The Nawaz government continues to bribe anchors and journalists one way or other to have its positive image in media.After obliging Muhammad Malick (PTV MD), Irfan Siddiqui (special assistant), Iftikhar Ahmed (PHA vice-chairman), the PML-N government is organising free tours abroad of some other journalists.In the ongoing tour of PM Nawaz Sharif to Hague, Netherlands, journalists like Javed Chaudhry of Express media group and Salman Ghani of Dunya TV have been obliged. How cheap price tag they carry…shame.Although both are already on PML-N payroll but after getting further obliged they will narrate stories of PML-N government achievements in the nuclear conference in Hague.The PML-N policy to make some so-called top journalists subservient to its government is working at the moment.Shame on these so-called journalists who are getting obliged in this manner. – Pak Destiny


Blend of press and prostitute

, , , , ,

No Comments

How Muslim Ban incites vigilante Islamophobic violence by Khaled A Beydoun @KhaledBeydoun in Al-Jazeera

Islamophobia is the presumption of guilt assigned on to Muslims by state and private actors. But it must also be understood as a dialectic, namely, a process by which state policies such as the Muslim Ban or counter-radicalisation policing endorse ingrained and popular stereotypes of Muslims as alien, unassimilable, and prone to terrorism; and second, emboldens the private animus and violent targeting of Muslim subjects.

Therefore, Islamophobic policies, like the Muslim Ban, impact far more than immigration or national security policy. Their legal impact is merely one dimension of their aggregate damage.

By endorsing the Islamophobic premise that Muslim identity is presumptive of radical threat or terrorism, Islamophobic policies and programmes enacted by the state propagate the damaging stereotypes associated with this premise, and promote the private vigilantism that threatens Muslims, and communities mistakenly caricatured as Muslims.

, , , ,

No Comments

Impact of chemical & missile attacks in Syria By Brig (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja

A very serious situation had developed in Syria as a result of two chemical attacks on Ghouta near Damascus on August 21, 2013, killing hundreds of people including a large number of children. The ruling regime was blamed for the attacks. Egged on by Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara, Obama Administration, and NATO had finalised the plan for a direct military action and had deployed Tomahawk cruise missiles to bomb the defense infrastructure of Syrian armed forces. No proof was furnished and to this day its unknown who had fired Sarin tipped rockets. It was generally suspected that Mossad was behind the chemical weapon attack. The US Congress, the American public and British Parliament reeling under public pressure, and wary of the expanding war in the Middle East, had opposed military action fearing that it might trigger a world war. Donald Trump was among the opponents.

Vladimir Putin provided a way out to Obama by suggesting the destruction of chemical stockpiles of Syria in return for the cancellation of the air strikes. Obama relented thereby averting a bigger crisis, but at the cost of annoying Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Since that time, Russia under Putin started gaining a diplomatic edge over the USA in the Middle East. Putin overshadowed Obama after he physically intervened in the Syrian war.

It has now come to light that the Ghouta incident was a false flag attack by Saudi-sponsored Jihadists to secure the bombing in Damascus. As per Seymour Hersh, Turkey was behind it.

The US intervened in Syria by air in September 2014 to destroy ISIS but failed to achieve any results. Puzzlingly, the ISIS grew stronger and richer because of its unchecked oil trade extending right up to the Gulf of Mexico. It is speculated that the US never made any sincere effort since its real target was Assad and not ISIS.

In response to the formal request made by the Syrian government for military help against the rebels and Jihadist groups in July 2015, Russia sent military advisers. Moscow announced that it was extending military support to stabilize the legitimate government and create conditions for a political compromise. It initially stationed its jets at Khmeimim airbase and sent T-90 tanks, artillery and Special Operations Forces to an airbase near Latakia seaport in August 2015. On August 26, 2015, Syria-Russia Friendship Treaty was signed and in last week of September, a Joint Information Centre manned by representatives from Russia, Iraq, Syria and Iran was established in Baghdad for coordination. USA, UK, and Turkey declined to join. Russian warships of Black Sea Fleet moved to East Mediterranean. Tartus naval base in Syria was used by Russia.

Russian air force began striking targets initially on Homs and Hama in northwestern Syria on September 30. Till January 2017, Russian jets carried out 19160 combat missions and delivered 71000 strikes on terrorist infrastructures. Russia employed Su-25, Su-35, Tu-22M3 strategic bombers, attack helicopters as well as cruise missiles. In December 2015, Sharyat airbase near Homs was made functional. From August 16, 2016, onward, Russian jets made use of Hamadan airbase in Iran. On October 15, 2016, Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov moved forward in support of Russian forces in Syria.

Bolstered by Russia’s air support, the Syrian Army managed to recapture lost spaces including Homs, Hama, Latakia, Idlib, and Palmyra and considerably improved its position. Offensive launched against strategically located Aleppo in September 2016 came to a successful conclusion in December.
One wonders why Russia overlooked the US-Israel grand design. Russian had deployed S-300 and S-400 in November 2015 to improve air defence system against hostile air attacks. Why couldn’t it detect and strike the cruise missiles? Or it looked the other way since it had been making good use of 3M-14T cruise missiles against the rebels. Why didn’t Russia wake up when the US Special Forces were deployed to block Syrian Army’s advance towards Aleppo? These were fatal mistakes, which has once again made the position of Assad regime vulnerable

, , ,

No Comments

ARMED FORCES Indian Army Accused of Using Civilian as Human Shield in Kashmir Patrol By Junaid Mattu, The Wire, India

Indian Army’s XIV Corp & XV Corp Commanders Based in Jammu & Srinagar are Promoters of such Atrocities

Reached for a response, Colonel Rajesh Kalia, the Srinagar-based spokesman of the Ministry of Defence told The Wire, “The contents of the video are being verified and investigated.”

, ,

No Comments


In Messrs Pak Ocean and Others v Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others 2002 PTD 2850, the petitioners challenged the imposition of regulatory duty on re-meltable iron scrap, excluding bundled and shredded scrap and the reduction in the rate of duty on bundled and shredded scrap as unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires Articles 4, 18, 24 and 25 of the Constitution. They contended that the said imposition of regulatory duty through Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) was aimed at making their imported scrap very expensive as compared to the imports by big businessmen in the form of bundled and shredded scrap. According to petitioners, the adverse SROs were issued “to solely benefit the owners of the furnaces who are largely imported of shredded scrap”. In the judgment, there is a direct indictment against the House of Sharifs, contained in Para 50 that reads as under:

Khalid Anwar has mainly placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ittefaq Foundry v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1990 Lahore 121. In the cited case it was contended that the petitioner was a producer of billets and that there were other producers, producing ingots, the end-product whereof was same. In order to economically ruin the petitioner in the cited case, duty structure was changed in the year 1989 without reasonable justification and the change in the duty structure was against the rights guaranteed in Articles 4, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioner was accepted and the relief was allowed. However, with the change in fortunes, the persons were feeling the pinch of oppression in the case of Ittefaq Foundry v. Federation of Pakistan, became the rulers and thereafter, they very easily and conveniently managed to forge the treatment given to them and got the duty structure changed through notification assailed in these petitions, thereby deriving huge undue benefit at the cost of total destruction of the small importers and traders of the scrap in loose form.

The above paragraph confirms beyond any doubt how traders as rulers have been playing havoc with the national exchequer and minting billions through tax concessions secured vide SROs thus destroying their competitors. Yet in the presence of these undeniable facts and court ruling the State agencies/institutions like FBR, FIA, ECP, NAB etc plead helplessness and claiming “lack of evidence” to proceed against the tax evaders and plunderers of national wealth.

, , ,

No Comments

Skip to toolbar