Showing posts with label GEO TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GEO TV. Show all posts

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Hate Speech in Pakistan and Misplaced Priorities in Pakistan



ISLAMABAD: Facebook has blocked the popular page of a liberal Pakistani rock band and others that criticise the Taliban, allegedly at the request of the government. Rock band “Laal” was formed in 2007 and their Facebook page has more than 400,000 likes, with users frequently joining debates on issues ranging from feminism to the role of the army in politics. But it has been inaccessible to users from inside Pakistan since Wednesday. Other pages like “Pakistani.meem” which describes itself as pro-democracy and secularism and “Taalibansarezalimans” have similarly been blocked in recent days. “Facebook didn’t even inform us. I realised when I noticed no activity on our page,” Taimur Rahman, Laal’s lead guitarist, said. Facebook confirmed the move on Friday, saying Laal’s page had been blocked inside Pakistan at Islamabad’s request, under an agreement to limit access to “material that violates local laws”. A Facebook spokeswoman said: “While we never remove this type of content from the site entirely, like most internet services, we may restrict people from accessing it in the countries where it is determined to be illegal. “Before we restrict the content, we take significant steps to investigate each unique claim, consult with local counsel and other experts in the country, and will only remove content in the most limited way possible,” she added. According to a page on Facebook that deals with government requests, 162 pieces of content were restricted for viewership inside Pakistan between July and December 2013. “We restricted access in Pakistan to a number of pieces of content primarily reported by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority and the Ministry of Information Technology under local laws prohibiting blasphemy and criticism of the state,” the page says. Pakistan blocked YouTube in 2012 following the release of a film that was critical of Islam. Websites for Baloch separatist movements are also banned. Shahzad Ahmad, director of the Bytes For All organisation that campaigns for free speech, said: “The is a mass murder of free speech in Pakistan.” Yasser Latif Hamdani, a lawyer, added: “This is a grave mistake by Facebook. Also for the Pakistani government to make such requests is illegal and unconstitutional.” Pakistan’s agreement with Facebook came to light last year when a senior official from the PTA was summoned by the Lahore High Court in a case concerning the YouTube ban, but its terms have not been made public. Reference: Rock band’s Facebook page blocked at govt request By AFP https://www.dawn.com/news/1111163/rock-bands-facebook-page-blocked-at-govt-request

Banning Dr. Taimur Rahman and Others in Pakistan (Awaam - 7th June 2014)

 

Banning Dr. Taimur Rahman & Others in Pakistan... by SalimJanMazari


 LAHORE: Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid said here on Sunday that the ban on YouTube would be lifted soon because a software had been developed for blocking content that hurt people’s sentiments. The video sharing website was blocked in September 2012 after its administration and Google Incorporation refused to comply with a request by Pakistan and some other Muslim countries to remove a blasphemous video from the site. About the demand for checking broadcast of foreign content by some private TV channels, Mr Rashid asked civil society, owners of media houses and professionals to come up with proposals for resolving the issue because any step taken by the government could be construed as an attempt to gag the media. He said that he feared that discretionary powers could open the door to misuse of authority by officials. REFERENCE: YouTube ban to be lifted soon By The Newspaper's Staff Reporter Published Mar 17, 2014 http://www.dawn.com/news/1093717

