.

THE JOURNALIST AND THE SPIES

2011-09-18T02:50:00.000-07:00

On May 30th, as the sun beat down on the plains of eastern Pakistan, a laborer named Muhammad Shafiq walked along the top of a dam on the Upper Jhelum Canal to begin his morning routine of clearing grass and trash that had drifted into the intake grates overnight. The water flow seemed normal, but when he started removing the debris with a crane the machinery seized up. He looked down and saw, trapped in the grates, a human form.

Shafiq called some colleagues, and together they pulled out the body. Occasionally, farmers and water buffalo drown in the canal, float downstream, and get stuck in the grates, but never a man in a suit. “Even his tie and shoes were still on,” Shafiq told me. He called the police, and by the next day they had determined the man’s identity: Syed Saleem Shahzad, a journalist known for his exposés of the Pakistani military. Shahzad had not shown up the previous afternoon for a television interview that was to be taped in Islamabad, a hundred miles to the northwest. His disappearance was being reported on the morning news, his image flashed on television screens across the country. Meanwhile, the zamindar—feudal lord—of a village twenty miles upstream from the dam called the police about a white Toyota Corolla that had been abandoned by the canal, in the shade of a banyan tree. The police discovered that the car belonged to Shahzad. Its doors were locked, and there was no trace of blood.

The previous afternoon, Shahzad had left his apartment, in the placid F-8/4 neighborhood of Islamabad, and driven toward Dunya studios, about five miles away. It was five-thirty; the television interview was scheduled for six. According to a local journalist who talked to a source in one of Pakistan’s cell-phone companies, Shahzad’s phone went dead twelve minutes later. His route passed through some of the country’s most secure neighborhoods, and no one had reported seeing anything suspicious. Some Pakistanis speculated that Shahzad might even have known the people who took him away.

It was a particularly anxious time in Pakistan. Four weeks earlier, American commandos had flown, undetected, into Abbottabad, a military town northwest of Islamabad, and killed Osama bin Laden. The Pakistani Army, which for more than sixty years has portrayed itself as the country’s guardian and guide, was deeply embarrassed: either it had helped to hide bin Laden or it had failed to realize that he was there. Certainly it hadn’t known that the Americans were coming.

Less than three weeks after the Abbottabad raid, the Army was humiliated a second time. A group of militants, armed with rocket-propelled grenades and suicide vests, breached one of the country’s most secure bases, the Pakistan Naval Air Station-Mehran, outside Karachi, and blew up two P-3C Orion surveillance planes that had been bought from the United States. At least ten Pakistanis affiliated with the base died. The components of several nuclear warheads were believed to be housed nearby, and the implication was clear: Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was not safe. In barracks across the country, military officers questioned the competence of Pakistan’s two most powerful men, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani, the chief of the Army staff, and General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or I.S.I. Some officers even demanded that the Generals resign. Ordinary Pakistanis, meanwhile, publicly disparaged the one institution that, until then, had seemed to function.

Amid this tumult, Shahzad wrote a sensational story for Asia Times Online, the Web site that employed him, saying that the attack on the Mehran base had been carried out by Al Qaeda—not by the Pakistani Taliban, which had claimed responsibility. He said that the Mehran assault had been intended to punish the military for having conducted “massive internal crackdowns on Al Qaeda affiliates within the Navy.” A number of sailors had been detained for plotting to kill Americans, and one “was believed to have received direct instructions from Hakeemullah Mehsud”—the chief of the Pakistani Taliban. It was not the first time that Shahzad had exposed links between Islamist militants and the armed forces—a connection that Pakistan’s generals have denied for years. But the Mehran article was his biggest provocation yet.

Shahzad, whose parents migrated from India after Partition, making him a muhajir—Urdu for “immigrant”—was an affable outsider within Pakistan’s journalistic circles. Asia Times Online is not connected to any of the country’s established newspapers; its editorial operations are based in Thailand. Shahzad had no local editor to guide him or restrain him. Only a few other journalists had written as aggressively about Islamist extremism in the military, and not all of them had survived.

A hallmark of Shahzad’s reporting was that it frequently featured interviews with Islamist militants, including Al Qaeda fighters. His work was sometimes inaccurate, but it held up often enough so that other journalists followed his leads. Perhaps because he had cultivated so many militants as sources, he occasionally seemed to glorify the men who were carrying out suicide bombings and assassinations. In 2009, he published a breathless account of a meeting with Ilyas Kashmiri, a top Al Qaeda leader. Shahzad noted that the terrorist “cut a striking figure,” was “strongly built,” and had a powerful handshake, adding, “Ilyas, with his unmatched guerrilla expertise, turns the strategic vision into reality, provides the resources and gets targets achieved, but he chooses to remain in the background and very low key.” At other times, like many Pakistani journalists, he seemed to spare the intelligence services from the most damning details in his notebooks. But on several important occasions—as in the case of the Mehran attack—he wrote what appeared to be undiluted truth about the Pakistani state’s deepest dilemmas.

By: by Dexter Filkins

US Naval officer and NASA astronaut Sunita Williams accepted Islam

2011-08-17T01:49:00.000-07:00

Sunita Williams 2nd Indian Lady who went to the Moon on 09/07/2011, immediately after her return yesterday on Earth has declared that she embraced ‘ISLAM’ as her Faith and convertedd to It.

She said that from the moon the whole earth looked very black and dark except the 2 places which were bright and shining, when I looked through the Telescope, she added.
Amazingly those two spots were MAKKAH and MADINA, in the Arabian peninsula. She also added that at the moon all the Frequencies failed but I still could hear the sound of ADHAAN.

