Hate Speakers, Bigots, Patriots and Fascists in Jang Group - 2

An Editorial in Arab News on Salmaan Taseer's Tragic Death  : Murder in Pakistan - Leaders should stand up and rally the country against the forces of intolerance Jan 5, 2011 Unfortunately, Pakistan’s detractors will use this slaying to try and blacken its name. They will claim that bigotry and extremism have infiltrated every level of society. It will be used too by those who want to pressure the country into pursuing their political and military agendas. They will say it proves it is a chaotic and dangerous state and that if it is not to fall apart completely, it has to take tougher measures against terrorists and extremists — as if it were not already fighting with all its might against them! But that has not stopped the leaders of Germany, France and the UK demanding it do more. There will be those too, who use this killing to flaunt their fear and ignorance of Islam, claiming it as proof, after the church massacres in Baghdad and Alexandria, of growing Muslim extremism and bigotry worldwide. That is demonstrably untrue. There is bigotry in Pakistan but then it exists in every society. Clearly the murder was an act of religious fanaticism. But it was individuals who were responsible, not a mass movement. Taseer was murdered by one or perhaps more bigots who believed that he wanted to repeal the country’s blasphemy law. But he was a Muslim, not his murderer or those who, sickeningly, celebrate this evil deed. He worked for the good of his country trying to promote tolerance and understanding and peace between its different communities. He stood up against extremism and violence. It cost him his life and that makes him a martyr and his heartless, grinning murderer an ignorant instrument of evil. But while Pakistan has lost a bold campaigner for truth and justice, there is comfort for it in the knowledge that Taseer was not alone. There is a host of other activists whose faith is generous and embracing and who refuse to be intimidated by the twisted advocates of hatred. Pakistan is deeply shocked by this murder. This could be a defining moment for its leaders to stand up and rally the country against the deviant forces that would bring darkness to it and Islam. As for those Islamophobes who would see in Taseer’s murder proof of fanaticism, they should look instead to the Islam he stood for — a faith that pursues justice, truth and respect, the real Islam. REFERENCE: Murder in Pakistan - Leaders should stand up and rally the country against the forces of intolerance EDITORIAL Jan 5, 2011 22:38 http://arabnews.com/opinion/article229917.ece

Jang Group & GEO TV Murdered Salman Taseer (Abbas Athar BBC)

Jang Group & GEO TV Murdered Salman Taseer... by SalimJanMazari

سلمان تاثیر کے قتل اور میڈیا میں ان کے قاتل کی کوریج پر سینیئر صحافی اور ایکسپریس اخبار کے ایڈیٹر عباس اطہر سے گفتگو

پير 10 جنوری 2011 ,‭ 16:39 GMT 21:39 PST

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2011/01/110110_abbas_athar_media_taseer_uk.shtml

I must confess, I have been very wary of a certain media house and its group of publications. Consider, for example, the so-called historian Dr Safdar Mahmood, who has used the pages of the media house’s Urdu newspaper to distort history week after week. One such example, now accepted as fact, is that Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani was tasked by Quaid-e-Azam to raise the Pakistani flag on August 14, 1947. The video of the August 14 ceremony is available on the BBC Urdu website as well as YouTube and it shows a Pakistani army officer raising the flag with Shabbir Ahmad Usmani not visible anywhere in the video. This is just one lie out of thousands that irresponsible columnists like Dr Safdar Mahmood have perpetuated over the years. Then you have Mr Ansar Abbasi, the foremost votary of bigotry in the publication business. He specialises in labelling people as anti-Islamic and anti-national. Some of his more prominent victims include people like Malala Yousafzai who he accuses of nothing less than blasphemy. He has railed day in and day out against evil “secularists” and “liberals” for destroying the “Islamic identity” of Pakistan. The media group’s television channel promotes Dr Aamir Liaqat Hussain who had on his show famously called for the killing of the Ahmedis leading to targeted killings of that community. Even Hamid Mir — with whom one sympathises — has in the past resorted to most intemperate language against people who disagree with him. The overall discourse of this media group has been right-wing with a conservative nationalist editorial policy. It is therefore amusing that now the same group is being accused of being anti-national. One cannot help but indulge in some Schadenfreude at this turn of events. REFERENCE: Freedom of the press BY Yasser Latif Hamdani May 05, 2014 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-May-2014/freedom-of-the-press Murder in Pakistan - Leaders should stand up and rally the country against the forces of intolerance EDITORIAL Jan 5, 2011 22:38 http://arabnews.com/opinion/article229917.ece