Ansar Abbasi and  GEO TV on Swat Girl Flogging

 
Ansar Abbasi & GEO TV & Swat Girl Flogging by SalimJanMazari


Recently the Media Regulatory Authority in Pakistan PEMRA has slapped a ban on GEO TV and subsequently the GEO TV sued Ministry of Defence and ISI http://www.dawn.com/news/1110985/geo-news-sues-isi-for-defamation , Only in Pakistan that Journalists and Media Houses Obstruct Access to Information and not only that they hurl command as to what should Pakistanis read, watch and listen and the same Media Group raise hue and cry when they are at receiving end . 2012 On Saturday, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority directed local Internet service providers to make YouTube accessible. But by the afternoon, Geo, a private television news network that wields immense influence, reported that anti-Islam and blasphemous material was still available on YouTube. The criticism was led by Ansar Abbasi, a right-leaning journalist who often speaks out on morality and religion. Yielding to the criticism, Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf then ordered providers to again block access to the video-sharing site. The flip-flop drew an immediate rebuke from users and led to a flurry of jokes on Twitter about the government’s dithering and backtracking. “YouTube is a huge convenience for users, who benefit from it for educational as well as entertainment purposes,” Zubair Kasuri, the editor of Flare, a Karachi-based telecommunications magazine, said in a telephone interview. Mr. Kasuri expressed surprise over the government’s failure to install an effective firewall mechanism despite having months to do so. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/world/asia/youtube-ban-lifted-in-pakistan-for-3-minutes.html?_r=0
Quite an Irony that Pakistan Telecommunication Authority doesn't object on several venom spitting sectarian websites in Pakistan but suggest rather arbitrary ban Harmless Laal , Taimur Rahman and many other and even more amazing that Fedral IT Minister Ms Anusha Rahman suggestion that Council Of Islamic Ideology must be consulted on You Tube Ban whereas the same Council also encourages Child Marriage and if we accept Anusha's argument then we must also follow CII on Child Marriage in letter and spirit http://www.dawn.com/news/1107849

Taliban Journalists of Pakistan

 
Taliban Journalists of Pakistan by SalimJanMazari


Several activists questioned why Facebook had not blocked other Pakistani pages that incite sectarian violence, religious extremism or hatred against minorities. As examples, they pointed to pages administrated by supporters of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, a notorious sectarian groups that has supported attacks on Shiites; the sectarian militant group Lashkar e Jhangvi;and the Red Mosque, where a violent stand-off between extremists and government forces in 2007 left over 100 people dead, and where a recently opened library is named for Osama bin Laden. “These pro-Taliban pages are spewing hatred, and we are the people they shut down,” said Mr. Taimur Rahman , the singer. “It’s insanity.” REFERENCE: Facebook Under Fire for Temporarily Blocking Pages in Pakistan By DECLAN WALSH and SALMAN MASOODJUNE 6, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/07/world/asia/pakistan-facebook-blocked-users-from-political-pages-and-outspoken-rock-band-laal-against-taliban-.html

How Dr Aamir Liaquat Hussain AND GEO TV Incited Masses (BBC Urdu)



How Dr Aamir Liaquat Hussain & GEO TV Incited... by SalimJanMazari


Pakistan Hate Speech Report 2014 by Bytes For All http://www.scribd.com/doc/228566361/Pakistan-Hate-Speech-Report-2014-by-Bytes-For-All Bytes for All : URL : “Hate speech: A study of Pakistan’s cyberspace http://content.bytesforall.pk/sites/default/files/Pakistan_Hate_Speech_Report_2014.pdf



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

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

 ’یہ قاتل میڈیا ہے‘ آخری وقت اشاعت: پير 10 جنوری 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2011/01/110110_abbas_athar_media_taseer_uk.shtml?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=22&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2


Karachi, June 07, 2014: The uncontrolled spread of hate speech on the Internet and social media is reaching dangerous levels, threatening society on many levels. The first detailed research into online hate speech in the Pakistan context – “Hate speech: A study of Pakistan’s cyberspace” – was launched today at Avari Towers, in Karachi. Jahanzaib Haque, Editor, Dawn.com and author of the 63-page study presented the principle findings and recommendations, which consisted of two independent phases of research - an online survey on hate speech responded to by 559 Pakistani Internet users, as well as a detailed content analysis of published material and comments – both textual and iconographic – on high impact, high reach Facebook pages and Twitter accounts frequented by local audiences. [Key findings can be found on page 2 below]. Haque says “The need for such a study was paramount, given the real world impact online hate speech is having in Pakistan, whether that be the well-organized anti-Malala campaign online, how social media fueled sectarian divides during the Rawalpindi riots, the arrest of a professor on grounds of alleged blasphemy for posts run on Facebook, and even the most recent online campaign of hate against media persons. Clearly the issue needs to be addressed, but without regressive action such as state-led censorship and bans.” The event was attended by parliamentarians, leading media practitioners, journalists, human rights activists, civil society, researchers and major stakeholders in the online space. A panel discussion on the issue included Ch. Muhammad Sarfaraz, Deputy Director FIA, Cyber Crime Circle Lahore, Senator Saeed Ghani, Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarian (PPP-P), Faisal Sherjan, Director Strategy and Planning at Jang Group, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, President, Karachi Bar Association, and Gul Bukhari, B4A Gender Programme Manager. “We at Bytes for All hold Freedom of Expression very dear as an inviolable fundamental human right, but often see it being fettered in false paradigms of morality, security, national interest or even hate speech,” says Shahzad Ahmad, Country Director, Bytes for All Pakistan. “For the reason that speech is regularly gagged in Pakistan under these guises, and the fact that hate speech is the only real threat to Freedom of Expression, we felt it important to study online hate speech in Pakistan, to define it using the best standards, and obtain some idea of its incidence in the country. This is important to ensure hate speech becomes clearly defined, and not confused with national security, religious sentiment, morality or decency.” Ahmad further adds that, “We are proud to say this study is the first of its kind in Pakistan, and will form the basis for many more such studies to take this important work further. Much work in the coming years has to be done in this area to ensure that this threat does not impinge upon the freedoms we hold so dear.” REFERENCE: Press Release: Bytes For All launches Hate Speech: A study of Pakistan’s cyberspace posted by Admin on Sat, 06/07/2014 - 14:19 http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/134

