Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

News & Media Alert

74 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

The sole reason behind this thread is to issue an alert & respond to all false reports in the media against the interest of Pakistan and its people.

Here are the steps:

1- Alert the members of the subject matter

2- Post the link where the response can be send

3- We will generate generic letters for the specific subject matter.

4- NO DISCUSSION on this thread. All discussion will be deleted.

Get involved and make a difference.! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Guys, I have written the following to CNN regarding today's larry King live show. Please, please do write to them too.

I refer to the Larry King Live show, hosted by Christiane Amanpour today (8/15/06).

I was appalled to see one of the panelists, Lawrence Wright, claim that the Pakistani military is sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban so they catch low level operatives and leave the senior ones. However the actual facts belie such a claim as Khalid Shek Mohammed, Abu Zubaida, Bin al Shibh and al Libbi, all senior members of Al Qaeda, were either captured or killed by the Pakistani military.

Furthermore Mr. Wright stated that Pakistan is intentionally prolonging the war on terrorism in order to get aid from the U.S. This is a cynical lie because no amount of aid can offset the price Pakistan is paying in terms of the lives of thousands of its soldiers and citizens killed by groups sympathetic to Al Qaeda, as well as running the risk of civil war in its frontier region.

No country has a greter interest in seeing this war come to a quick end than Pakistan, as its entire future strategy to be the world's gateway to Central Asia and western China remains out of reach as long as there is instability in the region.

I believe it is CNN's responsibility to set the record straight, since it allowed Mr. Wright the opportunity to misinform its viewers with his inaccurate views and cynical analysis.

NavBaby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Assalam o aliekum,

I am a long time reader of the Pak Def forums, but am posting here for the first time. I sent feedback to BBC citing the sources given by Mr. SyedA in the following post:

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showpost.php?p=90142&postcount=91

Here is what I wrote to the BBC:

COMMENTS: I have to wonder what the relevance is of mentioning the

national origins of a woman detained today on suspicion of carrying

explosive material on board a plane in West Virginia especially since

no

explosives were found.

CNN, Associated Press, Yahoo News even FOX news did not mention the

national origins so why was there any need to mention it in your

resport? It seems like certain BBC scribes have an agenda to defame the

country of my origin, Pakistan, which has sacrificed more people in the

fight against terror than any other country in the world.

A prominent apology and a clarification in connection with this news

item would be most appropriate. Otherwise people such as myself who

heretofore held the BBC in high esteem would be forced to turn to other

sources for thier news.

The reply I got from BBC is as follows:

The woman's country of origin was among the information released by the

authorities at an early stage - and reported by both AP and Fox - and

would have been included whatever the country.

With best wishes

BBC News website

Best Regards

hrnaqvi

S.Q likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pakistani bad mouthing Pakistan abroad is worse than that done by non-Pakistanis. This Pakistani journalist had the audacity to sit in the Wall Street Journal office and discribe Pakistan as a dangerous place to work in. How can this be protested. Should letters be sent ot the News were this journalist work?

Foreign Journalists Inspired by Legacy of Slain US Reporter

By Mike O'Sullivan

Los Angeles

21 August 2006

O'Sullivan report - Download 667k

Listen to O'Sullivan report

A journalist from Pakistan and another from Nepal are completing a fellowship that commemorates Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was abducted and killed by terrorists in Pakistan in 2002. The two journalists have spent time in American newsrooms, and say the experience, and the late reporter's example, have inspired them.

Daniel Pearl

Daniel Pearl began his career at the North Adams Transcript and Berkshire Eagle in Massachusetts, then moved on to The Wall Street Journal. The two reporters spent five months working for those papers.

Ghanashyam Ojha usually writes for The Kathmandu Post, covering politics, human rights and Nepal's Maoist insurgency. This year, he entered a very different world in small-town Massachusetts, working for the North Adams Transcript and Berkshire Eagle, where the late Daniel Pearl began his career. Ojha says he developed an affection for the region and respect for the paper.

