Indian Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel, wearing UN helmets and shields, sit in a truck as rain falls in curfew-bound Srinagar. PHOTO: AFP

ISLAMABAD: The United Nations on Thursday asked Indian troops, cracking down on protestors in Indian Kashmir, to stop wearing its distinctive marked blue helmets.

Responding to a complaint lodged by Paul Barrow, Director of Policy and Communications, United Progressives, a US-based policy group, Michel Bonnardeaux, Public Affairs Officer at the United Nations, said,

Following the use of UN-marked blue helmets by Indian Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel in Srinagar, the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOG) immediately brought the issue to the notice of the Indian Army authorities. UN blue helmets and other UN equipment are provided to personnel serving in the United Nations operations for the sole purpose of use during service under the blue flag. All UN equipment provided for use in a UN operation ought to be returned to the organisation upon completion of service and under no circumstances, can it be used for other purposes, including by national armies in the conduct of their operations.

Around 300 members of the paramilitary Rapid Action Force (RAF) have been deployed in the region since last week to quell two months of unrest.

More than 50 protesters have been killed by the Indian security forces so far.

Members of the Rapid Action force, armed with automatic rifles and dressed in full riot gear, have been using UN-marked blue helmets and shields in Srinagar.

They have increasingly been taking part in baton charges and firing tear gas into the crowds.

The Indian forces’ use of UN equipment has perplexed many Kashmiris, who wondered why UN troops were taking sides in the conflict and assisting Indian forces.

Article Via :-  The Express Tribune

Far from being the mere ‘son of a goat herder’ as he deceptively paraded during and even before his candidacy, strong evidence has emerged that President Barack Obama is the product of the intelligence community. Investigative reporter and former NSA employee Wayne Madsen has put together an extensive three-part and growing series with conclusive proof and documentation that Barack Obama Sr., Stanley Ann Dunham, Lolo Soetoro and President Barack Obama himself all hold deep ties to the CIA and larger intelligence community. And that’s just the beginning.After his election, President Obama quickly moved to seal off his records via an executive order. Now, after two years of hints and clues, there is substantial information to demonstrate that what Obama has omitted is that his rare rise to power can only be explained by his intelligence roots. However, this is more than the story of one man or his family. There is a long-term strategic plan to recruit promising candidates into intelligence and steer these individuals and their families into positions of influence and power. Consider that it is now declassified former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was recruited into MI5 before becoming a labour leader, or that George H. W. Bush not only became CIA director in 1976 but had a deeper past in the organization. While we may never know many pertinent details about these matters, one thing that is certain is that the American people have never been told the truth about who holds the real power, nor who this president– and likely many others– really is. Thus, we urge everyone to read Wayne Madsen’s deep report and seek the truth for yourself.

via Bombshell: Barack Obama conclusively outed as CIA creation.

The Americans made no bones about their dislike for this agency, blaming it for working against their interests in Afghanistan. The Indians also see an ISI agent behind every rock in Kashmir and in Afghanistan where they are trying to dig their heels. They do not hesitate to pin on ISI the blame for the freedom struggle in Kashmir or for acts of terrorism by Indian extremists. Until recently the Karzai government dominated by the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance also remained hostile to the ISI.

Not too long ago, under intense American pressure, the weak Zardari government made an unsuccessful attempt at neutralizing and subduing this agency in disregard to the existing sensitive regional security environment, by moving it out of the army control and placing it under the controversial and embattled Zardari loyalist interior minister – Rehman Malik. This did not succeed for a simple reason. The role of the ISI as the eyes and ears of Pakistan’s military – the bedrock of the country’s security, is critical particularly at a time when the country faces multiple threats to its security.