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Of Traitors, Patriots, Memogate and Jang Group.

Reuters Handbook of Journalism says: Take no side, tell all sides As Reuters journalists, we never identify with any side in an issue, a conflict or a dispute. Our text and visual stories need to reflect all sides, not just one. This leads to better journalism because it requires us to stop at each stage of newsgathering and ask ourselves "What do I know?" and "What do I need to know?" In reporting a takeover bid, for example, it should be obvious that the target company must be given an opportunity to state their position. Similarly in a political dispute or military conflict, there are always at least two sides to consider and we risk being perceived as biased if we fail to give adequate space to the various parties. This objectivity does not always come down to giving equal space to all sides. The perpetrator of an atrocity or the leader of a fringe political group arguably warrants less space than the victims or mainstream political parties. We must, however, always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side. We must also be on guard against bias in our choice of words. Words like "claimed" or "according to" can suggest we doubt what is being said. Words like "fears" or "hopes" might suggest we are taking sides. Verbs like rebut or refute (which means to disprove) or like fail (as in failed to comment) can imply an editorial judgment and are best avoided. Thinking about language can only improve our writing and our journalism. REFERENCE: Reuters Handbook of Journalism http://www.trust.org/contentAsset/raw-data/652966ab-c90b-4252-b4a5-db8ed1d438ce/file


Najam Sethi on Media Ethics (Aapas Ki Baat - 9 May 2014)



Najam Sethi on Media Ethics (Aapas Ki Baat - 9... by SalimJanMazari


Army thinks govt’s Taliban policy has failed, says Sethi Aapas Ki Baat on Friday News Desk Saturday, May 10, 2014 To a question on a treason plea filed in the Supreme Court, Sethi said the petition was filed before the then SC CJ iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry but he had rejected it. “Most people in the petition belong to Geo. Some people have managed its admission in the court which included people who oppose Geo. Some newspapers and two secret agencies are also behind it. ISI is against Geo for its severe criticism. I believe the SC will hear it to reach a conclusion whether these people are traitors or not. I hope the court will dispose of the man with the red cap after admonishing him. If this case continues, many people will reach the court with similar cases. I think the court will rubbish the case and the mover,” he observed. To another question on the rules and regulations for the media, he said the media would not accept any code of conduct. “However, the media itself should evolve a regulatory authority. I think Geo and Jang, being the biggest group, should lead from the front. If you insult others, they will pay you in the same coin. We will have to present the truth, not mix our thoughts with the reality and not make news out of our wishes,” he added.Some newspapers and two secret agencies are also behind it. ISI is against Geo for its severe criticism. I believe the SC will hear it to reach a conclusion whether these people are traitors or not. I hope the court will dispose of the man with the red cap after admonishing him. If this case continues, many people will reach the court with similar cases. I think the court will rubbish the case and the mover,” he observed. To another question on the rules and regulations for the media, he said the media would not accept any code of conduct. “However, the media itself should evolve a regulatory authority. I think Geo and Jang, being the biggest group, should lead from the front. If you insult others, they will pay you in the same coin. We will have to present the truth, not mix our thoughts with the reality and not make news out of our wishes,” he added. REFERENCE: Army thinks govt’s Taliban policy has failed, says Sethi Aapas Ki Baat on Friday News Desk Saturday, May 10, 2014 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-249293-Army-thinks-govts-Taliban-policy-has-failed-says-Sethi Princess and the Playboy BBC 1996 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xubf0i_princess-and-the-playboy-bbc-1996_news