Taliban Journalist of Jang Group Justify Salmaan Taseer Murder (GEO TV 2011)



Taliban Journalist of Jang Group Justify... by SalimJanMazari

Note the angling by the Jang Group, The News, GEO TV and Hamid Mir before and after Salmaan Taseer's tragic assassination  

Liberal extremism vs religious extremism — both are wrong BY Hamid Mir Tuesday, January 11, 2011 ISLAMABAD: It’s very difficult for me to write about Salmaan Taseer, the assassinated Punjab Governor. Once he was a good friend and later he became a ferocious enemy. He spoke against me and against Geo TV on many television shows as the governor and I wrote against him many times in the last couple of years because he had joined hands with dictator Pervez Musharraf after the imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007. I was standing with the deposed chief justice of Pakistan and Taseer tried to stop the restoration of deposed judges, first by helping Musharraf and then by helping President Asif Ali Zardari. Musharraf appointed him the governor of Punjab in May 2008 with the hope that Taseer will convince Zardari to accept the former dictator as the president for five years. Musharraf was wrong. Zardari ultimately forced him to resign and occupied the Presidency with the help of Taseer. Within a few days of becoming the President, Zardari arranged my meeting with Taseer and forced us to forget our past differences because Zardari was aware that we enjoyed a friendship of 20 years (from 1987 to 2007). Unfortunately, President Zardari failed to remove the mistrust between his governor and a journalist. We embarrassed the President of Pakistan. In the next two years, we spoke against each other many times, especially when Zardari imposed the Governor’s Rule in the Punjab to suppress the movement for the restoration of deposed judges. Zardari and Taseer failed to stop that movement and finally they were forced to restore the judges. My differences with President Zardari and Taseer were over after that. Thanks to the floods last year, Taseer showed a big heart and made truce with me. It was August 2010 when Taseer surprised me. He saw me in the flood affected area of Multan and sent a message of reconciliation through his media adviser Farrukh Shah. I accepted because I was impressed that the governor was trying his best to help the flood victims. 

We had tea together after many years. He praised my visits to the flooded areas in boats and I praised his commitment to the flood victims. Taseer wanted to discuss many things but I was going to Muzaffargarh with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. We talked and laughed and then I said goodbye to him with a promise to meet him again in Lahore. I saw him again in the reception for the Chinese premier in Islamabad. Just one day before his assassination, I was in Lahore and tried to contact him. I wanted his views on the gas loadshedding in the Punjab. I was informed that he was in Islamabad. The next day, I arrived back in Islamabad and in late afternoon my colleague Rana Jawad told me that Taseer was shot in front of my favorite restaurant in the capital. I was stunned but then I smiled. I told my colleague “Taseer is a hard nut to crack, he will survive.” My colleague said that only a miracle could save him because Taseer got more than one bullet in his neck. Now I was nervous. After a few minutes, I came to know that a police guard had fired more than 27 bullets on Taseer. He was angry with Taseer because he took a position against the country’s blasphemy laws. There was no justification for any individual to kill someone just for criticising a law. I was more disturbed when I started receiving SMS in support of his killer the same evening. Many religious leaders refused to condemn the assassination of Taseer. 