Ironically, this is the same ISI that was Washington’s darling during the 1980s, when it was master minding the jihad against invading Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The role that the ISI then played was congruent with American interests. The defeat of the Soviet Union would have meant realization of an American dream – avenging the humiliation of Vietnam. They held the ISI in high esteem for its competence and professionalism and gladly funneled arms and funds to the Afghan mujahedeen through it. The ISI strategized the resistance and organized and trained the mujahedeen fighters, working in close collaboration with the CIA and the mujahedeen leaders, forcing the Soviets to retreat.

But as soon as the Americans had negotiated a quid pro quo – Russian withdrawal from South America in exchange for safe Soviet exit from Afghanistan, they disappeared in the middle of the night leaving Afghanistan in a quandary. The political turmoil that followed created chaos and instability owing to the failure of mujahedeen leadership, presenting as a result a security nightmare for Pakistan.

In this chaos a group of young Afghan religious students, many of them former fighters from the resistance, calling themselves Taliban (in Pushto language, Taliban means students), swept through the country with popular support to establish their rule. Interested in keeping their presence alive, the Americans maintained contacts and supported them, ignoring their orthodox beliefs, their harsh rule and even the presence of Al Qaeda in their midst. This continued until it was time for the Americans to overthrow their government in order to serve the changing American interests.

While the Taliban government was in control, Pakistan, too, maintained friendly relations with them in the interest of keeping its western border secure, extending whatever support it could. The ISI played a role through the contacts it had developed during war against the Soviets.

In the wake of 9/11, things began to change. Having invaded Afghanistan in the name of a war on terror, branding the Taliban as brutes and their resistance as terrorism, the Americans wanted the Pakistan army and the ISI to join the war.

This posed a serious security concern for Pakistan. It could destabilize the Pak-Afghan border and strain relations with the Pashtun tribes on both sides of the Durand Line, the British-drawn boundary that cut through the Pashtun region to divide British India and Afghanistan and which Pakistan had inherited. The fact that Pakistan’s border region, called Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), is autonomous, where the writ of the Pakistan Government does not prevail, made matters more complex.

Pakistan’s military doctrine is based primarily on meeting the main threat from India on its eastern border while maintaining a peaceful border with Afghanistan in the west. A direct conflict with the Taliban would have forced Pakistan to divert its military assets from the eastern to the western front, thus thinning out its defenses against India. This was the last thing Pakistan wanted to do because of its unfavorable ratio of 1:4 against India in terms of conventional forces. Understandably, President Musharraf was unwilling to do the American bidding.

There always is a problem with powers that begin to act in imperialistic fashion. Their vision of the world becomes colored. They tend to believe that pursuit of their imperialist designs takes precedence over the national interests of those who cannot stand up to them, even if that means compromising their own national and security interests. America had also been behaving as one such imperial power and treated its smaller allies more like colonies. President Musharraf was threatened that in case of noncompliance with America’s wishes, “Pakistan would be bombed into the stone-age”. Musharraf was coerced into conceding to American demands.

When, despite the state-of-the- art surveillance equipment and military hardware, the US and NATO forces failed to stop the Taliban fighters from moving back and forth into the unmarked Pak-Afghan border, which passes through a treacherous mountainous region, to regroup and strike at the invading foreign troops, the American commanders demanded that the Pakistan army engage them and seal the border. Those with even the slightest knowledge of the area would know that the Americans were asking for the moon. This was physically impossible.

The Pakistan army’s operations failed. In the process, it earned a severe backlash from the local tribes who resented the army’s action against their kinsmen from across the border who sought refuge in their area, as it violated the old tribal custom of providing sanctuary to anyone who asked for it, even it was an enemy. The Pakistan army paid a heavy price. More soldiers died in this action than the combined number of casualties that the US and NATO troops have suffered in Afghanistan so far.

President Musharraf, under advice of his army commanders and the intelligence community, called off the action and resorted to persuasion instead. Through jirgas (assembly of tribal elders) effort was made for the tribesmen to voluntarily stop the influx of Taliban fighters. It didn’t succeed either. This was not to the liking of the American commanders. They blamed the ISI for working against their interests.