Princess and the Playboy BBC 1996



Princess and the Playboy BBC 1996 by f1499110548


In a TV Show of GEO TV "Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Sath dated 18 Nov 2011", and also on Bolta Pakistan of AAJ TV dated 16 Nov 2011, the resident editor of The News International, Mr. Mohammad Malick opined that raising objection on Mansoor Ijaz' credibility is of no use! Very well as Mr. Malick suggest we should apply Mansoor Ijaz "Rant" as a cardinal truth and Mr. Mohammad Malick should plead case against Pakistan in the world community particularly in UN by quoting from Mr. Mansoor Ijaz "Excellent Pieces" on Pakistan. Some members of the Pakistani establishment and especially those agencies (nowadays this role has been taken over by the Jang Group of Newspapers), which have assumed the role of determining what is ‘national interest of Pakistan’, and who is loyal, and who is anti Pakistan, have perhaps done more damage to Pakistan than known enemies of Pakistan. It is unfortunate that every blunder, be it at national level or in foreign affairs, is made in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’. People of Pakistan are perplexed as they fail to understand what is ’national interest of Pakistan. People are further bewildered when some of these leaders, perceived and declared as ‘anti Pakistan’ or ‘security risk’ are sworn in to hold some kind of office in Pakistan. There are many examples where people declared as an ‘Indian agent’ or ‘traitor’ had taken high public office; even those who had no Pakistani nationality or rescinded it, had an opportunity to become Prime Minister of Pakistan. Once these people have decided that something is in the ‘national interest of Pakistan’, they will pursue that agenda without having any system of check and balance and appraisal. If any one dares to criticize what they do in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’, he/she is declared as ‘anti Pakistan’. Similarly if a Pakistani person criticizes Pakistan government, or holds demonstration against the government policy, he is declared as ‘anti Pakistan’. Now closely read (which I would quote from Jang Group's The News) what the Nincompoops (even the Senior Diplomatic Correspondents and Group Editors didn't have slightest idea as to what they were talking about what to talk of Ansar Abbasi) in the Jang Group of Newspapers had been filing in their Rag called The News International. Pakistan is one of those unfortunate countries where the Sanctimonious Intellectuals discuss the blame on speculations and assumptions even if it is at the cost of the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Differing with PPP or any other government is one thing and putting country's fate at the stake for settling some political score is quite another and that is the usual story with the Jang Group of newspaper and their Journalists/TV Anchors particularly Shaheen Sehbai, Kamran Khan, Mohammad Malick and Ansar Abbasi despite knowing an established fact (with reference, history and footage) that Mansoor Ijaz and his Neocon Lobby had destroyed Iraq by raising False Alarm of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Mansoor Ijaz tried exactly did the same again and Jang Group of Newspapers was part and parcel in this ugly game. We must keep one thing in mind that Mohammad Malick (Resident Editor, The News International) also has several blot on his character e.g. Muhammad Malick (List of journalists given plots in Islamabad Published: November 1, 2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/70940/list-of-journalists-given-plots-in-islamabad/ Journalist Corruption Scandal – Mohammad Malick JUNE 3, 2009 http://pkpolitics.com/2009/06/03/journalist-corruption-scandal-mohammad-malick/. Jang Group often invoke Quran and Sunnah and Fatwa to serve selfish motives therefore they must know about the “Burden of Proof” - “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and the taking of oath is upon the defendant.” (Al-Bayhaqi)” - Guilty by Suspicion is against the Spirit of Islamic Law because when you raise finger then it’s the responsibility of those who allege to produce witness. Benefit of doubt is always given to those who is under trial. "QUOTE" - Updated Nov 18, 2011 Ansar Abbasi, a newspaper editor often said to be a proxy for the military establishment, said if Haqqani is involved in the affair, he should be tried for treason. ‘Memogate’ scandal reveals civil-military splits "UNQUOTE http://www.dawn.com/news/674146/memogate-scandal-reveals-civil-military-splits 



 الْبَيِّنَةُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِى وَالْيَمِينُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ 


 The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the one who is accused (Tirmidhi) - Therefore the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone, unless they perpetrate a crime which Shari’ah considers to be a crime, and the perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge in a judiciary court, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.