From left: Shahid Shah, Judea Pearl and Ghanashyam Ojha

"Though it's a small newspaper, when we compare it with national dailies, I think the newspaper has done a great job in disseminating information to the community in Massachusetts," said Ghanashyam Ojha.

Journalists in Nepal have faced pressures in recent years, both from officials and Maoist insurgents. Press freedoms were restricted after Nepal's King Gyanendra dissolved parliament and took control of the government early last year. Mass protests this year brought a violent response from officials and the jailing of a number of journalists. In the face of international censure, the king allowed parliament to reconvene in late April. In May, parliament voted to curb Gyanendra's power, and Ojha says he understands that conditions at home have improved.

Pakistan journalist Shahid Shah of The News International newspaper in Karachi has been working in the Washington bureau of The Wall Street Journal. He says journalists in Pakistan are ostensibly free to write as they please, but that they engage in self-censorship, out of fear of offending the powerful military.

"Self-censorship in Pakistan started when General Zia became president of Pakistan, and he remained the chief of the army," said Shahid Shah. "So, since then, we are living under self-imposed censorship, and although government has been claiming that there has been no censorship and press is free in Pakistan, but it is not."

The 11-year rule of General Zia-ul-Haq began in 1977, and was the longest in the country's history. Pakistan is again ruled by the army chief, President Pervez Musharraf, who staged a bloodless coup in 1999, overthrowing the civilian leadership.

He has promised to return the nation to democracy, and says he values the role of the media as a watchdog on government. However, a number of human rights groups rank Pakistan poorly in press freedom. The organization, Freedom House, for example, cites harassment of journalists and aggressive tactics by authorities to silence critics.

Shah says he is impressed by the emphasis on accurate reporting at The Wall Street Journal, and its focus on research. He has written stories on the Middle East and Pakistan, and says they go through a series of editors.

"And every editor has their questions, and they have written [sent] the story back to the reporters," he said. "And then, finally, a story is approved by the reporter himself, or herself. And, before it is approved, it won't be published."

Judea Pearl, the father of the late Wall Street Journal reporter, heads the Daniel Pearl Foundation, which promotes a legacy of objective reporting and communication between people of different regions. He says the Pearl Fellowships bring journalists from the Middle East and South Asia to see the United States, and understand its diversity of culture and opinion.

"Danny used to do it the other way around," said Judea Pearl. "He went to the East, and started reporting to us about his adventures with the people behind the news. And he reported, you know, from Tehran, Kosovo, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. And we saw through his writings the people behind the news. Now, it's time for the East to reciprocate."

Both visiting reporters say they have honed their investigative skills, and will return to their homelands with a new commitment.

Shahid Shah says journalists in Pakistan face very real threats, and some, like Daniel Pearl, have been kidnapped and murdered.

"It's really dangerous to work in a country like Pakistan, but I'm not scared of that," said Shahid Shah. "I have got energy. I'm inspired by the work of Daniel Pearl, and I'm inspired by his family, and they wanted to spread a dialogue, to start a dialogue."

Ghanashyam Ojha says he is pleased to take part in that dialogue, and was also inspired by his time here.

"I'll be taking my experiences, not only of journalism, but also Danny's message for humanity," he said. "So, when I stayed here, though for a very brief period, six months, I got to learn about American society, people, so it really helped me to know the actual views of Americans towards the outer world."

He says many in his country view the United States through a narrow prism of official statements from the White House or Pentagon. He hopes to broaden that perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I have send this letter to the News. I encourage others to do the same.

Here is the link: http://www.jang.net/vf/feedback.asp

Sir,

I would like to protest against the statement by one of your journalist Mr. Shahid Shah who is presently working in the Wall Street Journal head quarter in New York. (http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-21-voa62.cfm) Mr. Shahid Shah described Pakistan as the most dangerous place to work in, for journalist. He also described press as not free in that country.