Washington and the American media frequently alleged that elements within the ISI were maintaining contacts with the Taliban and attributed the failure of American troops in combating the Taliban to these contacts. Such allegations were also found to be part of the raw, unverified and even fabricated field reports ‘leaked’ in Afghanistan recently and splashed in the western media. The Americans have in the past also described the ISI as being out of control and demanded that the Pakistan government purge the agency of Taliban sympathizers.

This is ridiculous. Firstly, the ISI is a military organization operating under strict organizational control and discipline, where officers are rotated in the normal course. It functions according to a defined mandate, unlike armed forces in some other countries and unlike the CIA, which is known to be an invisible government on its own. Above all, Pakistan and its military are committed to weeding out religious extremism as a matter of state policy.

Secondly, if the American troops are so incapable of overcoming a rag tag army of Taliban, and if the complicity of the ISI with the Taliban can be instrumental in changing the course of the American war, then it is a sad day for America as a super power and the strength of NATO forces becomes questionable.

Thirdly, in the world of intelligence, contacts are kept even with the enemy and at all times. The CIA keeps contacts within Russia and other hostile countries. Israel, the great American ally, spies on America itself. It is common for all intelligence agencies to do this in the security interests of their countries. Why then should America expect an exception to be made in case of the ISI? Why should contacts that the ISI developed with the mujahedeen and the Taliban earlier, and which if it does still maintain, become a source of such great concern for the American administration?

It is strange that America expects the ISI to serve the American agenda instead of Pakistan’s. One cannot forget that the Americans have a long history of abandonment of friends and allies and when they repeat this in Afghanistan citing their own national interest, despite their promises to the contrary, why should Pakistan be expected to be caught with pants down? Why should Pakistan’s military and the intelligence agency be expected to abdicate their duty and not do what is necessary to ensure Pakistan’s security in the long term?

It has often been argued that America expects Pakistan to be actively engaged in the Afghan war in return for the military assistance it provides. The answer is quite simple. The American establishment is doing all that needs to be done in support of its own war and not for the love of Pakistan. The war is theirs, not Pakistan’s. Pakistan should do and is doing what is necessary and feasible, without jeopardizing its own security.

As for the assistance, the bulk of the $10 billion that America gave in the past and was branded as “aid” was in fact the reimbursement of expenses that Pakistan had already incurred in supporting the war effort. The rest was to meet Pakistan’s needs for operations in the border areas and for fighting terrorism that arose out of the war. The Americans still owe $35 billion to reimburse the losses Pakistan has incurred due to this war. As for the F-16s that Pakistan is getting from the US, it pays for them, despite strict restrictions over their usage.

While Americans had their issues with the ISI, the Indians and Israelis began having their own. The agency exposed the growing Indian and Israeli confluence in Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan. This happened right under the nose of the Americans and obviously not without their knowledge and consent. India, having deployed its troops in the name of infra-structure development in league with the Karzai government and with American funding, and having established seven consulates along the sparsely populated Pak-Afghan border, was engaged in heavily bribing influential but ignorant and susceptible tribal leaders to spread disaffection among the local tribesmen against Pakistan.

Evidence was also unearthed by the ISI about the Indians having bought the loyalties of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a grouping of Pakistani tribesmen from FATA and Uzbek fighters from previous wars settled in the region who were influenced by the same orthodox religious beliefs as the Taliban in Afghanistan, and who were active in propagating them in their own areas. They were recruited to launch terror activities in the urban centers of Pakistan, including the capital Islamabad, and were funded, trained and equipped in Afghanistan jointly by the Indian, Israeli and Afghan intelligence agencies. A group from amongst them managed to gain control of Swat area adjoining FATA through coercion of the local population, which was later cleared by the Pakistan army after a major surgical intervention.