ZURICH: Mansoor Ijaz, the US business tycoon who has become the centre of a huge controversy over the reported memorandum sent through him by President Zardari to Admiral Mike Mullen, on Sunday night issued a rejoinder from Zurich, responding to the statements issued by presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar, the Foreign Office and Ambassador Husain Haqqani on the issue. His statement came hours after PTI leader Imran Khan told the huge Lahore rally that Ambassador Haqqani had sent the memo to Admiral Mike Mullen requesting the US army to help against Pakistan Army. After Imran Khan’s allegations in his speech, Ambassador Haqqani had challenged the PTI leader on Sunday night to produce any evidence, if he had one, in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. REFERENCE: A dangerous path for Pakistan, says Mansoor Ijaz News Desk Monday, October 31, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-9981-A-dangerous-path-for-Pakistan-says-Mansoor-Ijaz

 Jang Group Role in Memogate



Jang Group Role in Memogate by SalimJanMazari




The PML-N Friday, through a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA), requested the Supreme Court that Pakistan’s High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan; Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Muhammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, also be made respondents in the memo case being taken up for hearing from December 19.  ISLAMABAD: The PML-N Friday, through a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA), requested the Supreme Court that Pakistan’s High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan; Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Muhammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, also be made respondents in the memo case being taken up for hearing from December 19. In their petition, PML-N leader Ishaq Dar and Khwaja Asif contended that an impression was created by the civil authorities that Pakistan knew nothing about the Abbottabad operation in advance. However, they stated that Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor of The News, in his story on December 8, 2011, while quoting interviews of Pakistan’s High Commissioner in UK, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, with CNN, BBC and NDTV revealed that Pakistan had known about the May 2 raid at least 8 to 10 days in advance. The report further revealed that Pakistan knew the operation was going to happen and assisted in terms of authorisation of the helicopter flights in our space. Similarly, the report, while quoting the ambassador’s interview, also stated that Pakistan knew about bin Laden’s location and helped the US reach him. The petitioners further submitted that another report of December 8, 2011, submitted by Ms Mehreen Zahra-Malik also quoted Mansoor Ijaz alleging that Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, and President Asif Ali Zardari had prior knowledge of the United States stealth mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden. The PML-N leaders also informed the apex court that another senior journalist. Mohamamd Malick, Editor of daily The News, had authored numerous informative reports on the subject and two reports dated November 18 and November 20, 2011, were co-authored along with Sehbai. The petitioners requested that the court ensure Wajid Shamsul Hassan’s appearance through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which may be directed to ensure that the ambassador, once in Pakistan, not be permitted to proceed abroad unless exonerated by this court or any commission so appointed for the said purpose by this court. They contended that Wajid, being the person who had admitted on May 2, 2011, to having prior knowledge of the May 2, 2011, Abbottabad operation was a necessary party. The PML-N leaders prayed to the apex court that their application be allowed, and the three persons, including Pakistan’s High Commissioner in UK Wajid Shamsul Hassan, Shaheen Sehbai, Group Editor, The News, and Mohammad Malick, Editor, The News, Islamabad, be added as respondents in the noted petition and be summoned for assisting this court for the effective adjudication of the matter in issue. They prayed that the apex court direct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure the presence of Wajid Shamsul Hassan in the court. It is pertinent to mention here that a larger bench of the apex court headed by the chief justice is resuming from hearing from December 19 petitions filed by PML-N Chief Mian Nawaz Sharif. In compliance with the court’s earlier order of December 1, 2011, Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), DG ISI, Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Secretary Ministry of Interior, Defence, Cabint Division and Federation have submitted their replies in the memo case while President Asif Ali Zaradari, another respondent in the case, has not yet filed his reply. Likewise, the administration of the Supreme Court has ordered extra security measures for December 19 as the memo case is being taken up by the larger bench of the apex court. REFERENCE: PML-N wants Wajid summoned by SC in memo case BY Sohail Khan Saturday, December 17, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-82798-PML-N-wants-Wajid-summoned-by-SC-in-memo-case

Memogate row: Will Mansoor Ijaz testify at all?