I took it as a challenge and decided to get condemnation from the head of the biggest religious party of the country — Jamiat Ulema Islam chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman. I contacted him on phone on my television show and just asked, “Will you condemn the murder of Salmaan Taseer?” I was surprised when Maulana Sahib tried to avoid my question. He was not in a mood to condemn the murder but I was repeating my question again and again. Finally, the Maulana Sahib condemned the murder of Taseer. It was not my victory. It was the victory of all those who believed in the teachings of founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He believed in the rule of law. No individual has the right to become a judge and punish someone without hearing his point of view. When I finished my show, many extremists started threatening me. But I was not alone. A big majority of my colleagues encouraged me, including the critics of Taseer. More than 500 religious clerics issued a statement in support of the assassin and declared that no Muslim should participate in his funeral prayers because the late governor was trying to release a Christian woman convicted under the blasphemy case. This statement came from the anti-Taliban Barelvi scholars, who lost their leaders like Mufti Safaraz Naeemi at the hands of the Taliban in 2009. All the top religious scholars of the Lahore city refused to lead the funeral prayers of Taseer, including the prayer leader of the mosque in the Governor House of Lahore. The Barelvi Ulema took a very extreme position. On the other side, some English newspapers declared that blasphemy law was the main cause for the killing of Taseer. It was also an extreme position. It is a very difficult situation for the host of a popular TV talk show. I took another risk. On the day of the funeral, I interviewed another important Islamic scholar Mufti Muneebur Rehman, who expressed his condolences with the family of Taseer. Mufti Muneeb belongs to the Barelvi school of thought. He was one of the first Islamic scholars who came out openly against the suicide bombings of Taliban in my TV show five years ago. Mufti Muneeb also opposed Taseer’s views on the blasphemy laws but he never approved the murder of Taseer. I was relieved after the statement of Mufti Muneeb. At least, someone from religious clergy came out openly against the killing. I think Salmaan Taseer was a misunderstood person. His son Aatish Taseer portrayed his father as an enemy of Jews and Hindus in his writings just because Taseer left his Indian Sikh mother Talveen Singh in 1980. In fact, Taseer represented the western way of life in his private life but Aatish wrongly accused his father for having a religious hatred against the Jews and Hindus. The assassin of Taseer also had a wrong impression about Taseer and he killed him as an enemy of Islam. Aatish Taseer and the assassin, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, represent two different extremes. One is a liberal extremist who leveled unfounded charges against his father. The other is a religious extremist. I am sure that both these two extremes are very dangerous for our values. We must fight both, the religious extremists and the liberal extremists. 

I must say that the ruling Pakistan People’s Party is also responsible for Taseer’s death. When Taseer criticised the blasphemy laws, his own party, including President Zardari, never took a stand for him. Law Minister Babar Awan said that nobody would be allowed to make a change in the blasphemy laws. The views of Taseer were misunderstood because the US is also demanding that Pakistan repeal the blasphemy laws. The common Pakistanis don’t like the US interference and that was why Taseer was declared an American agent by many rightwing parties. We can compare this controversy with the cases of Binayak Sen and Arundhati Roy in India. They are facing sedition charges because they are outspoken like Salmaan Taseer and they are hated by the right wing like Taseer. They are facing death threats and they are supported by the US and unfortunately the support from the US is definitely a disadvantage in South Asia. Personally, I also believe that there is no need to change the blasphemy laws right now because these laws were passed by our parliament in 1992 and we cannot afford new controversies these days. Prime Minister Gilani has written in his autobiography published in 2006 that the late Benazir Bhutto was also an opponent of changing the blasphemy laws. But we must not allow a person to kill another person just for criticising these laws. Freedom of expression is assured in Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan. I think that human rights bodies must fight the case of poor Christian woman convicted in blasphemy in the high court and the Supreme Court. They should not force the President of Pakistan to announce a pardon because it will create further divisions in our society. We must resolve our problems through the rule of law. Religious parties once again showed their street power on January 9 in Karachi in support of the blasphemy laws. Interestingly, Sunni and Shia scholars never condoned the murder of Taseer but they were together in defending the blasphemy laws. The Punjab Assembly showed maturity on Monday by condemning the murder of Salmaan Taseer. I think that blasphemy law is a safety valve against violence but I also believe that we must condemn the murder of Salmaan Taseer. Now some PPP leaders are trying to put the blame of his assassination on the PML-N. This is dirty politics. We need unity to fight extremism. I am sure we can defeat extremism not with the help of US but with the help of our own values based on tolerance. We need a made-in-Pakistan solution for fighting terrorism and extremism. A made in US solution will completely destroy us. REFERENCE: We need a ‘made-in-Pakistan’ solution for fighting terrorism - Liberal extremism vs religious extremism — both are wrong BY Hamid Mir Tuesday, January 11, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-3234-We-need-a-made-in-Pakistan-solution-for-fighting-terrorism Hamid Mir on Asia Bibi & Blasphemy Law & Salmaan Taseer Thursday, November 25, 2010 in Jang Group, The News and GEO TV as well http://jang.com.pk/jang/nov2010-daily/25-11-2010/col4.htm Thursday, October 13, 2011, Ziqad 14, 1432 A.H. http://jang.com.pk/jang/oct2011-daily/13-10-2011/col2.htm