The ISI also laid bare strong physical evidence of Indian involvement in supporting insurgency in Balochistan by way of funding, training and equipping misguided and disgruntled Baloch elements grouped under various names, including the Balochistan Liberation Army that was led by the fugitive grandson of the notable Bugti tribal chief – Akbar Bugti. His comings and goings in the Indian consulate at Kandahar and the Indian intelligence HQ in Delhi were photographed and his communications intercepted. Numerous training camps in the wilderness of Balochistan were detected where Indian trainers imparted training in guerilla warfare and the use of sophisticated weapons, which otherwise could not be available to the Baloch tribesmen. Flow of huge funds from Afghan border areas to the insurgents was detected that was traced back to the Indian consulates.

The objective of the TTP, and behind the scene that of the Indians and the Israelis, was to make the world believe that Pakistan was under threat of capitulating to terrorist and insurgent elements who were about to take control of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. Their goal: to denuclearize Pakistan through foreign intervention.

These efforts have not succeeded. Undoubtedly, the army and the ISI played a crucial role in foiling the plots of subversion in Balochistan and the Pashtun region and exposing the foreign hands involved, including those of CIA, RAW, Mossad, RAMA and MI6. Terrorism may not yet be eliminated but Pakistan faces no existential threat.

It should be no surprise to the Americans, Indians and the Israelis if they find in the ISI an adversary to reckon with. It is also not surprising that the ISI is in their perception a rogue organization, for it has stood between them and Pakistan’s national security interests. Their frustration and ire, therefore, is understandable.

Article Via :- FPJ

Written By :- Shahid R. Siddiqi

Shahid R. Siddiqi began his career in the Pakistan Air Force. He later joined the corporate sector with which he remained associated until recently in a senior management position. Alongside, he worked as a broadcaster with Radio Pakistan and remained the Islamabad bureau chief of an English weekly magazine ‘Pakistan & Gulf Economist’. In the U.S. he co-founded the Asian American Republican Club in Maryland in 1994 to encourage the participation of Asian Americans in the mainstream political process. He now writes columns and can be reached at shahidrsiddiqi@gmail.com. Read more articles by Shahid R. Siddiqi.

When Zionism was Red

Several decades ago Israel began presenting itself as the “bulwark against communism” in the Middle East and as of vital strategic importune to the USA vis-à-vis the USSR in the region. Israel’s supposed anti-Communism was of recent duration, and thoroughly self-serving.

The roots of modern Zionism go back to Moses Hess, who predated Herzl and mentored Karl Marx. Prof. Shlomo Avineri of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, states in his biography of Hess:

No other writer has similarly been honored in East Berlin and in Jerusalem just as no other writer has had his manuscripts scattered in such diverse places as the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam and the Institute for Marxism-Leninism in Moscow as well as the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem.[1]

Avineri states that many of Hess’ ideas were incorporated into The Communist Manifesto, with which he was involved in the initial writing.[2] Hess was also deeply involved with the First International and served as Marx’s spokesman when Marx could not attend conferences.[3]

Article Written By :- Dr. K R Bolton

Continue Reading the Article At FPJ

Israel's June 5, 1967 surprise attack on Egypt resulted in the obliteration of Egypt's air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.

It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.

The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.

Article Written By : Jeremy R. Hammond, Published At :- FPJ

In a meeting with Nasser, Johnson’s special envoy to the UAR, Robert B. Anderson, expressed U.S. puzzlement over why he had massed troops in the Sinai, to which Nasser replied, “Whether you believe it or not, we were in fear of an attack from Israel. We had been informed that the Israelis were massing troops on the Syrian border with the idea of first attacking Syria, there they did not expect to meet great resistance, and then commence their attack on the UAR.”

Anderson then told Nasser “that it was unfortunate the UAR had believed such reports, which were simply not in accordance with the facts”, to which Nasser responded that his information had come from reliable sources (presumably referring to intelligence information passed along by the USSR).

Nasser added that “your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.”