Memogate row: Will Mansoor Ijaz testify at all? by tvnportal



The Author was Resident Editor of The News and now he is MD Pakistan Television Corporation The memo Epicentre Between the lines - II BY Mohammad Malick Wednesday, October 26, 2011  Big storms sometimes begin deceptively small and then in no time become monsters, ruthlessly devouring the unprepared, the unsuspecting. Are Mansoor Ijaz’s revelations in the Financial Times something similar? He claims to have delivered an SOS message from President Zardari to President Obama at the behest of a top diplomat and says that he was specifically asked to approach Admiral Mike Mullen because Mullen could influence both Obama and Gen Kayani. “The memo was delivered to Admiral Mullen at 14.00 hrs on May 10”, wrote Mansoor, saying the very next day in Washington, Mullen had a meeting with “Pakistani national security officials” who had no clue at the time that their meeting had been spawned by a secret presidential memo. Rawalpindi too learnt of the memo months later when Mansoor went cautiously public in the FT. For its part, political Islamabad kept pretending all these months as if it had done nothing out of the ordinary. Even the explosive FT disclosure was dismissed as a “blatant lie by a self-promoting individual”, as put by an important federal minister. Rawalpindi also pretended as if it had not noticed anything unusual but on the quiet, the system went into overdrive to ferret out facts. Washington was mum, as nobody had asked it for an explanation. And just when things misleadingly appeared to be settling into an inconsequential political groove, Hillary Clinton came calling. And a lot has happened since my column last week. When asked bluntly about the memo, Secretary Clinton manoeuvred evasively by neither denying nor confirming the memo. And we all know what that really means in case of a critical question at such a diplomatic level. Within the last week the memo issue is also no longer confined to two messengers. Heavyweights have entered the fray and the buzz is that in a lovely European capital, relevant people huddled for hours in meetings, which may well irreversibly influence the political landscape back home. There seem to be no more doubts about the veracity of the memo. All suspicions and apprehensions seem to have been removed. The FT people would be laughing. With the basics settled, the focus would shift to the memo’s contents. If the details trickling out are to be believed, we apparently do not have a gun but a smoking bazooka on our hands. The contents are so toxic that they could well float into the realm of treason. The memo supposedly has it all, including the promised change of security establishment (read: sacking of Kayani & Co). Even speculations about allowing nuclear security retooling, or American boots on the ground, are tantamount to political blasphemy, so imagine the devastating consequences when such offers are found written in black and white. “It’s an impossibly desperate dream menu rather than a memo,” says someone credible in Islamabad. Everything appears to be real, everything is now on the record. The problem, and the beauty of today’s digital existence, is that every little scrap of data gets preserved with the simple click of a key, instantly transforming seemingly inconsequential exchanges into key-evidence. One click and BlackBerries can turn into poison berries. What happens in the larger context will perhaps languidly manifest itself, and over a stretched period of time, but what does appear imminent is that those aspiring for grander future roles could soon end up losing even their current lofty perches. And judging from the severity of circumstances, Islamabad should feel exceptionally relieved if the demanded ‘corrective measures’ stopped at this. But it remains a highly unlikely eventuality. It’s not as if the original ‘official’ messenger hasn’t been in the midst of some really dangerous situations in the past as well, but this time around he appears to have made the cardinal mistake of choosing the wrong ‘unofficial messenger’ for conveying his master’s potentially self-destructive message. And therefore penance will be his to pay, the cross for him to carry. Meanwhile, all fact-finding is over. The Big ones will now sit to eventually reshape the contours of the country’s future ruling structure. Of course, institutional queries will be made, questions posed, but it will be more of a formality as the answers to the yet unasked questions are already known. So what happens next, is the real question here. In a related development, the office of National Security Advisor in each country was being perceived as the perfect focal point to coordinate strategy between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US. Where needed, the office would have been created, or resurrected. With the four NSAs coordinating matters and even bypassing certain