Sunita Williams (born September 19, 1965) is a United States Naval officer and a NASA astronaut. She was assigned to the International Space Station as a member of Expedition 14 and then joined Expedition 15. She holds the record of the longest spaceflight (195 days) for female space travelers.
Williams was born in Euclid, Ohio to Deepak Pandya and Bonnie Pandya, who reside in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Dr. Deepak Pandya is a famous neuroanatomist. Williams’ roots on her father’s side go back to Gujarat in India and she has been to India to visit her father’s family. She is of Slovenian descent from her mother’s side; therefore, she is Indian-Slovenian American.
She is married to Michael J. Williams, a Federal Police Officer in Oregon. The two have been married for more than 20 years, and both flew helicopters in the early days of their careers. She has a pet Jack Russell Terrier named Gorby which was featured with her on the “Dog Whisperer” television show on the National Geographic Channel on November 12, 2010. Her recreational interests include running, swimming, biking, triathlons, windsurfing, snowboarding and bow hunting. She is an avid Boston Red Sox fan.
Williams is the second woman of Indian heritage to have been selected by NASA for a space mission after Kalpana Chawla and the second astronaut of Slovenian heritage after Ronald M. Sega. She holds three records for female space travelers: longest spaceflight (195 days), number of spacewalks (four), and total time spent on spacewalks (29 hours and 17 minutes).

Published on Zurmat NEWS...

A Secret War in 120 Countries: The Pentagon’s New Power Elite

2011-08-05T11:29:00.000-07:00

In 120 countries across the globe, troops from Special Operations Command carry out their secret war of high-profile assassinations, low-level targeted killings, capture/kidnap operations, kick-down-the-door night raids, joint operations with foreign forces, and training missions with indigenous partners as part of a shadowy conflict unknown to most Americans, notes Nick Turse.

Middle East Online

Somewhere on this planet an American commando is carrying out a mission. Now, say that 70 times and you’re done... for the day. Without the knowledge of the American public, a secret force within the US military is undertaking operations in a majority of the world’s countries. This new Pentagon power elite is waging a global war whose size and scope has never been revealed, until now.

After a US Navy SEAL put a bullet in Osama bin Laden’s chest and another in his head, one of the most secretive black-ops units in the American military suddenly found its mission in the public spotlight. It was atypical. While it’s well known that US Special Operations forces are deployed in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, and it’s increasingly apparent that such units operate in murkier conflict zones like Yemen and Somalia, the full extent of their worldwide war has remained deeply in the shadows.

Last year, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post reported that US Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries, up from 60 at the end of the Bush presidency. By the end of this year, US Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me, that number will likely reach 120. “We do a lot of traveling -- a lot more than Afghanistan or Iraq,” he said recently. This global presence -- in about 60% of the world’s nations and far larger than previously acknowledged -- provides striking new evidence of a rising clandestine Pentagon power elite waging a secret war in all corners of the world.

The Rise of the Military’s Secret Military

Born of a failed 1980 raid to rescue American hostages in Iran, in which eight US service members died, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) was established in 1987. Having spent the post-Vietnam years distrusted and starved for money by the regular military, special operations forces suddenly had a single home, a stable budget, and a four-star commander as their advocate. Since then, SOCOM has grown into a combined force of startling proportions. Made up of units from all the service branches, including the Army’s “Green Berets” and Rangers, Navy SEALs, Air Force Air Commandos, and Marine Corps Special Operations teams, in addition to specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, civil affairs personnel, para-rescuemen, and even battlefield air-traffic controllers and special operations weathermen, SOCOM carries out the United States’ most specialized and secret missions. These include assassinations, counterterrorist raids, long-range reconnaissance, intelligence analysis, foreign troop training, and weapons of mass destruction counter-proliferation operations.

One of its key components is the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, a clandestine sub-command whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. Reporting to the president and acting under his authority, JSOC maintains a global hit list that includes American citizens. It has been operating an extra-legal “kill/capture” campaign that John Nagl, a past counterinsurgency adviser to four-star general and soon-to-be CIA Director David Petraeus, calls "an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine."

This assassination program has been carried out by commando units like the Navy SEALs and the Army’s Delta Force as well as via drone strikes as part of covert wars in which the CIA is also involved in countries like Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen. In addition, the command operates a network of secret prisons, perhaps as many as 20 black sites in Afghanistan alone, used for interrogating high-value targets.

Growth Industry

From a force of about 37,000 in the early 1990s, Special Operations Command personnel have grown to almost 60,000, about a third of whom are career members of SOCOM; the rest have other military occupational specialties, but periodically cycle through the command. Growth has been exponential since September 11, 2001, as SOCOM’s baseline budget almost tripled from $2.3 billion to $6.3 billion. If you add in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has actually more than quadrupled to $9.8 billion in these years. Not surprisingly, the number of its personnel deployed abroad has also jumped four-fold. Further increases, and expanded operations, are on the horizon.

Lieutenant General Dennis Hejlik, the former head of the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command -- the last of the service branches to be incorporated into SOCOM in 2006 -- indicated, for instance, that he foresees a doubling of his former unit of 2,600. “I see them as a force someday of about 5,000, like equivalent to the number of SEALs that we have on the battlefield. Between [5,000] and 6,000,” he said at a June breakfast with defense reporters in Washington. Long-term plans already call for the force to increase by 1,000.

During his recent Senate confirmation hearings, Navy Vice Admiral William McRaven, the incoming SOCOM chief and outgoing head of JSOC (which he commanded during the bin Laden raid) endorsed a steady manpower growth rate of 3% to 5% a year, while also making a pitch for even more resources, including additional drones and the construction of new special operations facilities.

A former SEAL who still sometimes accompanies troops into the field, McRaven expressed a belief that, as conventional forces are drawn down in Afghanistan, special ops troops will take on an ever greater role. Iraq, he added, would benefit if elite U.S forces continued to conduct missions there past the December 2011 deadline for a total American troop withdrawal. He also assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that “as a former JSOC commander, I can tell you we were looking very hard at Yemen and at Somalia.”

During a speech at the National Defense Industrial Association's annual Special Operations and Low-intensity Conflict Symposium earlier this year, Navy Admiral Eric Olson, the outgoing chief of Special Operations Command, pointed to a composite satellite image of the world at night. Before September 11, 2001, the lit portions of the planet -- mostly the industrialized nations of the global north -- were considered the key areas. "But the world changed over the last decade," he said. "Our strategic focus has shifted largely to the south... certainly within the special operations community, as we deal with the emerging threats from the places where the lights aren't."

To that end, Olson launched "Project Lawrence," an effort to increase cultural proficiencies -- like advanced language training and better knowledge of local history and customs -- for overseas operations. The program is, of course, named after the British officer, Thomas Edward Lawrence (better known as "Lawrence of Arabia"), who teamed up with Arab fighters to wage a guerrilla war in the Middle East during World War I. Mentioning Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, and Indonesia, Olson added that SOCOM now needed "Lawrences of Wherever."