For Mr. Shah a Pakistani to bad mouth Pakistan in a foreign country and in the headquarter of a leading world newspaper is highly irresponsible and should be condemned. It is people like him that give our country a negative image. Unfortunately Pakistani press has still not matured and I wonder whether it deserves the freedom that it enjoys at present.

Thank you

Abdur Rasheed

USA

cc. www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk

www.pakdef.info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Members: for how long will we tolerate our own Pakistanis bad mouthing our country abroad. People like Hussain Haqqani who come on Public television in the US and condemning the Pakistan government for “not doing enough about terrorism” after the London incidence instead of highlighting its success in preventing the attack. You have to condemn people like these. I urge you to send letters to the News condemning this reporter.

If you don’t send letters for something I feel strongly about in relation to Pakistan’s image, then don’t expect me to support issues that you point out either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rasheed,

Keep up the good work because a lot of members have started to respond via this thread.

If you find anything when Hussain Haqqani or his likes say something about Pakistan please post the link and the response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To: VOANews@VOANews.com

Subject: Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal 08/24/06

I refer to Jeffery Young’s article entitled “Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal,” dated August 22, 2006. Url: http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/Pakistan2006-08-22-voa66.cfm

This article entirely misses the point on nuclear proliferation in South Asia. Pakistan has nuclear weapons because India has established a pattern of aggression and hostility against Pakistan. If India had not developed nuclear weapons by illegally diverting nuclear fuel provided for civilian purposes, there would be no nuclear weapons in Pakistan today.

By unlawfully diverting nuclear fuel for military purposes, India has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted on nuclear issues. Therefore, the U.S. – India nuclear pact poses a two fold threat to Pakistan: first, India will be free to use its entire domestic nuclear fuel supplies to expand its nuclear arsenal; and second, it may again secretly divert foreign supplied fuel towards it military nuclear program.

It is unrealistic and unjust to expect Pakistan to do nothing, while we aid its enemy in expanding the nuclear threat that Pakistan faces. If the U.S. does not want to see an expansion of Pakistani nuclear arsenal, then it has to secure Pakistan against the Indian threat it faces. This means India’s nuclear proliferation must be reversed, and a conventional military balance established between India and Pakistan that does not leave India with the capability to overwhelm Pakistan.

Treatment of the A.Q. Khan episode further erodes this article’s credibility, as India also does not have a blemish free record when it comes to proliferation. In addition to its initial illegal proliferation, India has aided Iraqi and Iranian nuclear and missile programs over the years. The U.S. has sanctioned several Indian scientists and companies for nuclear and missile proliferation, with latest sanctions being applied just last month to two Indian companies for selling missile parts to Iran.

Such Indian proliferation is no less a threat to the U.S. than the proliferation by the Khan network. By imposing double standards where we reward India in spite of its proliferation while seeking to penalize Pakistan, we further entrench nuclear proliferation in South Asia.

In any case, the U.S. has failed to act on the information provided by Pakistan on the Khan network, thus we have flimsy grounds to demand more cooperation from Pakistan on this issue. The Swiss government has repeatedly asked the U.S. for assistance in prosecuting three individuals identified by Pakistan as ringleaders of the smuggling network, but they have yet to receive a response from the U.S.

Pakistani nuclear weapons are merely the symptom of the disease, and the disease is nuclear proliferation by India. If the U.S. seriously wants to end nuclear expansion in South Asia, it has to treat the disease and not just the symptom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Salam,

The reason why western writers are busy trying to malign Pakistan's nuclear program is that we have failed to defend and promote Pakistan's stance regarding our program and proliferation. The fact is that Pakistan has always stood for non proliferation and only embarked on a nuclear weapons program in 1972 when India was very close to a nuclear explosion, and therefore it was a purely self defence measure taken in the wake of Indian aggression resulting in the breakup of East Pakistan.