institutions and offices protocol-wise higher than their own, matters were expected to move at a much faster pace and in the desired direction. In the envisaged scheme of things, the NSA’s office would have been second in power only to that of the president and hence the desperate attempt to secure this all-important office. But for now at least, the concept appears a dead horse. Exhaustive background interviews with those in the know reveal that a clear understanding now exists on what really needs to be done to put brakes on this runaway mandated autocracy passing itself off as elected democracy. The prevailing geopolitical situation however is momentarily staying the increasingly edgy hand. But for how long such international considerations will thwart domestic compulsions, is anybody’s guess. It was also shared that the public stance notwithstanding, privately the superpower’s interlocutors had been indicating their “ease” with dealing with “someone with real authority being directly in charge of things”. But the Mullen blow up has forced a mindset of extreme caution in Rawalpindi’s dealings with Washington even though the US political policy in the region is being dictated by its military and intelligence organs, both being areas of relative comfort for Rawalpindi. The earlier professed desire of allowing democrats unfettered freedom to run things is also no longer being expressed by those who truly matter. Is the change of views being caused primarily by the growing pressure of increasingly restless colleagues, or is it based on a realistic reassessment of ground realities and complete disenchantment with the political masters? I asked someone extremely close to the alpha general, and he responded, “He is not someone who rigidly remains wedded to any notion without merit. He also does not leave things to chance or fate, or scores unsettled, and will not move a step on anything till he has carefully thought his way through, factored in all consequences of both, moving forward too fast, or even staying still for too long”. There remains an institutional apprehension about political Islamabad rolling a desperate dice and causing a change at the top if too many questions are asked at this point about the memo. While there may be a few differing voices on this count, an institutional consensus appears to be in place that a change will definitely be caused post-March 2012 Senate elections, were the ruling political dispensation allowed to have its marauding ways till then. “If change in top command is brought in now, it would be for mala fide reasons and the institutional reaction will be as decisive, but come March it will be a different story,” was the assessment of a concerned three-star. The potent mix to justify the hitherto unjustifiable appears to be in place. There is no governance per se anymore, anywhere. Law and order is conspicuous by its very absence. The economy is bankrupt. Corruption has touched unimaginable heights. Incompetence is the sole requirement for landing important government posts. The executive mocks judges. Court verdicts are not worth the paper they are typed on. Thousands of people are being pushed below the poverty line every day, while the ruling elite churns out new millionaires and billionaires by the week. Desperate circumstances have transformed ordinary masses into raving, raging mobs. The disconnect between the rulers and the ruled is absolute, and naked. We are hurtling towards being a failed State. So what is holding the natural ‘unnatural’ consequence from occurring? Concerns about international reactions, or the obligatory weight of a three-year extension? Should it not happen, no matter what? Is this criminalised democracy still the only or the better option available? I do not know, but we may get the answers sooner than we expect. REFERENCES: The memo Epicentre Between the lines - II BY Mohammad Malick Wednesday, October 26, 2011 The writer is editor The News, Islamabad. http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-74433-The-memo-Epicentre Now what? Epicentre Mohammad Malick Wednesday, November 23, 2011 The writer was editor The News, Islamabad and now he is Managing Director of Pakistan Television Corporation http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-78908-Now-what No memo martyrs, please Epicentre Mohammad Malick ... The writer is editor The News, Islamabad. Friday, December 23, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-83647-No-memo-martyrs-please
The memo returns Epicentre by Mohammad Malick Wednesday, November 16, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-77746-The-memo-returns Gilded cage? Epicentre by Mohammad Malick Wednesday, December 14, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-82474-Gilded-cage Sitting on blisters Epicentre by Mohammad Malick Friday, January 13, 2012 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-87326-Sitting-on-blisters