U.S. intelligence had indeed foreseen the coming war. “The CIA was right about the timing, duration, and outcome of the war”, notes David S. Robarge in an article available on the CIA’s website.

On May 23, Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms presented Johnson with the CIA’s assessment that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts … or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.”

In an document entitled “Military Capabilities of Israel and the Arab States”, the CIA assessed that “Israel could almost certainly attain air supremacy over the Sinai Peninsula in less than 24 hours after taking the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first.”

Additionally, the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive, stating that “Armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai in three to four days and drive the Egyptians west of the Suez Canal in seven to nine days. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period” (emphasis added).

Although the Arabs had numerical superiority in terms of military hardware, “Nonetheless, the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] maintain qualitative superiority over the Arab armed forces in almost all aspects of combat operations.”

Johnson himself told the Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, “All of our intelligence people are unanimous that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them.”

Israel meanwhile claimed that it was “badly outgunned”, apparently presuming, Robarge writes, “that Washington accorded its analyses such special import that US leaders would listen to its judgments on Arab-Israeli issues over those of their own intelligence services.”

Yet “Helms had the Office of National Estimates (ONE) prepare an appraisal of the Mossad assessment”, which stated: “We do not believe” that the Israeli claim of being the underdog “was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials.”

Neither U.S. nor Israeli intelligence assessed that there was any kind of serious threat of an Egyptian attack. On the contrary, both considered the possibility that Nasser might strike first as being extremely slim.

The current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael B. Oren, acknowledged in his book “Six Days of War“, widely regarded as the definitive account of the war, that “By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”. In the Israeli view, “Nasser would have to be deranged” to attack Israel first, and war “could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally–a most unlikely confluence” (pp. 59-60).

Four days before Israel’s attack on Egypt, Helms met with a senior Israeli official who expressed Israel’s intent to go to war, and that the only reason it hadn’t already struck was because of efforts by the Johnson administration to restrain both sides to prevent a violent conflict.

“Helms interpreted the remarks as suggesting that Israel would attack very soon”, writes Robarge. He reported to Johnson “that Israel probably would start a war within a few days.”

“Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center”, which had received the report “that Israel had launched its attack” and that, contrary to Israel’s claims that Egypt had been the aggressor, Israel had fired first.

Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Despite its total lack of sustainability from the documentary record, and despite such admissions from top Israeli officials, it is virtually obligatory for commentators in contemporary mainstream accounts of the ’67 war to describe Israel’s attack on Egypt as “preemptive”.

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst whose articles have been featured in numerous print and online publications around the world. He is the founder and editor of Foreign Policy Journal (www.foreignpolicyjournal.com), an online source for news, critical analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy. He was a recipient of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. Read more articles by Jeremy R. Hammond.
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com

Dealing With The Bombs That Remain

GAZA CITY, Jul 7, 2010 (IPS) – At precisely 12 noon on a Thursday afternoon, among the rolling sandy hills in southern Gaza, a controlled explosion destroys another round of white phosphorous shells left in Gaza following the 2008-2009 Israeli war on Gaza.

Article Written By :- Eva Bartlett | Published At : – IPS News

Explosives experts from the Mines Advisory Group (MAG) and the United Nations Mine Action Team (UNMAT) are working together to eliminate the remainders of a deadly Israeli attack. The Israeli bombings from land, sea and air left behind large amounts of unexploded ordnance (UXO) in civilian areas.

In a precise, technical routine which takes into account all possible dangers to the MAG and UNMAT workers as well as Palestinian residents living in Gaza, the explosives experts are, detonation by detonation ridding Gaza of the remaining white phosphorous shells.

In order to deprive them of oxygen, shells are first sealed in plaster casts, then moved into large sand-filled containers, until their day of detonation.

Controlled detonations occur twice weekly, coordinated with the Hamas government and the Israeli army, whose war planes fly over the detonation site during the afternoon.

On the day of the seventh round of UXOs to be detonated, there are eight shells to destroy. Two are completely full and six are broken open but unexploded.

