eighteen Shia passengers were shot dead by gunmen after they had been forced to disembark from buses at Harban Nullah on the Karakoram Highway. Before killing the passengers the gunmen ascertained their sectarian affiliation by checking names on their national identity cards. The killings have led to widespread protests across the country and it is being feared that the incident could spark violence in the Gilgit-Baltistan region. Interior Minister Rehman Malik, meanwhile, announced formation of a joint inquiry team comprising police, army and intelligence officials. The investigation team is expected to submit its report later this week. REFERENCE: Army offers help in sectarian killings probe http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/01/army-offers-help-in-sectarian-killings-probe.html
Ayesha Siddiqa on Shia target killing in Kohistan 28 Feb 2012 (BBC URDU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odmpIZHI4BA
شاید اب ہوش آجائے‘
آخری وقت اشاعت: منگل 28 فروری 2012 , 15:54 GMT 20:54 PST
ہر حادثے پر گماں ہوتا ہے کہ شاید اب ہوش آ جائے انٹرویو ڈاکٹر عائشہ صدیقہ
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2012/02/120228_interview_aiyshah_fz.shtml?bw=bb&mp=wm&bbcws=1&news=1
18 killed in Kohistan bus attack (GEO TV 28 Feb 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEQp6q-s6k
JSOC - Americas Assassination Division
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz3K-TZS2kg
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.” After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.” Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.” The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”) The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations. The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.” “It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.” REFERENCE: ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY THE REDIRECTION Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism? by Seymour M. Hersh MARCH 5, 2007 Efforts to curb Iran’s influence have involved the United States in worsening Sunni-Shiite tensions. A STRATEGIC SHIFT http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned on Wednesday that the Iran gas pipeline project was “inexplicable” and could invoke US sanctions that would further ‘undermine’ Pakistan’s ‘already shaky’ economy. Earlier, Congressman John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat, drew Secretary Clinton’s attention to the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project during a congressional debate, reminding her that the State Department’s proposed budget for 2013 included roughly $1 billion to help Pakistan address its energy challenges. He noted that the money was meant specifically for dealing with a proposed pipeline between Iran and Pakistan. “I’d be very interested in knowing the position of the United States concerning the development of that pipeline. Where will we be going from here?” asked the congressman. Secretary Clinton replied: “First, we recognise that Pakistan has significant energy requirements, and for the last three years we’ve been working to help them upgrade their existing energy infrastructure, to look at potential new sources of energy.” She said: “The proposed Pakistan-Iran pipeline, however, if built, could raise serious concerns under the Iran Sanctions Act. We have made that absolutely clear. We have raised this issue with the government of Pakistan.” She said the US was encouraging Pakistan to seek alternatives because of the nuclear dispute with Iran. REFERENCE: Tough US warning on Iran gas pipeline Anwar Iqbal http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/01/tough-us-warning-on-iran-gas-pipeline.html
Hillary Clinton on Pakistan - Part - 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wErT7vcezfg
A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News. The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Blotter Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009 World News Video Iran’s Nuclear Program on the Fast Track Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states. Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage. Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan. The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians. "He used to fight with the Taliban. He’s part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members. "Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said. Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan. Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack. They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan. The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot. A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group. Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February. A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context. Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s. REFERENCE: ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran Apr 3, 2007 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/04/abc_news_exclus/
Hillary Clinton on Pakistan - Part - 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24XSCEAwySg
President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs. Under the plan, pressure will be brought to bear on the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and international financial transactions. Details have also emerged of a covert scheme to sabotage the Iranian nuclear programme, which United Nations nuclear watchdogs said last week could lead to a bomb within three years. Security officials in Washington have disclosed that Teheran has been sold defective parts on the black market in a bid to delay and disrupt its uranium enrichment programme, the precursor to building a nuclear weapon. A security source in the US told The Sunday Telegraph that the presidential directive, known as a "non-lethal presidential finding", would give the CIA the right to collect intelligence on home soil, an area that is usually the preserve of the FBI, from the many Iranian exiles and emigrés within the US. "Iranians in America have links with their families at home, and they are a good two-way source of information," he said. The CIA will also be allowed to supply communications equipment which would enable opposition