Regarding proliferation, Pakistan has an unblemished record of non proliferation. Pakistan has never and will never proliferate. Pakistan never sanctioned nuclear exports as a state policy and it was only the work of a handful of individuals who were effectively above the law. It was a case of weak institutional control and excessive trust on afew individuals that some leaks took place, even though they were a small part of a long chain of nuclear technology. It takes much more than mere first generation centrifuges to build a bomb, and the entire Pakistani scientific community and the entire program cannot be blamed for the act of a single individual and his accomplices. Had there been state policy for proliferation, all technologies critical to the making of a bomb, such as nuclear fuel cycle, reprocessing and other enrichment technologies, and designing the bomb and developing its trigger mechanism and nuclear testing equipment should also have been exported which never took place as fortunately these were under strict institutional control of PAEC.

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Members: for how long will we tolerate our own Pakistanis bad mouthing our country abroad. People like Hussain Haqqani who come on Public television in the US and condemning the Pakistan government for “not doing enough about terrorism” after the London incidence instead of highlighting its success in preventing the attack. You have to condemn people like these. I urge you to send letters to the News condemning this reporter.

If you don’t send letters for something I feel strongly about in relation to Pakistan’s image, then don’t expect me to support issues that you point out either.

Rasheed, please keep posting any thing of a similar nature. We have had good momentum built up that straightents the facts with CNN, BBC and the likes (and thats what eventually led to this thread). There is just no way to keep metrics, but rest assured, I like many members are more than happy to write to state the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Appreciate your response H Khan and T Khan. Rest assured I will do my part in responding to the relevant news items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

TO: letters@washpost.com.

SUBJECT: Pakistan and Democracy

Dear Editor:

I refer to Pamela Constable’s article entitled “Pakistan's Awkward Balancing Act on Islamic Militant Groups,” that appeared in the Post’s online edition on 08/26/06. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501371.html.

The main assertion of the article that the Pakistani government is cracking down on some terrorism merely to compete for American goodwill, while simultaneously providing safe harbor to other terrorists because it is not a “complete” democracy, is grossly erroneous and unsupported by facts.

Pakistan has absolutely no incentive to support terrorism in either Afghanistan or India. In Afghanistan, Pakistan will be among the main beneficiaries if peace and stability return because this will allow Pakistan to move forward with its strategic goal of becoming a global trade corridor for Central Asia and western China, as well as secure energy supplies for its own economic growth.

Similarly in India, Pakistan is pursuing peace negotiations which cannot succeed if it supports terrorism. President Musharraf has made several creative proposals on solving the Kashmir dispute, which no previous Pakistani government had ever considered, and he is unlikely to jeopardize his own initiatives by giving India an excuse to wiggle out of solving the Kashmir dispute.

The contention that President Musharraf needs the backing of the religious groups to support his bid for re-election is simply absurd. The religious parties hate him. They accuse him of trying to secularize Pakistan, as well as breaking past promises. There is just no way that the religious parties will support President Musharraf, because each holds diametrically opposing visions for the future of Pakistan.

Just this week the religious parties have joined forces with the non-religious parties to file a parliamentary motion of no-confidence against the government, yet the combined opposition does not have sufficient votes to ensure the success of this motion. Therefore, President Musharraf has no need to rely on the support of the religious parties, or anyone else in the opposition.

This motion of no-confidence is only the second that has ever been filed against a government in the history of Pakistan, and clearly demonstrates the substantive nature of democracy under President Musharraf, in contrast to the cosmetic democracy practiced by Prime Ministers Bhutto and Sharif.

President Musharraf has spread democracy deeper and further in Pakistan, than any of his pseudo democratic opponents ever thought of doing. He has brought democratic participation down to the grass roots level by introducing a local legislative system. He has empowered female participation in government by reserving 33% of the seats for women in local councils, and 17% each in the Senate, National Assembly and provincial assemblies.

President Musharraf has also expanded democratic enfranchisement by lowering the voting age to 18 years, and reviving the joint electorate system to enable the minorities to participate fully in the democratic process. He has strengthened the media by licensing scores of private radio and TV stations, so now citizens are exposed to more than just the government’s point of view. This increased freedom of expression never existed in any prior “democratic” era of Pakistan.