Inside each shell are 122 sponges soaked with the lethal chemical, designed to scatter far upon explosion.

“Some white phosphorous shells can be only liquid,” explains Mark Buswell, MAG’s technical director. “But the kind used in Gaza were sponges, more difficult to get rid of.”

The use of sponge-filled white phosphorous shells by Israel’s in its attack on Gaza 18 months back also meant that the probability of injuring civilians was greater.

The controlled detonations stop these shells harming civilians in the future and allow the lethal chemical weapon to burn off in containment pits in the ground, far enough away from the nearest houses to cause harm.

Twenty minutes after the first detonation, when the majority of the thick, white smoke has burned off and dissipated, MAG technicians prowl for stray sponges, move them to the pit, and re-ignite them together.

A solitary clump burns in five to ten minutes, although if covered by sand it can lie dormant for days, re-igniting with the poke of a child’s stick or kick of a shoe.

Jim Hill, a Canadian medic working with MAG in Gaza, explains their work. “We are here in case there are injuries from white phosphorous burns, smoke inhalation or unexpected detonations resulting in injuries.”

Hill and other medics accompany the team as it slowly safeguards sites where the rubble clearance has finally begun, well over a year after the destruction.

With over 4,000 houses completely destroyed and 16,000 houses partially or badly damaged, the risk of UXOs is huge.

Buswell says their work is only just beginning.

Israel’s 23-day-war on Gaza December-January 2008-2009 killed more than 1,500 Palestinians, and left more than 5,320 wounded. Among the casualties were those hit or affected by white phosphorous bombings.

“When white phosphorus lands on skin it burns deeply through muscle and into the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen,” says Amnesty International.

Dr. Nafez Abu Shaban, head of the Burns Unit in Al-Shifa Hospital of Gaza City, told the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) that he was seeing patients “who sustained severe burns due to which the muscles and body cells are completely destroyed.”

Among Israeli soldiers’ targets were homes, schools where thousands of Palestinians were taking refuge, UN buildings storing humanitarian aid, and hospitals. Over half of Gaza’s 27 hospitals and 44 medical centres were destroyed or damaged.

The Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City and the Al-Wafa Rehabilitation Centre east of Sheyjayee — housing over 50 patients, the majority invalid and dependent on life-support machinery — suffered multiple bombings, including direct white phosphorous hits.

Israeli officials first denied using white phosphorous but later admitted and justified its use as a smokescreen for soldiers.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says its use among a concentration of civilians is “simply prohibited”, and notes that white phosphorous can spread up to several hundred square metres, with the “potential to cause particularly horrific and painful injuries or slow painful death.”

Over a year after the Israeli war on Gaza, the risk of UXO poses as real a threat as the fresh bombings.

These UXOs may detonate even decades later, MAG notes. In rural areas farmers ploughing or workers scavenging stones and steel can inadvertently set the bombs off. The anti-tank mines used by Israeli soldiers to demolish houses, and several of which remain, pose a risk to workers removing rubble or to families returning to their homes to sift for belongings.

As of August 2009, the UN reported 12 people killed from UXO explosions, six of who were children. Twenty-three were reported injured, including four children.

In March 2010, UNMAT and MAG began to destroy the 343 UXOs collected so far, including white phosphorous shells.

Mark Buswell compared the threat of an explosion in Gaza to “an explosion which could damage a city centre area the size of the City of London (2.6 square kilometres)”.

On July 26, 1955 a baby boy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The boy had a privileged childhood. At that time no one knew that this kid would some day become the president of Pakistan and would chant the slogan of Pakistan Khappay!

Yes! The boy was none other than Asif Ali Zardari son of Hakim Ali Zardari. He comes from a prominent Baloch family from Sindh. He received his primary education at the Karachi Grammar School and his secondary education at Cadet College Petaro. It is said though not verified from any authentic source that he pursued his further education in London where he studied Business.

