Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by admin in ISLAM MESSAGE OF PEACE, ISLAM=PEACE & BROTHERHOOD AMONG MANKIND, ISLAMOPHOBES, TERRORISM FROM KARZAI SUPPORTED TALIBAN, US CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER TO PAKISTAN, US DRONE WAR ON PAKISTAN, US FOREIGN POLICY & INTERNATIONAL LAW, US INFILTRATION OF PAKISTAN AGENCIES & COMMISSIONS, Zionist-Hindutva axis of evil on December 17th, 2013
Differing perceptions
Asif Haroon Raja
Terrorism in Pakistan is the outcome of backup support provided by USA, India and Afghanistan to TTP and its affiliated groups in the northwest and to BLA, BRA and BLF in the southwest. While foreign agencies fund, equip and provoke the terrorists to strike civil and military targets in Pakistan so as to create bedlam, the liberals and section of media on the payroll of outside powers keep instigating the government and Army to keep fighting war on terror till the elimination of each and every terrorist. Those preaching peace and suggesting dialogue with militants are termed as Taliban lovers and insane.
Pro-fight elements consider drone a useful weapon to kill terrorists hiding in far off places and go to the extent of claiming that residents of FATA love drones and view drones as a good deterrent against terrorists. Pro-peace groups on the other hand see drone as the biggest obstruction in the way of peace and say that people of FATA, particularly women, children and elderly people have contracted mental diseases because of hovering drones. They feel that the US purposely uses this weapon to trigger terrorism and scuttle peace process. They quote examples of Nek Muhammad killed by a drone soon after he signed a peace deal, Bajaur seminary struck by a missile in October 2006 when peace deal was about to be inked, pro-talks TTP leader Waliur Rahman droned on May 30, 2013, Hakeemullah killed by a drone on November 1, 2013 when he had consented to take part in peace talks.
Anti-talks lobbies are making hue and cry as to why the government is insisting to hold talks with the TTP when its new leader Fazlullah has categorically stated that there will be no talks and has threatened to avenge the death of Hakeemullah. They argue that it is pointless to hold talks with Fazlullah who has a history of breaking deals and had soaked Swat in blood. Those favoring talks counter their arguments by saying that the security forces have been fighting the militants for over a decade without achieving any results and in the process, civilians, Army, police have suffered heavy losses and Pakistan has lost over $100 billion. They say, other than Sri Lankan and Colombian insurgencies, no insurgency could be resolved anywhere in the world through force and ultimately had to rely on dialogue to end the conflict. They quote the example of US military supported by military contingents from 48 countries having used excessive force for over 12 years has finally decided to quit and is seeking dialogue with the Taliban to arrive at a political settlement.
Within Pakistan, perceptions on various issues are viewed differently. There is unending debate concerning Quaid-e-Azam, whether he was a secular or Islam Pasand. Opinions differ whether Pakistan should be an Islamic or a secular State. We are not clear whether the US is a friend or foe and should we or should we not remain tied to the apron strings of USA for times to come. We are unclear whether war on terror is our or someone else’s war, whether we should continue to fight or end it. Same is the position taken on drones, whether they are useful or harmful, and whether they violate Pakistan’s sovereignty or not. While majority view India arch enemy of Pakistan which cannot be trusted, movers of Aman ki Asha view differently and keep highlighting the benefits of friendship with India. They advocate grant of MFN status to India as well as road access through Wagah border to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
The opponents argue that until and unless India settles core issues of Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek and water, India should be kept at a distance. They say that India has been cleverly extracting concessions from Pakistan without giving anything in return and that friendship should be on reciprocal basis. Opinion differs over Kalabagh dam so very vital for the existence of Pakistan. Nationalists in KP and in Sindh dogmatically oppose construction of the dam well knowing that India is building large numbers of dams over the three rivers of Chenab, Jhelum and Indus to turn Pakistan into a wasteland.
Peddlers of hate and destruction have all along striven to impose Shariah upon others using coercive, cruel and violent methods. Instead of reforming the society by endearing to influence the wayward and weak Muslims and guiding them to become practicing Muslims through preaching and demonstrating strength of character, honesty, tolerance, amiability, generosity and humility, the militants have been resorting to cruelty and terrorism to terrorize the people and force them to accept their brand of Islam, which they project is the real Islam.