While Olson made reference to only 51 countries of top concern to SOCOM, Col. Nye told me that on any given day, Special Operations forces are deployed in approximately 70 nations around the world. All of them, he hastened to add, at the request of the host government. According to testimony by Olson before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year, approximately 85% of special operations troops deployed overseas are in 20 countries in the CENTCOM area of operations in the Greater Middle East: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. The others are scattered across the globe from South America to Southeast Asia, some in small numbers, others as larger contingents.

Special Operations Command won’t disclose exactly which countries its forces operate in. “We’re obviously going to have some places where it’s not advantageous for us to list where we’re at,” says Nye. “Not all host nations want it known, for whatever reasons they have -- it may be internal, it may be regional.”

But it’s no secret (or at least a poorly kept one) that so-called black special operations troops, like the SEALs and Delta Force, are conducting kill/capture missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen, while “white” forces like the Green Berets and Rangers are training indigenous partners as part of a worldwide secret war against al-Qaeda and other militant groups. In the Philippines, for instance, the US spends $50 million a year on a 600-person contingent of Army Special Operations forces, Navy Seals, Air Force special operators, and others that carries out counterterrorist operations with Filipino allies against insurgent groups like Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf.

Last year, as an analysis of SOCOM documents, open-source Pentagon information, and a database of Special Operations missions compiled by investigative journalist Tara McKelvey (for the Medill School of Journalism’s National Security Journalism Initiative) reveals, America’s most elite troops carried out joint-training exercises in Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Germany, Indonesia, Mali, Norway, Panama, and Poland. So far in 2011, similar training missions have been conducted in the Dominican Republic, Jordan, Romania, Senegal, South Korea, and Thailand, among other nations. In reality, Nye told me, training actually went on in almost every nation where Special Operations forces are deployed. “Of the 120 countries we visit by the end of the year, I would say the vast majority are training exercises in one fashion or another. They would be classified as training exercises.”

The Pentagon’s Power Elite

Once the neglected stepchildren of the military establishment, Special Operations forces have been growing exponentially not just in size and budget, but also in power and influence. Since 2002, SOCOM has been authorized to create its own Joint Task Forces -- like Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines -- a prerogative normally limited to larger combatant commands like CENTCOM. This year, without much fanfare, SOCOM also established its own Joint Acquisition Task Force, a cadre of equipment designers and acquisition specialists.

With control over budgeting, training, and equipping its force, powers usually reserved for departments (like the Department of the Army or the Department of the Navy), dedicated dollars in every Defense Department budget, and influential advocates in Congress, SOCOM is by now an exceptionally powerful player at the Pentagon. With real clout, it can win bureaucratic battles, purchase cutting-edge technology, and pursue fringe research like electronically beaming messages into people’s heads or developing stealth-like cloaking technologies for ground troops. Since 2001, SOCOM’s prime contracts awarded to small businesses -- those that generally produce specialty equipment and weapons -- have jumped six-fold.

Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, but operating out of theater commands spread out around the globe, including Hawaii, Germany, and South Korea, and active in the majority of countries on the planet, Special Operations Command is now a force unto itself. As outgoing SOCOM chief Olson put it earlier this year, SOCOM “is a microcosm of the Department of Defense, with ground, air, and maritime components, a global presence, and authorities and responsibilities that mirror the Military Departments, Military Services, and Defense Agencies.”

Tasked to coordinate all Pentagon planning against global terrorism networks and, as a result, closely connected to other government agencies, foreign militaries, and intelligence services, and armed with a vast inventory of stealthy helicopters, manned fixed-wing aircraft, heavily-armed drones, high-tech guns-a-go-go speedboats, specialized Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, as well as other state-of-the-art gear (with more on the way), SOCOM represents something new in the military. Whereas the late scholar of militarism Chalmers Johnson used to refer to the CIA as "the president's private army," today JSOC performs that role, acting as the chief executive’s private assassination squad, and its parent, SOCOM, functions as a new Pentagon power-elite, a secret military within the military possessing domestic power and global reach.

That aura now benefits from a well-honed public relations campaign which helps them project a superhuman image at home and abroad, even while many of their actual activities remain in the ever-widening shadows. Typical of the vision they are pushing was this statement from Admiral Olson: “I am convinced that the forces… are the most culturally attuned partners, the most lethal hunter-killers, and most responsive, agile, innovative, and efficiently effective advisors, trainers, problem-solvers, and warriors that any nation has to offer.”

Recently at the Aspen Institute’s Security Forum, Olson offered up similarly gilded comments and some misleading information, too, claiming that US Special Operations forces were operating in just 65 countries and engaged in combat in only two of them. When asked about drone strikes in Pakistan, he reportedly replied, “Are you talking about unattributed explosions?”

What he did let slip, however, was telling. He noted, for instance, that black operations like the bin Laden mission, with commandos conducting heliborne night raids, were now exceptionally common. A dozen or so are conducted every night, he said. Perhaps most illuminating, however, was an offhand remark about the size of SOCOM. Right now, he emphasized, US Special Operations forces were approximately as large as Canada’s entire active duty military. In fact, the force is larger than the active duty militaries of many of the nations where America’s elite troops now operate each year, and it’s only set to grow larger.

Americans have yet to grapple with what it means to have a “special” force this large, this active, and this secret -- and they are unlikely to begin to do so until more information is available. It just won’t be coming from Olson or his troops. “Our access [to foreign countries] depends on our ability to not talk about it,” he said in response to questions about SOCOM’s secrecy. When missions are subject to scrutiny like the bin Laden raid, he said, the elite troops object. The military’s secret military, said Olson, wants "to get back into the shadows and do what they came in to do.”