Jang Group on the Death of Osama Bin Laden (Capital Talk 02 May 2011)



Jang Group on the Death of Osama Bin Laden... by SalimJanMazari

Liberal fascism? Hamid Mir Tuesday, November 03, 2009 Jonah Goldberg is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times. He recently wrote a book on liberal fascism. He started his book with Mussolini who was the father of fascism in Italy. Jonah also discussed American liberalism as a new totalitarian political religion very close to fascism. Finally Jonah Goldberg declared Hillary Clinton as "The First Lady of Liberal Fascism." Jonah avoided using the term of liberal fascist for President Barack Obama but he feared that America was slowly becoming a fascist country. It was difficult for me to believe that Hillary could be a fascist because she is a fascinating person. I read the book just a few days ago when I was travelling from the US to Pakistan. Luckily I got a chance to meet Hillary Clinton during her official visit to Pakistan on the evening of Oct 28 at the Islamabad residence of the US ambassador. I was one of the six TV anchors invited for a candid talk with the secretary of state. She was very much concerned about the bad image of her country in Pakistan and she said that "we must listen to each other and we must be honest with each other." I put just three short questions to Hillary Clinton. My first question was about the rule of law. I referred to the Kerry-Lugar bill in which the US expressed desire for the rule of law in Pakistan and humbly asked why US officials were breaking Pakistani laws again and again in Islamabad. I informed her that four US marines were arrested at 3 a.m. on Oct 27 in Islamabad with illegal weapons in their hands. They were released within one hour of their arrest. I asked: "Who ordered them to patrol the roads of Islamabad? Will you allow Pakistani soldiers to patrol the roads of Washington DC with weapons in their hands?" Hillary said that diplomats enjoyed immunity and they carried weapons. I again informed her that diplomats did not come out on the roads at three in the morning. She said: "I will look into this matter." I was not satisfied with her answer. She told us that the US wanted a strong and vibrant democracy in Pakistan. I again asked her that if the US cared too much about democracy, then why it didn't care about the unanimous resolution of our new parliament against US drones attacks. I said, "Instead of listening to the voice of democracy coming through our parliament you have increased drone attacks which means that you have no respect for our democracy." Once again she just said, "We have to win the war against terror and we have to support democracy in Pakistan." My third question was about the American desire for civilian control on the security establishment of Pakistan expressed in the Kerry-Lugar bill many times. I asked, "Do you want a civilian to head the ISI?" She never said no, but explained, "We can have a head of the CIA both from military and civilians and you can also have the head of the ISI from military and civilians." The answer clearly gave a message that the US wants a civilian to head the premier intelligence agency of Pakistan. Hillary Clinton never said anything new to us. When I was coming back after meeting her I was thinking about Liberal Fascism written by Jonah Goldberg. Hillary Clinton must give clear and straight answers to the questions burning in the minds of common Pakistanis. Otherwise, we will be forced to believe that she is taking America into a new era of liberal fascism. REFERENCE: Liberal fascism? Hamid Mir Tuesday, November 03, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=206525&Cat=9&dt=11/4/2009 Hamid Mir Daily Jang Thursday, January 20, 2011 http://jang.com.pk/jang/jan2011-daily/20-01-2011/col5.htm

Jang Group , The News and GEO TV and their Journalists played Ugliest role during Memogate Scandal but Hamid Mir in the Garb of Attacking Mansoor Ijaz, attacked the most marginalized Minority in Pakistan Hamid Mir Target Minorities via Jang Group 26 January 2012. In 2009, the same Hamid Mir had alleged that a Secret Cell is being run by Husain Haqqani in the President House against Army and the Media.

Taliban Journalist of Jang Group VS Bloggers (Capital Talk 5th Nov 2009)