While the militants condone their aggressive acts under the cover of religion, saying they have a noble agenda of establishing Shariah in the country, the deprived class groaning under the weight of poverty and insecurity and fed up of arrogance of proud pursed elites, tend to overlook the acts of militants. The religious and politico-religious leaders as well as religious scholars sympathize with the cause of militants since they too yearn for Shariah. Those driven by ignorance, or half-baked knowledge of Islam, or fear, believe that the extremist groups have taken up militancy in order to get rid of anti-poor western systems of governance and justice, and to usher in real Islam in Pakistan for the betterment of the downtrodden. While doing so, they ignore the fact that over 40,000 innocent people have died at the hands of militants, and the whole social fabric has been severely traumatized. Very few pick up courage to speak out that Islam preaches peace, tolerance, brotherhood, fraternity and shuns violence, bigotry and bloodshed.
Sectarianism is another curse which has created bad blood between Shias and Sunnis. Extremist groups of each group declare the other Kafirs. Civil-military relations often remain tense. The politicians and pseudo intellectuals hate Army and miss no opportunity to degrade its image. However, for every natural and manmade calamity the rulers and the people look toward the Army and the Army always live up to their expectations. Army handles the monumental tasks with utmost efficiency and at the peril of their lives.
While drone is choice weapon of USA, suicide attack is the choice weapon of militants. Pakistan has suffered the most at the hands of suicide bombers. This phenomenon crept into Pakistan in 2002 and started to peak after Lal Masjid operation in 2007 and recorded 78 attacks in 2009. Groups involved in this heinous practice are TTP, Asmatullah Muawia and Qari Zafar groups of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, 313 Brigade of late Ilyas Kashmiri, Badar Mansoor group of Harkatul Mujahideen, Qari Saifullah and Amjad Farooqui groups of Harkatul Jihadul Islam, Lal Masjid Brigade, TNSM, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Jamaatul Furqan, Jaishul Islam, Fidayeen-e-Islam, Abdullah Azam Shaheed Brigade. TTP’s late Qari Husain, cousin of late Hakeemullah Mehsud, earned the title of Ustad-e-Fadayeen. TTP spokesman Azam Tariq is on record having stated that ‘Our Ulema have termed suicide attacks as an elite form of Jihad, which has made the Mujahideen invincible’.
It is, however, heartening to note that the Ulema belonging to Wafaqul Madaras are now unanimous in declaring suicide attacks as un-Islamic. All religious leaders do not subscribe to violence and say that Quran clearly spells out that murder of one innocent human being is equivalent to murder of entire humanity. Saudi Arabia’s grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh has recently stated that killing oneself is a grave crime and a grave sin and those who kill themselves with explosives are criminals and are moving fast to hell. His categorical verdict must have put TTP leaders on the back foot and compelled them to ponder over whether it was right to train teenage boys as suicide bombers and deceivingly making them believe that no sooner they will blow themselves up, they will be welcomed by Hoors and taken to paradise. Misusing the name of Islam, the trainers have been exploiting the poverty of the boys hailing from downtrodden class and misleading them to kill Muslims.
Being the oldest and most respected religious political party of the country, it is the responsibility of Jamaat-e-Islami chief to remove ambiguity and show the clear path as enshrined in Holy Quran rather than adding to the existing chaos and confusion by siding with the misled. Wafaqul Madaras should also play its role in forbidding every tom, dick and harry claiming to be guardian of Islam from issuing mischievous Islamic decrees like the one related to Shahadat. Gory practice of suicide attacks and all forms of terrorism and that too against own brethren must end now. Dialogue is the route to peace and tranquility. The government should not only strive to bridge divides within the society, but also focus on creating sectarian harmony and enforcing law for all sectarian groups to prevent recurrence of Rawalpindi tragedy on last 10th Muharram.
The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. asifharoonraja@gmail.com
Posted by admin in US DRONE WAR ON PAKISTAN on October 30th, 2013
Pakistani protesters belonging to United Citizen Action march behind a burning US flag during a protest in Multan on September 30, 2013, against the US drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas (AFP Photo / S.S Mirza)
With the increased use of remotely piloted aircraft in military operations in a number of countries, the nagging question of civilian “collateral damage” as a consequence of these deadly technologies is a growing concern for the United Nations and human right groups.
In Afghanistan, for example, the number of aerial drone strikes surged from 294 in 2011 to 447 during the first 11 months of 2012, according to data released by the US Air Force in November 2012, UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson noted in his interim report.
Pakistan officials confirmed that out of 2,200 deaths “at least 400 civilians had been killed as a result of remotely piloted aircraft strikes and a further 200 individuals were regarded as probable non-combatants.”