“While there he attended the London School of Business Studies and received a Bachelor of Education degree. His official biography says he attended a commercial college called Pedinton School. But a search of tertiary educational institutions in London showed no such school, and associates said he did not finish his studies,” said the NYT report by Jane Perlez.

It quoted Zardari as saying: “I do have a degree. That is not an issue. I attended the London School of Business Studies much before I was married. I think it’s a B Ed degree. I haven’t really looked at it.” Say it again Mr. President! Pakistan Khappay!

Zardari got married to Benazir Bhutto in 1987. It was said to be an arrange marriage. Sources say that the marriage was totally customary. The very next year in 1988 the couple was blessed with a baby boy. They named him Bilawal Zardari. Now the chair person of Pakistan People’s Party and the co-chair person of PPP is Asif Ali Zardari. Pakistan Khappay!

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto was triumphant in general election in 1988 and became the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Zardari became member of National Assembly. He served as investment and environment minister in Bhutto’s first tenure. It was then he was labeled as Mr. 10%. In this context The Sunday Times in its September 07, 2008 issue says, “Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, better known as Mr. Ten Per Cent – except to those who say it was Thirty Per Cent – is the controversial former playboy and widower of the late Benazir Bhutto.”

Hold on readers! I am wondering it says Mr. 30% and a controversial former playboy … Pakistan Khappay!

Mr. Zardari was in immense snag when he was indicted in 1990 of fastening a remote controlled bomb to the leg of a Pakistani born British businessman Murtaza Hussain Bukhari and later on sending him into a bank to withdraw money from his account as suborn. Brutal, atrocious, malicious, spiteful and how cruel it is? The charge was never proved that is why Mr. President says, Pakistan Khappay!

Mr. Zardari was appointed as finance minister By Benazir Bhutto during her second term as prime minister. He has various charges against him including murder, money embezzlement and money laundering. Mr. Zardari remained imprisoned for almost eleven years.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has made available a detailed account of Asif Ali Zardari’s possessions to an accountability court (AC). The list includes Agricultural land in Nawabshah, Hyderabad, Tando Allah yar, 4,000 kanal on Simli dam, 80 acres at Hawkes Bay, shares in five Sugar Mills, 70% shares in Decon Engineering (Pvt.) Limited. President Zardari has foreign assets in almost twenty four companies Boomer Finance and Capricon Trading being the most eminent in fraud charges. Furthermore property in United Kingdom, Belgium and in Unites states of America. And around twenty eight bank accounts in various countries. Pakistan Khappay!

One of the sub committee of United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs carried out a study on money laundering. They prepared four case studies of the most corrupt clients of Citibank USA. Unluckily one of those four people is Mr. Zardari. The report says, “Citibank had Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan as a client even though John Reed the CEO had been advised by his own Citibank staff to stay far away from him because of allegations of corruption.” The same report says, “It has been reported that the government of Pakistan claims that Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari stole over $1 billion from the country.” Pakistan Khappay!

In addition to these scams and embezzlement cases Mr. Zardari was accused as murderer of Mir Murtaza Bhutto by Fatima Bhutto and Ghinwa Bhutto. In States Times April 07, 2010 issue it has been cited by Qamar Yousafzai, “Fatima insists Zardari is the murderer of her father even though he has been acquitted of the charge. Lack of sufficient evidences has been cited.” Pakistan Khappay!

Dear readers! What more should I say except for this let us all say it together PAKISTAN KHAPPAY!