By Middle-east online

The enemy within

2011-07-29T12:28:00.000-07:00

By Dr. Manzur Ejaz | DAWN.COM
It is a general observation that in repressive regimes the rulers often create fantasy lands based on imaginary enemies that can obscure the realities of life. The core of Pakistani state has followed the pattern that is a norm in most Middle East countries where anti-America obsession is used by kings and ‘elected’ dictators as a device to detract people.
Pakistan’s core state, like the Middle Eastern rulers, is successful in inducing hatred against the so-called foreign enemies to divert attention from deteriorating governance, political anarchy and socio-economic conditions. However, when the masses wake up from anesthetised slumber, like the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Syria, the ruling elite’s long perpetuated façade falls apart. Pakistan seems to be getting there fast if one takes into account the crises it faces.
It is worthwhile to examine if Pakistan’s inner concrete conditions have any correlation with the foreign powers. For that we have to summarise Pakistan’s major problems or what the economists call stylised facts and then see if they are home grown or caused by external influence.
1. Pakistan is accumulating unprecedented debts through printing money causing uncontrollable inflation impacting all sectors of the economy.
2. Basic amenities and utilities like electricity, fuel, gas and water remain in short supply. The rising cost of such inputs via rising indirect taxes is making Pakistani products uncompetitive in the international markets and unaffordable domestically. This in turn has caused the level of poverty to rise.
3. Pakistan’s population growth is one of the highest in the world: it has grown four-fold in the last four decades. Along with unsustainable population growth, urbanisation at a 700 per cent rate has been unprecedented without any improvement of infrastructure in the cities.
4. Violence, lawlessness, corruption, nepotism and political anarchy are rampant. Political formations have become family run mafias who are, in one way or the other, in cahoots with military that has been ruling directly or indirectly.
5. Pakistani state has not been providing necessary services like health and education resulting in lower literacy level and spread of diseases. Hepatitis is one of the most prevalent diseases in Pakistan and though it is preventable, not much of an effort is being made.
Any one of the five major facts that have been listed above is enough to ruin a country without external intervention. Nevertheless, it is useful to explain each condition and see if foreign intervention can be blamed for that. Following is our explanation for the facts listed above:
1. Pakistan’s debilitating debt levels are mostly caused by exorbitant spending without matching the income of the state. A large part of the deficits is due to uncalled for military spending, ruling elite’s irresponsible consumption and leakages (corruption). On top of it, the top ten per cent of the wealth holders do not pay taxes and the treasury looses major source of income. Every country is being run by matching spending the state’s spending with taxes: it is a universal law. So, one cannot blame any external power but the ruling elites.
Inflation is also caused by the very economic model adopted by Musharraf’s economic team who believed that by raising the demand level (consumerism) through easy credit, faster growth rates can be achieved. Easy money was created through printing the money which caused higher inflation.
2. Shortages of key inputs and necessary goods are mainly due to a terrible governance, nepotism and population growth. If the state institutions are incompetent and the population has increased from 67,491,000 in 1970 to 187,343,000 in 2011, why shortages would not develop? Can we blame outsiders for a mammoth population growth and the incompetent government?
3. Population growth rates are mostly affected by society’s ideological preferences: the rise of religious conservatism triggered by military rulers is the major reasons. Successive governments have been pandering to the religious zealots besides their own odd preferences. One can blame Saudi Arabia for inducing such trends but that is a poor excuse: it is our own doing.
4. Rising rate of violent deaths is where people blame the US for dragging Pakistan into war on terrorism. However, if looked at it more closely, more people are dying in Karachi and in other parts of the country than, may be, in war zone of Pak-Afghan border. The number of violent deaths due to sectarian conflicts, honour killings and lawlessness dwarf the killings in war on terrorism. Mob murders, attacks on security agencies, particularly police, not only by religious extremist outfits but by common citizens have become commonplace. If one includes the rising number of suicides—it is a form of violent death too—due to economic despair one can see the real picture. Therefore, even if we blame the US war on terror, it only explains a small fraction of violent deaths.
5. Non-provision of services is an issue created by the state and seems to be the ruling elite’s priority which is manifested in high defence expenditures and very low allocations for education and health. Take for instance the large number of Hepatitis cases in Pakistan, a preventable disease, which shows criminal negligence of state institutions.
It is self evident that Pakistan’s pathetic conditions are due to internal causes and have nothing to do with the US, India, Israel or anybody else. And, yet our intelligentsia, media and political operators pay more attention to foreign powers than on the real culprits. A small friction with the US becomes the main topic of talk-shows, newspaper columns and political circles.
Pakistani opinion makers have chosen to buy into a fantasy land where they can blame the foreign powers for everything and not pay attention to the inner dynamics of the society. South Korea is much more aligned with the US—the superpower has military bases in that country—and yet it has become a well developed, industrialised society. The difference is that South Korea had thorough land reforms and its ruling elite are much more focused on domestic development than blaming the imaginary or real foreign enemies. As a matter of fact, many East Asian countries have followed this model and are industrialised by now. It’s about time we turn out backs to the fantasy land or else things will only continue to worsen.

Semantics of terrorism

2011-07-29T04:23:00.000-07:00

By Khalid Aziz, Dawn News 28 July 2011
If the West comes under further security stress then Muslims will be the scapegoats.