groups in Iran to work together and bypass internet censorship by the clerical regime. The plans, which significantly increase American pressure on Iran, were leaked just days before a meeting in Iraq tomorrow between the US ambassador, Ryan Crocker, and his Iranian counterpart. Tensions have been raised by Iran's seizure of what the US regards as a series of "hostages" in recent weeks. Three academics who hold dual Iranian-American citizenship are being held, accused of working to undermine the Iranian government or of spying. An Iranian-American reporter with Radio Free Europe, who was visiting Iran, has had her passport seized. Another Iranian American, businessman Ali Shakeri, was believed to have been detained as he tried to leave Teheran last week. The US responded with a show of force by the navy, sending nine warships, including two aircraft carriers, into the Persian Gulf. Authorisation of the new CIA mission, which will not be allowed to use lethal force, appears to suggest that President Bush has, for the time being, ruled out military action against Iran. Bruce Riedel, until six months ago the senior CIA official who dealt with Iran, said: "Vice-President [Dick] Cheney helped to lead the side favouring a military strike, but I think they have concluded that a military strike has more downsides than upsides." However, the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan. Iranian officials say they captured 10 members of Jundullah last weekend, carrying $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment". Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior State Department official now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said industrial sabotage was the favoured way to combat Iran's nuclear programme "without military action, without fingerprints on the operation." He added: "One way to sabotage a programme is to make minor modifications in some of the components Iran obtains on the black market." Components and blueprints obtained by Iranian intelligence agents in Europe, and shipped home using the diplomatic bag from the Iranian consulate in Frankfurt, have been blamed for an explosion that destroyed 50 nuclear centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear plant last year. The White House National Security Council and CIA refused to comment on intelligence matters. REFERENCE: Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran By Tim Shipman in Washington12:01AM BST 27 May 2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html
“As we are ratcheting up pressure on Iran, it seems somewhat inexplicable that Pakistan would be trying to negotiate a pipeline,” the secretary said. “And there is an alternative that we do strongly support — the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline.” The United States believed that it was a better alternative both in terms of predictability and to avoid doing business with Iran, she said. “Now, if and when this pipeline goes beyond just talk, then we will address it consistent with US law and policies,” she warned. “So if we see a pipeline proposal take an additional step that it would likely become a reality, do you have specific things in mind that will involve American response to that Pakistan pipeline deal?” the congressman asked. “We believe that actually beginning the construction of such a pipeline either as an Iranian project or as a joint project would violate our Iran sanctions law. So, we all know what the consequences of that are, and it would be particularly damaging to Pakistan because their economy is already quite shaky,” Secretary Clinton warned. “This additional pressure that the United States would be compelled to apply would further undermine their economic status.” The United States, she said, has been very clear in pointing out the consequences of pursuing such a pipeline. REFERENCE: Tough US warning on Iran gas pipeline Anwar Iqbal http://www.dawn.com/2012/03/01/tough-us-warning-on-iran-gas-pipeline.html
Toasts of President Reagan and President Mobammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan at the State Dinner December 7, 1982 - In the last few years, in particular, your country has come to the forefront of the struggle to construct a framework for peace in your region, an undertaking which includes your strenuous efforts to bring peaceful resolution to the crisis in Afghanistan—a resolution which will enable the millions of refugees currently seeking shelter in Pakistan to go home in peace and honor. Further, you've worked to ensure that progress continues toward improving the relationship between Pakistan and India. And in all these efforts the United States has supported your objectives and will applaud your success. And, Mr. President, unfortunately, a new and menacing turbulence has arisen in our region. More than a fifth of the entire population of Afghanistan has been compelled to seek shelter in Pakistan as a result of the armed intervention in that country by a foreign power. We are bending our effort to resolve this tragic situation through a peaceful political settlement, in accordance with the principles enunciated by the international community. The latest manifestation of this was the Resolution of Afghanistan adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, once again with the overwhelming support of the member states. Spread this America, Mr. President, to areas other than the United States of America. Let America be the torchbearer of peace, peace not only on the American continent but peace in Afghanistan, peace in Vietnam, peace in Somalia, and above all, peace in Palestine. We wish you, sir, all the best in your endeavors. And you will never find Pakistanis faltering. We'll be there right behind you to give you the helping hand, if we can, at the moment that you wish us to do so. REFERENCE: Toasts of President Reagan and President Mobammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan at the State Dinner December 7, 1982 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42083