Pakistan today is more democratic than ever before. The elitist critics of Musharraf who have been quoted in the article, should ask themselves whether they could have freely offered such critical assessments of the government if they really lived under a dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I refer to Gary Thomas’ article entitled “Tribal Leader's Death May Affect Pakistan Politics, Terror War,” dated August 29, 2006. URL: http://voanews.com/english/2006-08-29-voa39.cfm.

The contention that Bugti was fighting for a more equitable share of oil and gas revenues is incorrect. What Bugti wanted was more money for himself personally. Pakistani governments of various shades have paid Bugti billions of rupees in gas royalties since the 1950s. Each time he wanted more money, he blackmailed the government by launching a terror campaign and disguising it as a fight for greater rights.

All the money Bugti received from the government, supposedly on behalf of the people in his area, was used for building palatial homes for himself and an illegal private army. The poor tribesmen under Bugti never saw a dime from the gas royalties, and he resisted all attempts to bring education and development in his area for fear of erosion in his feudal powers.

It was Bugti who chose the path of violence by indulging in terrorism, leaving the government no choice but to use military forces to control the killing of innocent citizens and attacks on infrastructure. Considering that we, the United States, invaded two foreign countries in our war against terrorism, Pakistan’s reaction to Bugti’s terrorism has been incredibly mild.

Pakistani government was already discussing Bugti’s demands, and there was no reason for him to resort to terrorism. Over the past several weeks thousands of tribal militants have surrendered and given up their illegal weapons; just today 1,500 tribesmen laid down their arms, and none of them has been harmed. Bugti had the same choice, but his megalomania prevented him from acting in a civilized manner.

While opponents of President Musharraf have tried to exploit Bugti’s death as a catastrophic event for Pakistan, it is instructive to note that in Dera Bugti, Bugti’s hometown, not a single person came out to protest. The sentiment there was one of relief that Bugti’s tyrannical hold over the area had come to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The article:

Pakistan's Charade Debate

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/09/03/pakistans_charade_debate/

Response:

The article “Pakistan’s Charade debate” appearing in your newspaper on September 3, 2006, fails far short of conveying the reality of women issues in Pakistan.

President Musharraf’s government has done far more steps to improve the status of women in the society than any “democratic governments” in the past.

Some of the facts are: Pakistan has the second highest number of women parliamentarians in the world. Women have 33% quota in the local government apart from contesting elections on the regular seats- thousands of women hold public offices in all tiers of government. Women are now taking active role in non-traditional government offices such as the armed forces and judiciary. Recent ammendment to the Rape laws is another step to ameliorate the hardships of women something that no previous adminstration has dared to attempt. This follows a Presidential amnesty to thousands of women who were in jail as a result of this unjust regulation.

President Musharraf’s efforts to improve women status in Pakistan should be appreciated and encouraged, rather than scoffed and dismissed.

Feedback form:

http://www.boston.com/help/feedback/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rasheed,

Do you know if the writer is a man or woman? It says Imaduddin, and it sounds like a man who wrote this.

It would be quite powerful if a woman wrote a response.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Even better if it goes from a female MNA. There are some concerned, active ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Excellent writeup, self explanatory.

The missing link between foreign policy and resentment

SHEEMA KHAN

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Shortly after the July 7 London bombings last summer, I attended a lecture on the rise of "homegrown" extremism. A security expert wove together various threads, including socio-economic factors, radical preachers and racism.

The thesis was striking for its "absence of the obvious."

Questions came from the floor. What about the trauma of witnessing the genocide of Bosnian Muslims in the heart of Europe a decade earlier? Irrelevant, according to the expert, since the West intervened to save Muslims. This, in spite of research by Harvard's Jessica Stern that shows this event sparked militancy amongst some British Muslim youth. And the role of British foreign policy in Muslim lands? "It's the elephant in the room," replied the expert, refusing further comment. Yet one bomber declared in a posthumous video: "Your democratically elected government continuously perpetuates atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible. . . until we feel security, you will be our targets."