Taliban Journalist of Jang Group VS Bloggers... by SalimJanMazari

The man who played with four govts . Mansoor Ejaz once urged Benazir to recognise Israel BY Hamid Mir  ISLAMABAD: Once again Islamabad is ripe with rumours that the PPP-led coalition government might not survive till March 2012 but President Asif Ali Zardari is not worried. He does not see any “extra-constitutional” threat to his government because he thinks there is no reason for the Army to take over. He recently told his friends that the political government and Army leaders have no differences over issues relating to foreign policy and security but even then some diehard critics say the countdown has begun. The rumours spread fast after the publication of an article in the Financial Times by Mansoor Ejaz who claimed President Zardari had sent a secret memo to the White House through Admiral Mike Mullen immediately after the killing of Osama bin Laden in the Abbottabad operation on May 2. President Zardari allegedly informed the US officials that his government was under threat from the Army and the US must stop General Kayani from taking over. According to the article President Zardari also promised to make some major changes in the Army and ISI leadership. Many opposition politicians raised questions about the alleged secret memo when this article was published but the Presidency remained silent. Many friends and colleagues advised President Zardari to issue a contradiction but he said: “let them spread the dirt for some days; we must know who is friend and who is foe?” Farhatullah Babar, the presidential spokesman, informally contradicted Mansoor Ejaz’s claim but he was not ready to say anything on the record. One intelligence agency informed the government that this “memo controversy” was part of an international conspiracy to create differences between political and military leadership of Pakistan. In the meantime US secretary of state Hillary Clinton during her recent visit met a group of journalists in Islamabad. One of our colleagues Mazhar Abbas asked her about the secret memo but she neither contradicted nor confirmed. Her careful response was a bombshell for many in the government. More articles with more speculations started appearing in the Pakistani media. Rumourmongers confused many seasoned politicians. One federal minister from a coalition party decided to speak against his own government in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. That was when the Foreign Office decided to issue a formal contradiction. Next day the President’s spokesperson also broke his silence on the issue and said that “Mansoor Ejaz’s allegation is nothing more than a desperate bid by an individual whom recognition and credibility has eluded, to seek media attention through concocted stories”. Farhatullah Babar further said: “why would the President of Pakistan choose a private person of questionable credentials to carry a letter to US officials? Since when Mansoor has become a courier of messages of the President of Pakistan?” He recalled that 16 years ago during the visit of late Benazir Bhutto to US Mansoor Ejaz wanted to see her. Farhatullah Babar was press secretary to the PM at that time. He mentioned the name of Mansoor to Benazir Bhutto and she said: “Mansoor is not to be trusted”. Late Benazir Bhutto advised her Press Secretary to “stay away from Mansoor Ejaz” but he never mentioned these words in his denial issued on October 29. Mansoor Ejaz also issued a statement in response in which he said: “I have the facts, all the facts. Every word I say or write is backed with hard evidence and proof. Challenging me on that would be a grave mistake” since “the evidence is crystal clear”. Background interviews with well-informed officials in Islamabad and conversations with top Pakistani diplomats in Washington and London revealed some more information. This is not the first time Mansoor Ejaz has created a problem for the PPP government. He did so in 1995 when tried to meet Benazir Bhutto through Zafar Hilali who was then working with the prime minister. He informed Hilali that Yusuf Haroon was hatching a conspiracy against the government with the help of some Army officials. Hilali asked him to write all these things in black and white. Mansoor Ejaz wrote a letter to Benazir Bhutto on June 29, 1995 claiming that the then Director General of Military Intelligence Ali Quli Khan was hatching a conspiracy to overthrow her government with the help of Yusuf Haroon. He offered his services for lobbying in the US Congress. He also proposed that Pakistan must recognise Israel and US will write off all its foreign debt. Benazir Bhutto spoke to Army chief General Abdul Waheed Kakar and informed him about the allegations made by Mansoor Ejaz against General Ali Quli Khan. Kakar initiated an inquiry but nothing was proved. After some weeks Ali Quli Khan reported to Kakar about a coup plan made by some hardliners and arrested many officers including a Major General. A few months later Benazir Bhutto visited New York to address the UN General Assembly. This writer was part of the delegation as a journalist. Mansoor Ejaz tried to meet Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari. She not only refused to meet him she even advised the journalists accompanying her “never to meet this person”. Mansoor Ejaz claims he persuaded US Vice President Al Gore to say that a military coup against democratic government will not be accepted. Al Gore said this in a reception organised by a Pakistani-American Rashid Chaudhry in Washington. Rashid Chaudhry has requested Benazir Bhutto not to send the former ambassador to that reception but someone more trust-worthy. She sent Wajid Shamsul Hasan. Mansoor Ejaz met Wajid Shamsul Hasan but the latter told Benazir Bhutto “we must not trust him”. Mansoor Ejaz tried to become a lobbyist for Pakistan but the then Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, Maleeha Lodhi, raised many questions about his credibility and then Mansoor Ejaz started writing articles against Benazir Bhutto in the Wall Street Journal. Benazir Bhutto said privately many times in those days that he was a double agent working for Israel and also for some people in the ISI. In October 1996 the Pakistan Embassy in Washington accused Mansoor Ejaz of writing against the PPP government because he was denied 15 million dollars he had demanded to deliver votes in the US House of Representatives in support of the Brown Amendment. The embassy also said that Mansoor Ejaz had been pushing the PPP government to recognise Israel and he himself visited Israel on several occasions, once on the invitation of Jerusalem’s mayor. The embassy mentioned that he was given ‘humanitarian of the year’ award by a major Jewish organisation “for establishing clinics and schools in Belgium and in many parts of the Eastern Europe for the Jewish communities. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the UN Ahmad Kamal was close to Mansoor Ejaz but then Foreign Secretary Najmudin Sheikh addressed a press conference against him and declared his articles “vindictive and without credibility”. After the dismissal of Benazir Bhutto’s government by President Farooq Leghari in November 1996 Mansoor Ejaz became very close to some ministers of the Nawaz Sharif government, which was installed in 1997. He even claimed to act as a middleman between US and Sudan and then between Pakistan and India in 2000 on behalf of US President Bill Clinton. He visited the Indian Army headquarters in Srinagar and then came to Islamabad for a meeting with the ISI officials who ignored him but one day he was able to informally meet General Pervez Musharraf through his mother. He entered in Army House to meet Musharraf’s mother but succeeded in having a brief chitchat with the military dictator. Musharraf at that time was diplomatically isolated ruler but he too never trusted Mansoor Ejaz due to his close links with some PML-N leaders. After meeting Musharraf he met Hizbul Mujahedeen chief Syed Salahudin in Islamabad through a Jamat-e-Islami leader and tried to deliver him an alleged letter from US President Bill Clinton but the Kashmiri militant leader never accepted that letter. Mansoor tried to give an impression to both Islamabad and Delhi that he was an unofficial negotiator of President Clinton. When the Indian government approached Washington about the credentials of Mansoor Ejaz some senior Clinton administration officials clarified publicly that Mansoor Ejaz was not given any mandate to act as a negotiator in the Kashmir dispute. After 9/11 Mansoor Ejaz tried to interact with both CIA and Taliban. He sent messages to Taliban through a retired ISI official and offered his services for mediation between Taliban and the US but his efforts never materialised because Taliban were not ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to US. After the change of command in the ISI the new DG ISI General Ehsanul Haq denied him access to all the government circles. He tried to become partner of a newspaper owner but failed. He remained silent for many years and then wrote an article in the Christian Science Monitor after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 28, 2007 in which he said: “I knew Benazir Bhutto well. I am often blamed by her supporters for having helped bring her government down in 1996 by exposing her hypocrisy and corruption in two Wall Street Journal Op-Ed pieces”. His words raise the question that how can President Asif Ali Zardari trust him and why would he send a secret memo through a person who wrote against him and his wife many times? It is obvious now that President Zardari neither met him recently nor spoke to him on telephone. Mansoor Ejaz is claiming that one top diplomat was instrumental in the making of the alleged memo and he can prove that whatever he wrote in the memo was approved by the top diplomat. PTI Chief Imran Khan claimed in the Lahore rally that it was Pakistan Ambassador in US Hussain Haqqani who gave this memo to Mansoor Ejaz. Hussain Haqqani denies that. He says that when he can talk to Admiral Mike Mullen directly why would he use a person like Mansoor Ejaz to send a secret memo? Some government sources suspected that maybe Mansoor Ejaz had spoken to Ambassador Haqqani on phone after the May 2 incident and recorded his conversation with him but he cannot present that recording as evidence because it is an offence under the US law. These sources accuse the PML-N of being part of the conspiracy because some PML-N leaders enjoy friendly relations with Mansoor Ejaz sine late 90’s. Sources close to Mansoor Ejaz claim that the PPP government is inviting big trouble by denying the memo. They say Mansoor Ejaz is an American citizen and he would not like to be involved in Pakistani politics but he is ready to produce the evidence in any Pakistani court of law if required. Mansoor Ejaz is playing with the fourth Pakistani government in the last 16 years. It seems that someone tried to play with someone through Mansoor Ejaz but this clever person has created a big trouble for a small-time power player. President Zardari may not lose anything in this whole controversy but Mansoor Ejaz is capable of destroying the credibility of the diplomat who spoke to him on phone or sent him some email. One PPP insider claimed that Mansoor Ejaz has special hatred for PPP. He belongs to a sect that was declared non-Muslim by the Pakistani Parliament when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the prime minister. That is why he has always tried to punish PPP through his conspiracies. The insider claimed that President Zardari has no problem with General Kayani. President Zardari wrote an article in Washington Post on May 3, 2011 and defended his intelligence agencies by saying “a decade of cooperation and partnership between the US and Pakistan led up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden and we in Pakistan take some satisfaction that our early assistance in identifying an Al Qaeda courier ultimately led to this day”. After five months President Zardari again wrote in Washington Post on October 1 and said: “must we fight alone in our region all those that others now seek to embrace? And how long can we degrade our capacity by fighting an enemy that the might of NATO’s global coalition has failed to eliminate?” PPP sources insisted that Mansoor Ejaz tried to create differences between army and the president and also tried to create misunderstanding between Pakistan and US but he has miserably failed. The PPP leaders play down the delay in contradicting the alleged secret memo from President Zardari to President Obama. But this delay was not a mistake but a blunder, which forced many in Pakistan to believe that the secret memo was true. REFERENCE: The man who played with four govts . Mansoor Ejaz once urged Benazir to recognise Israel BY Hamid Mir Wednesday, November 02, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10015&Cat=13