Although the first missile test-fired from a drone occurred in February 2001, it wasn’t until the end of 2012 that the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) released data showing that 16 civilians had been killed and 5 injured due to drone strikes during the course of the year.
In its latest published figures, covering the first six months of 2013, UNAMA documented 15 civilian deaths and 7 injuries in seven separate attacks by drone aircraft.
Emmerson’s 24-page document, which is due to be presented to the UN General Assembly next Friday, mentions a report by a US military advisor that contradicted official US claims that drone attacks were responsible for fewer civilian deaths compared with other aerial platforms, for example, fighter jets.
He pointed to research by Larry Lewis, a research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses, who examined aerial strikes in Afghanistan from mid-2010 to mid-2011. With the help of classified military data, Lewis found that the missile strikes conducted by drones were “10 times more deadly to Afghan civilians” than those performed by fighter jets, according to a report by The Guardian newspaper.
Northrop Grumman / Chad Slattery / Handout via Reuters
The United States and the United Kingdom have been reluctant to hand over information regarding drone strikes of any sort, including those that result in civilian deaths. For example, on February 21, 2010, 23 civilians were killed and 12 wounded in a Predator strike in southern Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province.
The US military released partially declassified information on the incident, suggesting “administrative and disciplinary sanctions” against the crew for providing misleading “situational information” as well as “a predisposition to engage in kinetic activity (the release of a missile).”
Emmerson said the US, which has attracted a lot of scorn in Afghanistan over the drone attacks, had created “an almost insurmountable obstacle to transparency.”
“The Special Rapporteur does not accept that considerations of national security justify withholding statistical and basic methodological data of this kind,” Emmerson wrote in the report.
The United Kingdom, which also figured into the report, has officially admitted to one civilian casualty incident, in which four civilians were killed and two civilians injured in a remotely piloted aircraft strike by the Royal Air Force in Afghanistan on March 25, 2011.
However, that figure remains open to speculation given that the United Kingdom’s ‘Reaper’ drone has flown more than 46,000 hours in Afghanistan, averaging three sorties per day, with a total of 405 weapons discharged.
Emmerson also reported that Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided him with statistics on drone strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where the US military has targeted members of Al-Qaeda since 2004.
The government noted the difficulties in determining the exact number of civilian deaths due to particular“topographical and institutional obstacles” of the Tribal Areas, including the tradition of immediately burying the bodies of the dead. So the figures are likely to be an underestimate.
The highest amount of civilian casualties, Emmerson noted, came when the CIA dramatically increased drone attacks in Pakistan between 2008 and 2010. Following intense criticism from Islamabad, however, drone strikes in Pakistan have steadily declined and “the number of civilian deaths has dropped dramatically.”
Pakistani schoolgirls walk along a path after school in Mingora, a town in Swat valley (AFP Photo / A Majeed)
In September, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), a non-profit organization launched a project,“Naming the Dead,” to record properly the names and numbers of people who are killed by US drone airstrikes in Pakistan.
Civilian fatalities attributed to US drone strikes have occurred beyond the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, including in Yemen, where the figure is 12-58, according to Emmerson. Statistics are not yet available from Iraq or the Nato operation in Libya in 2011.
Meanwhile, with America’s arch-enemy Al-Qaeda looking increasingly fractured, especially with the death of its terror mastermind, Osama bin Laden, the question as to who now qualifies as a legitimate target of US strikes is becoming more pertinent. More importantly, perhaps, are the limitations that the United States and other countries must recognize as the battle against ‘terrorism’ goes global.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has noted the absence of a clear international consensus on the issue, Emmerson noted. But one thing that is generally accepted, however, is that“international humanitarian law does not permit the targeting of persons directly participating in hostilities who are located in non-belligerent States, given that, otherwise, the whole world is potentially a battlefield,” the report emphasized.
In Washington, the report got a lukewarm reception with White House spokesperson Laura Magnuson saying, “We are aware that this report has been released and are reviewing it carefully.”
She noted that at the National Defense University on May 23, “[T]he President spoke at length about the policy and legal rationale for how the United States takes action against Al-Qaeda and its associated forces. As the President emphasized, the use of lethal force, including from remotely piloted aircraft, commands the highest level of attention and care.”
The Special Rapporteur intends to submit a final report on the subject of robotic aircraft in counter-terrorism operations to the Human Rights Council in 2014.