The "absence of the obvious" was present again following the recent alleged bomb plot at Heathrow Airport. In an open letter to the British government, prominent Muslim leaders brought up the connection between radicalization and British foreign policy. The British Home Secretary angrily dismissed their suggestions (as did a recent Globe editorial).

Related to this article

Latest Comments Comments

* Start a conversation on this story

The Globe and Mail

The American government also refuses to acknowledge any such connection.

The authors of Without Precedence: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission reveal that in the final report, 9/11 commission members were forced to dilute commentary on the "why" of 9/11. Commission vice-chair Lee Hamilton thought it important to acknowledge "a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in al-Qaeda's actions." Instead, the report made peripheral mention of these issues.

This approach was in line with a 2003 Congressional report aimed at addressing the low opinion of America by Muslims worldwide. The inquiry aimed to find out why, what to do about it, and to marginalize the appeal of extremists. The main recommendation? Do a better job of selling America to the Muslim world. After all, a large proportion of Muslims expressed a desire for social justice, a fair judiciary, honest multiparty elections, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

The report claimed the oft-voiced opinion "we like Americans but not what the Americans are doing" as unrealistic, since "Americans elect their government and broadly support its foreign policy." A disingenuous statement, since most voters examine domestic issues.

The official line from London and Washington has been echoed in Ottawa. The Conservatives dutifully repeat the mantra that domestic terrorism is hatched by those who "hate freedom" and everything that "democracy stands for." But this is not the whole picture.

Canada was placed on al-Qaeda's hit list in 2002 after joining the coalition to bomb Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's declarations -- dating back to 1986 -- have repeatedly demanded the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Middle East. Attacks on U.S. interests in Tanzania, Kenya and Yemen (the USS Cole) were seen as al-Qaeda's attempt to remove American troops from Saudi Arabia. The common thread linking suicide bombings is nationalism, not religion, according to Robert Pape who has compiled a database of hundreds of suicide bombers. According to Mr. Pape, the goal is "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

In The Next Attack, authors Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin point out that U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan; its support of autocrats in the Arab world; and its blanket support of Israel are fuelling resentment throughout the Muslim world. According to the authors, hard-core extremists are full of contempt for the West, and will not be affected by foreign-policy changes.

However, there is a larger pool that objects to foreign intervention, but does not advocate violence as an answer. A "tipping point" is possible if a small fraction of the majority becomes radicalized, leading to more devastation in Western capitals. Why not re-examine aspects of foreign policy that anger so many, the authors ask, in order to remove one of the many factors that fuel extremism?

The flip side is that government policy cannot, and should not, be held hostage to violence. Most would agree with this. Yet in their focus on al-Qaeda, some governments ignore the will of the majority. Take Spain for example.

Prior to the 2004 national election, terrorists killed scores of commuters on March 11. The government first blamed Basque extremists, in spite of evidence pointing to radical Muslims. A traumatized, angry electorate voted out the pro-Bush party of Jose Maria Aznar, replacing it with a socialist party that went on to keep its promise to withdraw troops from Iraq. Had terrorism worked? Well before 3/11, public sentiment was overwhelmingly (up to 98 per cent) against Spanish involvement in Iraq. The Aznar government ignored its own people. Did the bombings exacerbate this disconnect or vault foreign policy to a prominent electoral issue?

Public debate on foreign policy is long overdue. Undoubtedly, the politics of fear and patriotism will be used to silence dissent. Witness the fallout in Connecticut, where Senator Joe Lieberman's pro-Iraq war policy cost him dearly. The Bush administration spun this as a victory for al-Qaeda and accused Democrats of being "soft" on terror.

As borders shrink, citizens need to become more involved in how our nation conducts itself abroad, and how we are perceived. When Mr. Harper utters "measured response," it is understood as the Canadian position, and not that of a minority.