Perpetual Confusion of Hamid Mir
on Blasphemy Law Thursday November 01 2012

In 2001 Hamid Mir filed a report in Daily Dawn Pakistan that Osama Bin Laden had Nuclear Bombs (as if these are peanuts and then Abbottabad happened in 2011. Isn't it funny that Jang Group, GEO TV, The News love Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia both and least bothered to read Saudi Religious Edict of Apostasy against Osama Bin Laden .

Jang Group on the Life of Osama Bin Laden - 1 (Capital Talk 5 May 2011)



Jang Group on the Life of Osama Bin Laden - 1... by SalimJanMazari

Saudi Fatwa on Usaamah Ibn Laadin Al Khaarijee http://www.scribd.com/doc/98399399/Saudi-Fatwa-on-Usaamah-Ibn-Laadin-Al-Khaarijee

Saudi Fatwa on Usaamah Ibn Laadin Al Khaarijee by Aamir Mughal

Jang Group on the Life of Osama Bin Laden - 2 (Capital Talk 5 May 2011)



Jang Group on the Life of Osama Bin Laden - 2... by SalimJanMazari

Nov 10, 2001 Osama claims he has nukes: If US uses N-arms it will get same response KABUL, Nov 9: Osama bin Laden has said that “we have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them”. He said this in a special interview with Hamid Mir, the editor of Ausaf, for Dawn and Ausaf, at an undisclosed location near Kabul. This was the first interview given by Osama to any journalist after the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. The correspondent was taken blindfolded in a jeep from Kabul on the night of Nov 7 to a place where it was extremely cold and one could hear the sound of anti-aircraft guns firing away. After a wait of some time , Osama arrived with about a dozen bodyguards and Dr Ayman Al-Zuwahiri and answered questions.

 Hamid Mir: After American bombing on Afghanistan on Oct 7, you told the Al-Jazeera TV that the Sept 11 attacks had been carried out by some Muslims. How did you know they were Muslims ?

 Osama bin Laden: The Americans themselves released a list of the suspects of the Sept 11 attacks, saying that the persons named were involved in the attacks. They were all Muslims, of whom 15 belonged to Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE and one from Egypt. According to the information I have, they were all passengers.Fateha was held for them in their homes. But America said they were hijackers.

 HM: In your statement of Oct 7, you expressed satisfaction over the Sept 11 attacks, although a large number of innocent people perished in them, hundreds among them were Muslims. Can you justify the killing of innocent men in the light of Islamic teachings ?

 OBL: This is a major point in jurisprudence. In my view, if an enemy occupies a Muslim territory and uses common people as human shield, then it is permitted to attack that enemy. For instance, if bandits barge into a home and hold a child hostage, then the child’s father can attack the bandits and in that attack even the child may get hurt. America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechenya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal. The Islamic Shariat says Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel for long. The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America’s icons of military and economic power. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was against killing women and children. When he saw a dead woman during a war, he asked why was she killed ? If a child is above 13 and wields a weapon against Muslims, then it is permitted to kill him. The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress. I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government’s war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government.

 HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people ?

 OSB: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don’t get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live.

 HM: The head of Egypt’s Jamia Al-Azhar has issued a fatwa (edict) against you, saying that the views and beliefs of Osama bin Laden have nothing to do with Islam. What do you have to say about that ?

 OSB: The fatwa of any official Aalim has no value for me. History is full of such Ulema who justify Riba, who justify the occupation of Palestine by the Jews, who justify the presence of American troops around Harmain Sharifain. These people support the infidels for their personal gain.The true Ulema support the Jihad against America. Tell me if Indian forces invaded Pakistan what would you do? The Israeli forces occupy our land and the American troops are on our territory. We have no other option but to launch Jihad.

 HM: Some Western media claim that you are trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons. How much truth is there in such reports?

 OSB: I heard the speech of American President Bush yesterday (Oct 7). He was scaring the European countries that Osama wanted to attack with weapons of mass destruction. I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent.

 HM: Where did you get these weapons from ?

 OSB: Go to the next question.

 HM: Demonstrations are being held in many European countries against American attacks on Afghanistan. Thousands of the protesters were non-Muslims. What is your opinion about those non-Muslim protesters ?

 OSB: There are many innocent and good-hearted people in the West. American media instigates them against Muslims. However, some good-hearted people are protesting against American attacks because human nature abhors injustice. The Muslims were massacred under the UN patronage in Bosnia. I am ware that some officers of the State Department had resigned in protest. Many years ago the US ambassador in Egypt had resigned in protest against the policies of President Jimmy Carter. Nice and civilized are everywhere. The Jewish lobby has taken America and the West hostage.

 HM: Some people say that war is no solution to any issue. Do you think that some political formula could be found to stop the present war ?

 OSB: You should put this question to those who have started this war. We are only defending ourselves.

 HM: If America got out of Saudi Arabia and the Al-Aqsa mosque was liberated, would you then present yourself for trial in some Muslim country ?

 OSB: Only Afghanistan is an Islamic country. Pakistan follows the English law. I don’t consider Saudi Arabia an Islamic country. If the Americans have charges against me, we too have a charge sheet against them.

 HM: Pakistan government decided to cooperate with America after Sept 11, which you don’t consider right. What do you think Pakistan should have done but to cooperate with America ?

 OSB: The government of Pakistan should have the wishes of the people in view. It should not have surrendered to the unjustified demands of America. America does not have solid proof against us. It just has some surmises. It is unjust to start bombing on the basis of those surmises.

 HM: Had America decided to attack Pakistan with the help of India and Israel, what would have we done ?

OSB: What has America achieved by attacking Afghanistan ? We will not leave the Pakistani people and the Pakistani territory at anybody’s mercy. We will defend Pakistan. But we have been disappointed by Gen Pervez Musharraf. He says that the majority is with him. I say the majority is against him. Bush has used the word crusade. This is a crusade declared by Bush. It is no wisdom to barter off blood of Afghan brethren to improve Pakistan’s economy. He will be punished by the Pakistani people and Allah. Right now a great war of Islamic history is being fought in Afghanistan. All the big powers are united against Muslims. It is ‘ sawab ‘ to participate in this war.

 HM: A French newspaper has claimed that you had kidney problem and had secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year. Is that correct ?

 OSB: My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with Islamabad dateline with one of my sons who lives in Saudi Arabia. All this is false.

 HM: Is it correct that a daughter of Mulla Omar is your wife or your daughter is Mulla Omar’s wife ?

 OSB: (Laughs). All my wives are Arabs ( and all my daughters are married to Arab Mujahideen). I have spiritual relationship with Mulla Omar. He is a great and brave Muslim of this age. He does not fear anyone but Allah. He is not under any personal relationship or obligation to me. He is only discharging his religious duty. I, too, have not chosen this life out of any personal consideration. REFERENCE: Osama claims he has nukes: If US uses N-arms it will get same response Updated Nov 10, 2001 12:00am BY Hamid Mir http://www.dawn.com/news/5647/osama-claims-he-has-nukes-if-us-uses-n-arms-it-will-get-same-response