WHEN we discuss issues that have to do with terrorism we often tend to avoid using the correct word or description. Therefore, the first casualty is the truth. In order to remain in the safe world of non-controversial matters, we avoid discussing the real drivers of terrorism. Instead, we identify hunger, poverty and unemployment as the causes of terrorism. An analysis under this framework does not pay dividends; one must identify the real motivating force that drives terrorism if we are to create the right policies.
We fall into this trap because our minds are hardwired by culture, religion, history and our specific national narrative that forces us to view objects from a preconceived angle. For example, as soon as the recent tragic killings began in Norway, yellow journalism ran amok initially. The western media as well as Al Jazeera called it a jihadist attack; some even accused the Ansar al-Jihad alAlami organisation as the instigator.
Police finally charged Breivik, an ‘ethnic Norwegian’, with a history of farright and anti-Islamic views as the accused. This underscores the point that the media is not neutral. All the current selfpraise about being rational and enlightened is imaginary. The East and West have both created the ‘other’ as our Neanderthal forefathers did before us. Similarly, we write evasively when we discuss the causes of terrorism.
The war on terrorism is a phenomenon that prevents clear thinking. The Norwegian tragedy showed that when a society is threatened by any danger the impulsive reaction is to accuse the cultural ‘enemy’. In Western Europe, until the Second World War, the Jew was the accepted scapegoat. The new ‘enemy’ is now the Muslim in Europe and the US.
If western societies come under further economic or security stress then Muslims will be the scapegoats. The recent rubbishing of the Kashmir Action Committee in Washington is another example of a similar turf and cultural war between the ISI and the CIA and FBI. All major intelligence agencies fund lobbies to enlarge their influence within an important country; KAC was apparently doing that for Pakistan. The FBI wants to reduce Pakistan’s footprint in Washington.
In a similar manner, in our attempt to avoid taking controversial positions, some analysts claim that hunger and food shortage leads to terrorism. Clearly, the shortage of food in households is due to the lack of income. Another faulty conclusion is that poverty leads to terrorism. Such statements conceal the real forces driving terrorism. If the causes are denied then solutions cannot be found.
Research conducted in Swat last year provides some important indicators. For instance, it was noted that neither poverty nor the deteriorating provision of social services, nor the concentration of land in the hands of a small elite were sufficient causes by themselves of the rise of terrorism in Swat. What then is the cause?
It was found that the increase in the idea of the threat to Islam from the invasion of Afghanistan by the US in 2001, coupled with the use of Pakistan’s military against tribes in Fata in 2004, convinced the religiously inclined population in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the tribal areas that the invasion of Afghanistan was a prelude to an attack on Pakistan’s identity of which religion is an important component.
The melding of a separate regional Islamic identity anchored in jihad began with the arrival of the formidable Islamic warrior Syed Ahmed Shaheed from Patna in 1826 to what is now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The call for jihad was made after the East India Company won the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and the conservative Muslims concluded (correctly as it turned out) that Britain was planning to displace Muslim rule in India.
The Islamic ramparts in India were strengthened by Shah Waliullah’s family. One of their important contributions in association with other ulema was to dispatch 800 warriors from eastern India to the Pakhtun belt to organise the jihad; first against the Sikhs and later the British who replaced the former as rulers in 1849. In an interesting interregnum in this episode, Peshawar was declared an Islamic emirate in 1829 under Syed Ahmed before the Sikhs wrested it back.
Malakand and the surrounding areas formed the core region of manoeuvre of Syed Ahmed’s jihad that was etched in the collective memory and is revived whenever the people are convinced that their Islamic identity is under threat. In the survey mentioned earlier, 87 per cent of the respondents said that they began to support jihad due to the persuasion of local religious personalities.
Later, the militants solidified their hold over society in Swat by the use of terror as a control mechanism. The local religious leaders were assisted by the TTP and jihadi outfits from Punjab. Radicalism was fanned and acts of terrorism were committed to prevent the government from falling completely under the sway of US policies.
Secondly, the people in Swat could not be won over by religious rhetoric alone. The militants obtained support for their cause by linking the current events with the past historic, religious and cultural experiences of the region.
Religiously inclined militants explain that the approach followed in Fata and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was the best method of containing the enthusiasm for the West shown by the government and Pakistan’s westernised elite. This then appears to be the foremost driver of terrorism in Swat. It could also be the explanation for the wider terrorism in Pakistan and the unending war in Afghanistan.
The policy recommendation emerging from this discussion clearly is that either the government should align its policies with national aspirations or expect to face violence. ¦ The writer is chairman of the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar. azizkhalid@gmail.com

Solute to Sir Suhail Ahmed's courage

2011-07-29T00:14:00.000-07:00

Are we innocent?

2011-07-28T00:25:00.000-07:00

By I.A. Rehman (DAWN News.) July 28, 2011

The agent of death on the small Norwegian island was not a Pakistani. But it is difficult to say that Pakistanis have made no contribution towards making the world unsafe for the human family.

THE carnage in Norway last Friday shocked the world’s conscience. It has also posed some extremely tough questions for European societies, the world’s Muslims in general, and the people of Pakistan in particular. Europe will do itself and the world at large great injustice and harm if it dismisses the matter as the isolated work of a deranged mind. It must look deep into the factors that led to Anders Behring Breivik’s reliance on perverted intelligence.
The unpardonable doings of Al Qaeda, the other so-called jihadists and Muslim megalomaniacs have certainly contributed to the spread of Islamophobia in Europe and other parts of the western world, but it would be wrong to limit the list of culprits to them. It may be necessary to probe the extent to which the tone and tenor of the war on terror may have contributed to the growth of both militancy in parts of the Muslim world and reckless Muslim-bashing in the West. The idea is not to shift blame from one party to another, it is only a plea for keeping the indigenous sources of terrorism in Europe also in mind.
The world cannot possibly forget the rise of European fascism that built its power by fanning racism and persecuting certain religious and ethnic communities (Jews and Blacks). Nazism is a disease many parts of Europe are still afflicted with. The Norwegian people themselves have had anxieties about neo-Nazi and other extreme-right gangs for more than a decade. These facts make it necessary for European societies to take note of elements who may be exploiting the public sentiment against terrorists and immigrants to impose on them new and more horrible forms of right-wing tyranny.
The leaders of Islamic thought and Muslim public opinion on their part cannot shun reality by simply telling the Europeans to put their house in order. Nor can they get away by declaring that terrorists constitute a small minority among Islamic scholars and lay Muslims both, however true this statement may be.
They must not ignore the high percentage of Muslims among the terrorists, nor the flurry of edicts issued by recognised Muslim authorities that not only condone and justify acts of terrorism, including the killing of innocent people in suicide bombings, but also exhort the believers to take part in such acts and win a place in paradise.
Regardless of the degree of the Muslim people’s involvement in terrorism that their ulema and political leaders may be prepared to concede, they have a duty to contribute to a solution to the problems created by groups and individuals claiming to be soldiers of Islam. The most important fact to be realised by the Muslim peoples is that they and their next generations will be the biggest losers if the mischief spread by their fanatic fringe is not quickly suppressed.
The people of Pakistan have to do more soul-searching than others because Breivik has blamed this country as the cause of his heinous crime. They should be shocked because besides being a responsible promoter of peace in the world, Norway has consistently been good to Pakistan. For many years, Norway has been helping Pakistan significantly in all areas of economic devel opment, electoral reform, education, culture, heritage, women’s empowerment and human rights. It has been fair and generous to Pakistani immigrants who have been able to achieve distinction in Norwegian society and have been remitting sizeable funds to Pakistan year after year.
All this makes it necessary for Pakistan to make sure that the people of Norway are not influenced by the vitriolic outpourings of Breivik and the like. The critical question is: are we innocent? Can we say that we the Pakistanis have done nothing to offer neo-Nazis or other right-wing extremists an excuse to go out and massacre people?
One of the greatest ironies in the Pakistani people’s collective behaviour is that while the state is engaged in a grim battle with militants in religious garb and we keep telling the world of the number of lives we have lost, Pakistan has never challenged the so-called jihadis at the intellectual or even theological level. On the contrary, state institutions, political parties and the media have been promoting, some of them partly and casually and others wholly and by design, accommodation with terrorists, if not outright collusion with them. Is this not grist to the mills of hate the neo-Nazis are running across the globe?
Breivik has made a distinction between Pakistani immigrants who have integrated themselves with their host communities and those who haven’t. There is a need to look at the conduct of the latter. There have been occasions when Pakistanis have shocked the Norwegian authorities and citizens by killing a woman for ‘honour’, by abducting and forcibly marrying their daughters against their will, and by cheating Norwegian and Pakistani girls. The Norwegians, or any other host society for that matter, will have cause to consider such crimes as an abuse of hospitality and brand the whole Pakistani community as a pack of criminals and swindlers.
There is also need to take a look at the doings of Pakistani visitors to Norway who claim to be on religious missions. We have seen the havoc done in England by the so-called religious preachers. They have divided Muslim immigrant communities, fought battles to capture mosques, exploited the credulous ones and set up extortion rackets. Are Pakistani missions in Europe charged with the task of monitoring such unsavoury activities or with taking steps to ensure that Pakistanis in European countries respect the hosts’ laws and culture instead of propagating their dreams of world conquest?
Recently, the Norwegian public was considerably incensed when one of their nationals, Ehsan Arjumandi, was picked up, allegedly by security agencies in Balochistan, and all efforts by the Norwegian government to have him recovered failed to elicit from Pakistani authorities a response the matter warranted. The publicity this case received in Norway could not have presented Pakistan and its people as friendly, or even responsible, actors. These matters not only bring a bad name to Pakistan, they frighten away investors and traders and materially affect its economic interests.
Of course, the agent of death on the small Norwegian island was not a Pakistani; nor were his weapons of Pakistani origin. But it is very difficult to say that Pakistanis have made no contribution towards making the world increasingly unsafe for the human family. Will history pronounce us innocent? Let all Pakistanis ponder and find a way to avoid being treated as international pariahs. There are quite a few lessons we may learn from the spirit of discipline and forbearance the Norwegian people have demonstrated in their hour of unmitigated tragedy. ¦