Our government is accountable to the electorate -- not to violent usurpers of our democratic system. Let's insist on a foreign policy with human dignity at its core, in harmony with our cherished principles of fairness, justice and equity. This will serve the best interests of Canada first (not foreign nations), both here and abroad.

sheema.khan@globeandmail.com

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060905.wxcokhan05a/BNStory/specialComment/home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I refer to Carlotta Gall’s article entitled “ Musharraf Vows to Aid Afghanistan in Fighting Taliban,” that appeared in the New York Times' online edition of 09/07/06. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.

Ms. Gall’s assertion that Pakistan uses militants as an arm of its foreign policy is false and without foundation.

Just last month President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged and praised Pakistani cooperation that facilitated the capture of several terrorists, who had planned to blow up civilian airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

Furthermore, about ten days ago Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, lauded Pakistan's pursuit of Al Qaeda members, and insisted that the Pakistani government does not collude with the Taliban.

If Pakistan was really supporting militants, then these political and military leaders would not be singing Pakistan’s praises. Certainly these leaders have the most current and accurate information, and Ms. Gall should rely on their opinions for a more authentic picture of the situation. However she chose to trust unsupported anti-Pakistani allegations by Seth G. Jones of the RAND Corporation, who appears to have an agenda to push and is unlikely to be objective in his analysis.

Had Mr. Jones’ allegation been even partially true, then the U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan would have been closer to numbers in Iraq, and not merely 10% of those casualties. It is due to Pakistan’s cooperation that the invasion of Afghanistan was so quick and pain free, and it is because of Pakistani cooperation that Hamid Karzai became the president of Afghanistan and remains so today.

Before blaming Pakistan for the troubles in Afghanistan, do a rational cost-benefit analysis of the impact of Afghan instability on Pakistan. Pakistan has everything to gain from a stable Afghanistan, thus there is absolutely no incentive for Pakistan to sabotage Afghan recovery.

NavBaby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The Pakistani government has cut a deal with the Taliban in Waziristan province that essentially allows the group to run its own affairs as long as it promises not to export terror across the border to Afghanistan.

I guess if you wear a turban, then according to CNN you area are considered the 'Taliban'. Let alone the fact that people Pakistan made a deal with are the idigenous population that have always lived in Pakistan, now and a 100 years ago.

I guess if CNN were to re-define the term Taliban as any person that speaks pushto or has worn a turban, or a more general any body with a head, then their assertion is correct. I will certainly write to them

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/05/tracking.terror/index.html

I don't see the link between the title of this article and the article itself. How low would cnn go to bad mouth Pakistan? I wish Pakistan FO createsa media watch like this one and start kicking these so called reporters out of the country or write and propagate counter view point/articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The reason I am posting this is to show how the media doesn't call this lunatic an Indian/A Canadian-Indian/ or a Canadian of Indian decent. Had this man been of Pakistani decent it, Pakistan would have been mentioned all over the media. Mods feel free to move this if you feel inappropriate.

-------------------------------------------------

Alleged gunman's Web postings obsessed with death

POSTED: 9:42 a.m. EDT, September 14, 2006

Story Highlights

• NEW: Alleged gunman wrote favorite video game was "Columbine Massacre"

• NEW: Gunman wrote about wanting to die in "hail of gunfire"

• NEW: Shooter identified as 25-year-old from suburban Montreal

• Gunman wore trench coat, began shooting outside, student says

MONTREAL, Quebec (CNN) -- Canadian media say the gunman in a Montreal college shooting called himself the "Angel of Death" in an online profile.

The gunman, identified by Quebec Provincial Police spokesman Jason Jaughir as Kimveer Gill, 25, was killed by police gunfire after a rampage through Dawson College left one woman dead and 19 other injured, six of them critically.

Police were searching for a motive Thursday, but in a profile on the Web site vampirefreaks.com, quoted Thursday by the Toronto Star, Gill writes that he wants to die "like Romeo and Juliet -- or in a hail of gunfire."