Posted by Fawad Mir in Pakistan Security, Pakistan Security and Defence: Enemy & Threats (Internal & External), Pakistan-US Relations, US Interference in Balochistan on May 8th, 2013
By Beenish Ahmed, November 6, 2012
Outside a downtown Islamabad coffee shop that sells an assortment of French macaroons (cupcakes are so passé), I strike up a conversation with Omar Malik.
A 34-year-old who works for a private telecommunications company, Malik seems liberal. Liberal in the way Americans stumbling through Muslim-majority countries might find comforting.
He’s dressed smartly in a collared shirt—with only the appropriate number of buttons unbuttoned. He sips a latte and speaks in flawless, albeit slightly accented, English.
When it comes to American politics, though, he isn’t technically “liberal” —at least as far as U.S. political categories go.
“Republicans have historically always been better for Pakistan than Democrats,” Malik says matter-of-factly. “In terms of the relations that we have had, I think Bush was a much better president than Obama or Clinton was.”
He leans back in his lawn chair when I inquire further. This is not what I expected to hear from a man outside a posh cafe on a Saturday night, but he continues, “In terms of foreign policy, in terms of [not] giving preference to India over Pakistan, the Republicans have been much more balanced,” Malik says.
I remind him of how, when pressed during the presidential debate on foreign policy, Mitt Romney said he’d continue President Obama’s policy of using drones to target terrorist enclaves in Pakistan.
But Malik is resolute. He chalks Romney’s assertion up to campaign rhetoric. The sort of tough-on-terror talk, he says knowingly, that Obama also ran on four years ago.
Pakistan has long been seen by American analysts as a “wildcard” state—a sort of trick card that either appears as a Queen of Hearts or a Joker depending on when, and for how long, you look.
It’s a trick ordinary Pakistanis—who would probably just as readily fill the streets to protest America as they would to claim a visa if the United States decided to offer up them up for free—can play just as well. Nearly three-fourths of Pakistanis polled said they see the United States as an “enemy.” That’s up from 64 percent just three years ago.
As if to say “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em,” another recent poll found that 43 percent of Pakistanis claimed they should have the right to vote in U.S. elections, a number topped only by people in Kenya, China, India, and Cameroon.
“Pakistanis should be given the right to vote,” says Rahat Khan, a 27-year-old who manages supply orders at a construction company in Islamabad. He adds completely earnestly, “After all, all of the decisions made about Pakistan are made in America.”
Khan even goes so far as to say that Pakistan should be made the “53rd state”—although he’ll likely have to brush up on his geography should he ever decide to actually apply for U.S. citizenship and cast a ballot in American elections.
If he could vote, Khan says, he’d cast a vote for Obama. But there’s one issue that he can’t get behind. “Being a patriotic Pakistani,” Khan insists, “I must say that drone attacks should be stopped.”
Like many Pakistanis, Khan sees the use of drones as an affront to his country’s sovereignty. The continuing attacks on sites the United States identifies as terrorist enclaves in the tribal areas are approved by only a small number of elite Pakistanis. He says the unmanned assaults kill more innocent people than the terrorists they target.
The vitriolic issue of drone strikes is compounded by a number of other incidents that have stoked Pakistani anger at America.
In January 2011, CIA contractor Raymond Davis shot and killed two Pakistani men in the city of Lahore. To make matters worse, a car coming to aid Davis from the U.S. consulate killed a man in the street before speeding off down the wrong side of the road. Although “blood money” was paid to the victims’ families, the incident spurred a public outcry over the evident impunity for Americans who had committed murder.
Then, last November, a U.S. attack on a military outpost near the Afghanistan border killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, leading Pakistan to close NATO supply routes into Afghanistan. The passages remained closed for months.
And of course there was the unannounced raid in which U.S. Navy SEALS killed Osama bin Laden four months ago, which Pakistanis largely believe to be either offensive or fictitious.
Add up these incidents—along with the anger over the hokey film trailer defaming the Prophet Mohammad that inflamed the rest of the Islamic world—and it’s easy to come up with Obama’s incredibly low approval rating in Pakistan. Still, it is surprising that Pakistanis would see Obama on par with former President George W. Bush, whom many across the world still disapprove of for starting two wars on feeble foundations.
The poll, which was conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, found that Pakistan was the only country of the 15 polled where ratings for Obama were no better than those maintained by former President George W. Bush.
Thirteen percent of Pakistanis polled said they would vote for Obama if they could, over a mere 9 percent who say they would support Romney. But the more telling statistic might be the 47 percent who believe that neither candidate would change U.S. policy.
Beenish Ahmed, “Pakistan: The Real Swing State” (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, November 6, 2012)
© 2024, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