Pakistan’s glamorous new foreign minister wows India

2011-07-27T22:17:00.000-07:00

Posted By Robert Zeliger Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 5:07 PM

She's young, stylish, sharp and pretty, and Indians are falling for her. Yep, it seems that Pakistan's new 34-year-old foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, has accomplished what years of tense diplomacy haven't been able to -- create some genuine goodwill between the two constantly sparring nations. In her first official visit today to India since taking over the foreign ministry last week, Khar met with her Indian counterpart, S.M. Krishna. The two agreed to boost security, trade, transportation, travel, and cultural links between the countries -- in what analysts called some of the most productive talks between the two sides since Pakistani militants killed 166 people in Mumbai three years ago. But it's her youth and glamour that are credited with creating a "fresh start atmosphere." She later met with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
But who really cares what happened behind closed doors. More importantly: she got high marks for wearing Roberto Cavalli sunglasses, classic pearl and diamond jewelry, a blue designer dress, and toting an Hermes Birkin bag. And thus ladies and gentleman, a glamour icon is born. We give it three months before Vogue comes calling... wait, maybe two.
Indian papers and news programs today gushed over Khar, praising her beauty and style. The Times of India headlined their front page story: "Pak Puts On Its Best Face." The Navbharat Times said the country was "sweating over model-like minister." The Mail Today said she had brought a "Glam touch to Indo-Pak talks" and asked, "Who says politicians can't be chic?" These are not the usual superlatives Pakistani diplomats are used to getting in the Indian press.
Of course, not everything was picture perfect. The Indian press did attack her for meeting with a Kashmiri separatist group later in the day.
But overall, it was hard not to sense the generational shift as Khar spoke about "a new generation of Indians and Pakistanis [who] will see a relationship that will hopefully be much different from the one that has been experienced in the last two decades" after meeting with the Indian foreign minister who -- through no fault of his own, save for his misfortune of being born 79 years ago -- did totally look like her grandfather.

As Seema Goswami, a leading Indian social commentator, put it, "She's incredibly young pretty, glamorous and has no fear of appearing flash. She wore pearls when she arrived and diamonds for the talks. We're so obsessed with her designer bag and clothes that we forget she first held talks with the Hurriyat [Kashmiri separatists]. She could be Pakistan's new weapon of mass destruction."

Is America Caught In The Closed Mind Trap?

2011-07-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

By: Paul Craig Roberts
Opednews.com July 27, 2011 at 00:04:48

A reader responded to my recent column about how the US president was becoming a Caesar with a question: "Wouldn't a Caesar be preferable to a democracy in which the people are too ignorant, disinterested, and stupid to engage in self-government?"

Before I became a widely read columnist with many reader responses, I would have disagreed with the reader's characterization of the American people. Today, I cannot answer the reader's question with a "no" as confidently as I would like.

I receive appreciative words from many readers who are well aware of what is going on. I also hear from many who are so partisan and have such strong emotional responses that they are unable to follow an argument. I don't know what percentage these groups comprise in the population, but there seem to be a number of Americans, both on the left and the right, who are prepared to censor and even to kill in order to defend their illusions and delusions.

I remain a suspect bogyman for some on the left, because of my association with the Kemp-Roth bill and Reaganomics. As I, and others, have explained so many times, Supply-Side economics reversed the monetary/fiscal policy mix in order to cure stagflation. But some leftists persist in their insistence that it was all a trick to cut taxes for the rich -- the rich being those with more money than they. A stressed-out $100,000 a year guy with a family in a high-cost city is thrown into the rich class with the hedge fund manager who paid himself one billion dollars.

To give the leftists their due, at least they know that I was a member of the Reagan administration. However, the right-wing zealots think that I am a pinko-liberal-commie.