The Montreal Gazette and the French language Journal de Montreal said Gill, from the Montreal suburb of Laval, had published an online gallery of more than 50 photos depicting himself in various poses, holding a Berretta CX4 Storm semi-automatic rifle and wearing a long black trench coat and combat boots.

"His name is Trench. You will come to know him as the Angel of Death," he wrote on his vampirefreaks.com profile, according to the Gazette.

Gill's online identifier was Fatality666, according to the Star.

The Journal de Montreal quoted Gill as writing, "Work sucks, school sucks, life sucks... What else can I say? ... Vengeance is coming."

The Star said Gill wrote about hating authority figures, including police and teachers, and high school "jocks" for their bullying.

A version of Gill's Web page shows a tombstone inscribed with his name "Kimveer" and the words "Lived fast died young. Left a mangled corpse,'' the Star reported.

One of Gill's postings said he liked to play "Super Columbine Massacre," an Internet-based game that simulated the April 20, 1999, shootings by two students at a Colorado high school that left 13 people dead, The Associated Press reported.

On Wednesday, Montreal Police Chief Yvan Delorme would not speculate on a motive for the shooting, but said it was not a hate crime or terrorism-related. He said the shooter carried three weapons.

Delorme said the lessons learned from incidents like Columbine had taught police to try to stop such assaults as quickly as possible, AP reported.

"Before our technique was to establish a perimeter around the place and wait for the SWAT team. Now the first police officers go right inside. The way they acted saved lives," AP quoted Delorme as saying.

The shooting began at 12:41 p.m., Delorme said, when two police officers -- responding to an unrelated call -- heard gunfire and spotted a gunman outside the school. The officers followed the gunman into the building, engaging him minutes later in an exchange of fire that killed him.

Police sealed off the 12-acre college campus in the center of the city while students and faculty members streamed into the street and police searched to make sure that only one gunman was on the scene.

Genevieve Beauchemin, a reporter for CTV, quoted students as saying they were eating lunch in the cafeteria when they heard shots, causing a stampede of people fleeing the room.

"We were just sitting in class, and we were listening to the teacher and we heard guns going off," one unnamed student said. "We looked outside and everyone was screaming and crying, and there were people that got shot that were running away. (Watch students flee the scene -- 1:38)

"And then our teacher left, and he came back and said the gunmen were inside and we had to leave."

Another unnamed student said he saw one shooter, describing him as "6-foot, trench coat, punk."

"He looked like a student with a trench coat," the young man said. "... One of my friends got shot. We were crawling away and she got shot. I had to drag her out of there." (Watch witnesses describe escaping through pools of blood -- 3:44)

Another student, Daniel Mightley, 21, said the shooter he saw had a "black mohawk" haircut.

"I saw his face and he had no emotion in his face at all," he said. "He was walking toward us and he was just shooting." (Watch the scene inside the college, captured on a cell phone -- :50)

The college has 7,000 day students and 3,000 night students, according to the Dawson College Web site.

Montreal was the scene of another college shooting, almost 17 years ago. Marc Lepine opened fire at Ecole Polytechnique on December 6, 1989, killing 14 women students and wounding 13 other people before killing himself. Lepine left behind a three-page letter blaming feminists for his not being able to get into the school.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/14/montreal.shooting/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

CNN is probably the most racist news network after FOX news.

Classic example of CNN inciting hate agianst muslims.

It is a simple new item but they had to ADD a Word MUSLIM.

Why do they have to bring up the religion in every news against muslims? Not Indian or Pakistani or whatever but their first choice of words is Muslim. Sad very sad.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/14/india.terrortrial/index.html

I e mailed them twice but no results.

You can compare the same news at BBC and CNN. Difference is pretty clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/14/india.terrortrial/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5344540.stm

I think BBC is far better news network then cnn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Faraz, that is the reality we must face.

I want to point out, a demented Sikh of Indian origin opened fire in a college yesterday, shooting several people, one fatally, while five continue to be in critical condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0