IF any evidence was required that as a nation generally and as the so-called educated intellectual class particularly we have succumbed to mass hysteria and paranoia, we need go no further than the reaction to the hearing that Congressman Dana Rohrabacher conducted on Balochistan and the subsequent resolution he presented in the US House of Representatives supporting Balochistan’s right to independence. Driven by public furore, the Foreign Office and our embassy had to set aside what they knew about Rohrabacher and the resolution and lodge a protest with the Americans. What did the Foreign Office and our embassy know and what is it that we should have known, given the fundamental importance of the US-Pakistan relationship? Rohrabacher has had an interest in Afghanistan for the last 30 years. As part of president Reagan’s stable of speech writers he takes credit for having Reagan call the Afghan Mujahideen ‘freedom fighters’ and even for the parallel Reagan drew between America’s founding fathers and the Mujahideen. In those days, Pakistan was his favourite country. REFERENCE: Rohrabacher & Balochistan Najmuddin A. Shaikh http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/29/rohrabacher-balochistan.html
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher on Balochistan and Dr. Shakeel Afridi with VOA's Ayesha Tanzeem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGFWt3gs2hs
Did Dana Rohrabacher meet with Osama Bin Laden? In 1988, shortly after winning his first term in Congress, Dana Rohrabacher dabbled briefly in another vocation—freedom fighter. With Afghanistan's anti-Soviet insurgency a cause célèbre for conservatives, he traveled to the front lines. Sporting a thick beard and traditional Afghan attire, the congressman-elect joined up with a rebel infantry unit whose mission included laying siege to a Soviet position. Rohrabacher's Afghanistan history dates back to his days as a speechwriter and presidential adviser in the Reagan White House, where he helped shape the Reagan Doctrine—the policy of arming resistance movements to undermine Soviet influence, with the mujahideen serving as Exhibit A. "I'd be there with guys in full Afghan garb in the executive dining room of the White House," he recalls. Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit, says Rohrabacher was one of the few lawmakers who were "interested in Afghanistan to an extent that surpassed how many dead Soviets there were." In the years after the Soviets fled Afghanistan in 1989, Rohrabacher says, his "passion" was to bring back the country's exiled king, Muhammad Zahir Shah, the only figure he believed could unite Afghans. Instead, by 1996, the Taliban had captured Kabul, and Rohrabacher began actively working to undermine them. At one point he hitched a ride in a UN supply plane to the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif with the aim of organizing a coalition of anti-Taliban warlords such as Massoud and the Uzbek militia commander Abdul Rashid Dostum. "I was flying all over the world," he says. "And I was on my own. You know, I was a real freelancer on that one." Rohrabacher served as assistant press secretary to the 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan.From 1981 to 1988, he was one of President Reagan's senior speech writers. During his tenure at the White House, Rohrabacher played a leading role in the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine. From Orange County and oceanfront communities south of Los Angeles comes Dana T. Rohrabacher, 41, a former Reagan speechwriter who passed part of his youth bodysurfing, quaffing tequila and scribbling screenplays on the beach, who is a self-described ''rock-and-roll Republican'' and proponent of the ''conservative opportunity society.'' - Rohrabacher's interest in Afghanistan extends back at least to the late 80s, before his time in office, when he entered the country in the company of mujahedin fighters who were intent on confronting Soviet occupation forces. Reportedly, these fighters "actually engaged Soviet troops in combat near the city of Jalalabad during the two months Rohrabacher was with them."According to eyewitnesses during this time he met Osama Bin Laden, his Arab fighters and also the most famous Afghan mujahideen leader Golbuddin Hekmatyar and called them "great freedom fighters and his friends, who are fighting the same war as America to liberate world from the "fatal plague of communism". In 2003, he defended the new Afghan constitution against those who saw in it mainly empowerment of warlords, saying I've heard a lot of negative posturing about...these people who happened to have been the guys who sided with the United States ...Dostam, Atta, Khan...these were the people who defeated the Taliban... Just keep that in mind if you're an American. They came to help us defeat people who slaughtered our own people [September 11, 2001]. And I'm grateful for that. And I'm not about to label them in these pejorative terms [as warlords], especially when the Taliban are still on the border...I would admonish [you] not to go so quickly in getting rid of people who helped us defeat the Taliban. Rohrabacher's point enlightens us as to the motives of U.S. officials. Criminals who “sided with the United States ” are to be defended and given power, while those who don't are cast out, persecuted, and recognized as criminals or terrorists. The consistency of this approach is remarkable, and, when understood, it clarifies a commonly perceived inconsistency in U.S. behavior; namely, the transformation from support to denouncement of thugs like Osama bin Laden, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and Saddam Hussein. REFERENCES: "U.S. Lawmaker Questions Approaches To Pakistan, Afghanistan". Afghanistan Report: December 7, 2007 Ron Synovitz (December 7, 2007) The New Afghan Constitution: A Step Backwards for Democracy By James Ingalls, March 10, 2004 http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_new_afghan_constitution_a_step_backwards_for_democracy Washington Talk; Two House Freshmen Reflect Clash of Cultures By CLIFFORD D. MAY, Special to The New York Times Published: May 11, 1989 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/11/us/washington-talk-two-house-freshmen-reflect-clash-of-cultures.html Dana Rohrabacher's War In the '80s he took up arms with Afghanistan's mujahideen. Now the California Republican is fighting against Obama's surge. —By Daniel Schulman | March/April 2010 Issue http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/dana-rohrabacher-afghanistan-war
No comments:
Post a Comment