Recently I wrote an article pointing out that the Republicans had picked a bad time, when the world was already concerned about US financial credibility, to make an issue over the routine increase of the debt ceiling, thus creating an impasse that threatens default. The Republicans see in the debt ceiling issue an opportunity to cut social spending as the price of allowing an increase in the national debt.

One can't blame the Republicans for trying to do something about the growth of the public debt. However, there is a risk in the Republican's intransigency, and that risk is that, thanks to presidential directives put on the books by President Bush, President Obama has the authority to declare the prospect of default a national emergency. Obama can simply set aside the debt ceiling limit and seize the power of the purse from Congress. The transformation of the president into Caesar would take another large step forward.

I wrote that I regarded this risk to be greater than the risk of additional public debt.

Several Republicans never reached the point of the article. I had taken for granted that everyone knew, especially Republicans, of the Republicans' concern with entitlements and unfunded liabilities. I assumed that Republicans were aware of their party's long history of reacting against the debts that are being piled upon our grandchildren, that they knew of the Grace Commission during the Reagan years, that they knew of Republican Pete Peterson's many dramatic warnings and proposals, that they knew of David Walker's accounting of the unfunded liabilities and the Republican Party's determination to do something about the heavily-hyped cost of Social Security and Medicare.

I assumed that Republicans knew that during the Reagan years David Stockman and Alan Greenspan had accelerated the payroll tax increases that President Carter had put in place to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security and had spent the money for current operating expenses, leaving unfunded IOUs in the Social Security "trust fund." I Assumed that Republicans knew that Republican Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Michael Boskin, and his Boskin Commission had reconfigured the Consumer Price Index in order to understate inflation and, thereby, reduce the cost-of-living-adjustments in Social Security checks.

I assumed that Republicans somewhere along the way had read at least one paper by a Republican policy analyst or think-tank member about the Social Security "Ponzi scheme" and the unaffordability of Medicare.

But, no, the Republican partisans who denounced me as an anti-Republican liberal propagandist for saying what is widely reported in the media -- that the Republicans want large cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as the price of their agreement to an increase in the debt limit -- know nothing whatsoever of their party's position on social spending. Apparently, they don't even watch Fox News.

These same partisans apparently have not noticed that the $1.2 trillion military/security expenditures are "off the table" when it comes to controlling spending. The Republicans and also the Democrats regard war as more important than old age pensions and medical care for the poor and the elderly. My Republican critics have also failed to notice that House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor has made certain that tax increases on mega-high incomes are also "off the table." According to mega-billionaire Warren Buffet, in America today we have the situation in which Buffet's secretary pays a larger share of her income in taxes than does Buffet.

When I wrote that the Republicans' fixation with slashing the social safety net -- a throw-away line that is in every news report on the debt ceiling imbroglio -- could turn out to be a threat to the separation of powers, several Republican partisans took extraordinary offense. Only a no-good liberal propagandist would claim that Republicans wanted to slash the safety net. My statement of an obvious fact reflected in the Republicans' own proposals was all that it took for my critics to conclude that a notorious Reaganite was a Republican-hating liberal.

It is annoying that people who have no idea what they are talking about are so ready to pop off. But it is discouraging to a writer that people are so emotional that they cannot follow an argument. Discouraged, in part by block-headed readers and from censorship of my writings by various Internet sites, I quit my column a while back and signed off.

I was beset by thousands of emails pleading and demanding that I continue to write. I relented, and the emails from thoughtful readers keep me going.

It is rewarding to hear from intelligent and open-minded people. But as the weeks and months go by, I find it ever more tiresome to tolerate closed minds spewing hate and ignorance. I have become convinced that there are enough frustrated and ignorant people out there to constitute a movement for a Fuhrer.

Washington, which has produced a long list of disastrous policy decisions since the collapse of the Soviet Empire two decades ago, will no doubt continue making incredible mistakes about everything, and we will end up with a Caesar or a Fuhrer.

Karzai outlines ‘conditions’ for future US ties

2011-07-27T10:58:00.000-07:00

KABUL, July 26: Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday outlined conditions governing negotiations for a future strategic partnership with the United States as he met defence chiefs at his palace.
The new US ambassador in Kabul, Ryan Crocker, has said the US has no interest in permanent military bases in the country and does not want to project its influence in the region by remaining in Afghanistan.
But fears remain among many Afghans over any long-term American presence in the country following the departure of all foreign combat troops by the end of 2014.
Karzai said Afghanistan's conditions included foreign forces working within Afghan legal rules, US troops not taking prisoners or maintaining jails, and an end to controversial night raids by elite commandos.
He gave no details how the demands would shape negotiations, as he addressed heads of the army, police and intelligence services in a speech marking the end of the first phase of security transitions from foreign to local forces' control.
“There are many other conditions on the economy and sovereignty and all other aspects... and about respect to the Afghan constitution,” Karzai said.
“They also have their own conditions, but we haven't agreed on anything yet.” Seven parts of the country were ceremonially hand ed over from foreign to Afghan forces last week, although Nato officials say it will be up to two years before each area will assume full control for security and governance.
All Western combat troops are due to leave by the end of 2014.
“Nato and the international community are helping our country. But this will not go on forever and we don't want it forever,” Karzai said.
“We are not proud of that. The good news will come when we, Afghans, are protecting our own homeland.
“It will happen only with hard work and sacrifice. Especially from our Afghan forces,” he added.
Critics have said the process is premature because Afghan forces are not ready to hold off the Taliban, and they say it is motivated by a political timetable as coalition nations start to bring some of their troops home.
The deputy head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, Michael Keating, said in a statement on Tuesday that the focus on the first phase of transition must be used to improve Afghanistan's institutions.
“Transition will only succeed with adequate investment in development, governance and the rule of law,” he said.
“The momentum around transition must be captured to fast-forward efforts to strengthen Afghan institutional capacity, especially at the provincial level.”—AFP