Memogate: Will the Mansoor Ijaz story shake Pakistan?

 

Memogate: Will the Mansoor Ijaz story shake... by tvnportal


The memo that saved Zardari — at what cost? A full inquiry needed into grave matter BY Shaheen Sehbai...News Analysis Saturday, October 15, 2011 DUBAI: The sensational Financial Times revelation about a secret memo from President Asif Ali Zardari to President Obama, through Admiral Mike Mullen, has exploded on the Pakistani political scene, with Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali raising it in the National Assembly and TV channels speculating on its credibility. But some key facts are being ignored. The first is the critical decision by the Financial Times, a newspaper of the highest repute and standing, to go ahead with the article written by Mansoor Ijaz, a US businessman of Pakistani origin who has a long history of interactions with the top Pakistani military and civilian leaders on key security issues, including governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in the 90s. The FT is not likely to publish something which it cannot substantiate if it was so required, so any number of denials and clarifications by our diplomats or the presidency will only be for domestic consumption and would mean nothing. The US would, obviously not comment on any of this as policy. The second, and larger issue, however, is what else was contained in the memorandum as reported in the FT Comment Page. The real facts would come out if and when the full text of that memo ever gets out. In my view, such memos are not a one-point declaration but contain a full case, argued on the basis of assumptions, promises and commitments in return for actions, assistance and public affirmations along particular policy lines. If this is the case in this memo, then it is quite possible that for a huge favour like stopping the Pakistan Army from staging a coup against the civilian government, a lot more may have been offered and promised. Some points raised in the FT article hint at these additional commitments. For example, what did Ijaz mean to tell us by writing about “a new national security team”. Could President Zardari have promised to remove the entire present leadership of the Pakistan Army, including General Kayani and General Pasha, and to bring in his own team, which would not be so resistant to the US demands of helping out the Americans in Afghanistan. If evidence comes to light that this memo was sent through a top Pakistani diplomat, then there would be many questions about how our foreign office and foreign service are being run, because anything of this sort cannot simply pass through the normal Foreign Office channels and must have been done by bypassing all the established SOPs. In that case, a full and thorough probe needs to be carried out as to how and through which way this message was conveyed and what it contained. The third key issue is the credibility of the writer, Mansoor Ijaz, a man once dubbed by our ambassador to Washington as the “silent billionaire”, a self-made man as one of the world’s top investment minds and with friends in the highest defence, national security and political echelons of many governments around the world, a man who surely doesn’t need the headache of dealing with our incestuous politics while he jets around the French Riviera. Ijaz, it may be recalled, was involved in mediating in Sudan during the Clinton presidency, where he secured critical counter-terrorism assistance for the US authorities. He was also the man who worked behind the scenes to get a statement issued by the then Vice President Al Gore against a possible military coup during Benazir’s second tenure. In fact, I personally attended the event where Gore came to join Pakistani activists at a fundraiser and out of the blue ended his speech with the warning that no military coups would be tolerated in Pakistan. Wajid Shamsul Hassan, the then Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, had specially flown to Washington to attend the event, knowing that such a statement would be made by Gore. Again, during the Benazir government when Nawaz Sharif was the opposition leader, it was Mansoor Ijaz who arranged quietly for Sharif to meet with senior US national security officials at the White House when he could not get a phone call answered in Washington. He was deeply involved in bringing Sharif to a seminar held by the Carnegie Endowment on Pakistan’s nuclear programme to make Nawaz appear more rational when after an earlier statement had been made by Nawaz that Pakistan could explode the bomb. That was at least two or three years before Nawaz came back to power and officially made Pakistan a nuclear power. In that event, when Maleeha Lodhi was the Pakistan Ambassador in US, a host of speakers took part in the seminar, including Lt Gen KM Arif and the then Editor Najam Sethi. Robin Raphael was the then Assistant Secretary of State. Mansoor Ijaz also made a speech in the seminar. Nawaz Sharif spoke on the sensitive subject but refused to take any questions from the audience as this was his condition to participate in the seminar. In 1999, just weeks after the bloodless coup that brought Pervez Musharraf to power, Mansoor Ijaz got involved in a much publicised effort to bring Pakistani and Indian sides closer to a solution on Kashmir and I know it for a fact that he had contacts with the ISI and the Indian intelligence leadership to go ahead with his effort. The summit between Musharraf and India’s Atal Behari Vajpayee in Agra came about much because of this ceasefire that was declared in the summer months of 2000. Given this background, there cannot be any doubt that a senior Pakistani diplomat contacted Mansoor Ijaz with the message for the US leadership in the way the FT article revealed. Surely, the text of the memo to which Ijaz refers, which was finally sent on to Admiral Mike Mullen, must have been revised and written many times over, with each word carefully considered. With such intense interactions, which must have taken place, there has to be a record of some kind, some telephone calls, some emails or SMS messages or other communication to prove that all this was going on before this memo was agreed to and then finally sent to the US. Whatever happened will come out, but the effect this memo had was astonishing, not for us but even for General Kayani as he reportedly went on record to express surprise that in Spain Admiral Mullen had a very cordial meeting with them and then two days later he came out with a charge against Pakistan Army. This matter appears to be much deeper than it looks and needs to be properly investigated by the Pakistani authorities. REFERENCE: The memo that saved Zardari — at what cost? A full inquiry needed into grave matter BY Shaheen Sehbai...News Analysis Saturday, October 15, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-9564-The-memo-that-saved-Zardari-%E2%80%94-at-what-cost Zardari feared military coup after Osama attack: report News Desk Wednesday, October 12, 2011 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-9493-Zardari-feared--military-coup-after-Osama-attack-report

Friday, May 9, 2014

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



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





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