Agenda for reform

2011-07-27T10:36:00.000-07:00

WITHOUT belittling the polit ical economy challenges that face reform in Pakistan, I believe that the time just may have come for long-overdue fun damental reforms, and not just because of the urgency of effect ing these changes.
In this writer’s view, there is a dis cernible shift in the public narrative (being admirably piloted by the media) which is demanding better quality gover nance (the core issue) and leadership.
With little sympathy shown by our external partners, there is a growing real isation that we have to solve our own problems and live within our means. There is a need for a just and fair society in which different income groups con tribute to the restructuring of the socioe conomic order based on their capacity to bear this burden. There is certainly a degree of exaggeration about the deep seatedness of these sentiments among the voting population but an inspired political leadership with ‘greyish’ credentials of principles and probity could snatch the baton and carry the populace with it in, say, five to seven years from now.
Most of the prescriptions for our economic travails are now well-known and do not require repetition. This article refers to what would be the minimum agenda while arguing for a change in the sequencing and some modification of content.
To begin with, I would privatise anything and everything in the public sector starting with government-owned banks, simply to protect public money (including depositors’) and ensure the safety, soundness and stability of the financial system.
Just three public-sector enterprises like PIA, Steel Mills and Railways are together losing a crore rupees a minute. The country cannot afford the continued haemorrhaging of public finances and the banking system. There is no option other than privatising these organisations or some of their services. Even when it comes to social services like education, poor households are voting with their feet and sending their children to low-fee-charging private schools, although government schools are free. The lessons from initiatives like the Punjab Education Foundation that private schools provide better quality education at one-seventh the cost in government-managed schools, are clear enough. The state should ensure that children get free education without being in the business of actually providing the service, unless we can change the incentive structure in the public schooling system, thereby making it a ‘game changer’ in terms of societal thinking. This is all doable. However, it is not the purpose of this article to elaborate on the necessary measures to be undertaken to that end.
We need to liberalise trade further to induce greater competition in the economy, thereby also preventing hoarding and cartel formation.
The fiscal deficit at the federal level after the recent NFC Award has become structural in nature, as a) all major expenditures, defence, debt servicing (including loans that financed physical infrastructure in provincial use), subsidies (especially for energy — the discussion follows) and administering the state require in excess of Rs2tr against the projected tax revenues of Rs1,952bn for next year, of which more than Rs1,150tr will be earmarked for the provinces; b) most tax bases that remain to be fully exploited like agricultural incomes, properties and economic services now lie in the provincial domain. Islamabad can only coax provincial governments into raising revenues from these sources through moral suasion.
Can one realistically dream of a reform-minded provincial government (challenging the rhetoric of some political parties on reform) to, say, take measures like taxing large farmers and property owners and passing legislation that declares all benami ownerships and transactions illegal (enabling, for tax purposes, the creation of databases of real owners’ property)? Through such reforms they could then shame others on their failure to mobilise revenues from such potentially lucrative bases.
To attend to the mother of all issues, the fiscal deficit, requires a structure that taxes all earnings, irrespective of source, equally. It’s not just large farmers in legislatures resisting taxation of their incomes, even bureaucrats renting out their properties in Islamabad to the diplomatic community are paying a tax that is 50 per cent less than those earning the same level of income from other sources.
However, in my view, the expenditure side in the fiscal equation demands closer attention. To this end we need to first abandon the contorted view of our importance (‘the world cannot ignore us’) because of our strategic location and also dump the old, failed policies, frameworks and concepts of a security state and strategic depth, since these are now costing us more than Rs830bn per annum. Thereafter, there is a need to reassess security-related funding requirements.
Next, we need to quickly phase out untargeted subsidies, especially for the farming community in the shape of direct and indirect subsidies on fertiliser (the latter through the under-pricing of gas) and for its wheat purchased at prices higher than in the international market. In fact, I would argue that it would be cheaper for public finances if we were to eliminate both subsidies as against levying GST on fertiliser and pesticides.
As part of the same effort, all subsidies on energy should be withdrawn for those consuming above lifeline rates. The concession of free provision of electricity to Wapda employees which is costing us taxpayers Rs35-40bn per annum, also needs to be withdrawn immediately. All this needs to be followed up by addressing the critical issue of electricity theft and non-collection of billings without disconnecting non-payers, the combined cost of which is in excess of Rs4 crore a minute. Pilferage, however, can only be tackled through privatisation of the management (with agreed targets), if not ownership, of electricity distribution companies. The purported plan of the government to restructure their boards, their membership and authority is not the solution.
Next, we need a rightsizing of government, especially at the federal level following the 18th Amendment. Merely surrendering posts as incumbents retire through natural attrition will be too slow a process. The golden handshakes and skill-enhancement efforts to enable this can always be financed.
Finally, apart from greater austerity (surrendering of all VIP planes, stopping the provision of bullet-proof cars to all and sundry, etc) there is a need to reorder our expenditure commitments. It is naïve to think that governments should do everything. Even the richest country in the world has to prioritise its spending to avoid waste of scarce resources by spreading them thinly. And, of course, such reordering is driven by political considerations. But the fact that we have to choose is unavoidable. For instance, it is a no-brainer that availability of reliable power is more important than roads for transportation. Road networks are needed to transport goods but only after they have been produced, which requires power.
To conclude, the time just may have come to initiate the process of deep structural reforms. Admittedly, however, for this the course of action to commence depends on the extent to which our political and dominant economic elite is not totally blind to changing realities that confront us as a nation and is willing to make some sacrifices in its own enlightened self-interest. ¦ The writer was until recently governor, State Bank of Pakistan.
Dawn News

The Cutest Video ever

2011-04-03T09:49:00.000-07:00

Hasb E Hal

2011-04-03T08:59:00.000-07:00

Shahid Afridi Back to country talking to media

2011-04-01T08:06:00.000-07:00

Kharri Bat with Luqman

2011-04-01T08:04:00.000-07:00

Capital Talk

2011-04-01T08:02:00.000-07:00

Aj Kamran Khan k Sath

2011-04-01T08:00:00.001-07:00

Kal Tak

2011-04-01T07:58:00.000-07:00

Hasb E Hal

2011-04-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

Lekin with Sana Bucha

2011-03-28T02:47:00.000-07:00

Hasb E Hal 27 March 2011

2011-03-28T02:40:00.000-07:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

4 Men Show 27 March 2011

2011-03-28T02:32:00.000-07:00

Part 1

Part 2

NewsNight With Talat

2011-03-25T13:00:00.000-07:00

25 March 2011

Kharri Bat with Luqman

2011-03-25T12:52:00.000-07:00

24th March 2011

Cross Fire

2011-03-25T12:47:00.000-07:00

24 March 2011