Article Written By :- Hifsah Saeed

Published At :- Chowrangi

Despite the fact that there exists no proof of the holocaust and no evidence that six million Jews died in concentration camps during WWII, let’s just imagine that it did happen. Now how is it that Hitler is termed as the most evil person in the history of mankind while those that bomb Muslims, commit heinous crimes in their countries, ridicule their Prophet and Quran and as a result hurt the sentiments of 1.2 billion Muslims are hailed as heroes? And I wonder why the victims of Holocaust are more important than victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Despite the protest of a large number of Muslims, Facebook has failed to remove the blasphemous page from the website. According the statement issued by Facebook their policy is to withhold such content in countries where it is controversial. The statement specifically says that we do not remove Nazi content from Facebook because it is illegal only in a few countries. As two-faced statements go, this one takes the prize. Perhaps before issuing the statement the Facebook did not realise that words like “Adolf Hitler”, “Sieg Heil” and “Nazi” are not allowed to be used on Facebook to create new pages.

And if all this and the removal of Hitler page and the permanent deactivation of my profile isn’t enough, here is a testament to Facebook’s vile hypocrisy. The statement issued by Facebook on 20 May says, “We strongly believe that Facebook users have the freedom to express their opinions, and we don’t typically take down content, groups or pages that speak out against countries, religions, political entities, or ideas.” And the very next day I received an email from Facebook Operations which says, “One of Facebook’s main priorities is the comfort and safety of our users. We do not tolerate hate speech. Targeting people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or disease is a serious violation of our standards and has resulted in the permanent loss of your account. We will not be able to reactivate your account for any reason. This decision is final.”

Now these two conflicting statements speak volumes about the discrimination by the Facebook. It simply means that Facebook through its official statement to global media wants the world to believe that they are the torchbearers of freedom of expression and allow everyone to speak their minds out. On the other hand the face that individuals like me get to see is a much horrible one. It talks about hate and intolerance and all forms of so-called equality and unshakable resolve. While Facebook is portraying itself as the silent and innocent onlooker for the entire world, I wonder what gives them the right to remove a major chunk of my life from the web.

I don’t think Facebook should come up with any clarification statements for the Muslim world over what happened. It is clearer than crystal that as long as we are labelled as extremists, we are not going to enjoy the equal rights in this world. And those that are trying to play God love to label us that. While reporting the Facebook ban in Pakistan in different articles, guardian.co.uk mentions the brutality of Pakistan Army in Swat while Yahoo thinks it’s necessary to unveil Al-Qaida’s plans of attacks on Danish and Dutch football teams. It is a blatant attempt to criticize Pakistan for placing the ban, link the country to extremism and terrorism and thereby justifying this sacrilegious act of Facebook users.

Article Written By :- Saad Warraick                                     Published At :- Teeth Maestro

The new element, so far only discovered and found in Pakistan , has been named Zardarium (Symbol = Zm). It has one Presitron, 1 Priministron, 77 Ministrons, 98 deputy Ministrons, 298 National Assemblions, and 100 Senatrons, giving it an atomic mass of 575.

These 575 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks. Since Zardarium has no electrons, it is inert, impotent and ineffective. However, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Zardarium can cause a reaction, that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete, depending upon the kick-back percentage that Zardarium can get. It is neither radioactive nor active and is largely inert except for its psychopathic attraction for corrupt morons, Ministrons, Assemblions and Senatrons. In this respect, another two important inert iso-dopes, Nawazium (Symbol = Nm) and Shahbazium (Symbol = Sm) play a vital role as catalysts by their moronic ineptitude.

Zardarium has a normal half-life of 2 to 5 years. It does not decay, but instead, the whole country undergoes a re-organisational decay in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. The most important chemical quality of Zardarium is its magnetic properties for gold, Dollars, and corrupt morons.

In fact, Zardarium ’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become Ministrons and forming iso-dopes as a by-product. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Zardarium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass. When catalysed with money, Zardarium becomes Presidentium (symbol = Pz), an element that radiates just as much energy as Zardarium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

Article Written By :- Shakir Lakhani Posted At :- Chowrangi

We haven’t got a lot to be thankful for these days in Pakistan.

But at least we are not Dubai.

Fed up with loadshedding, bombs, and TV cynicism pervading Pakistan, I recently escaped to Dubai for a holiday. Big mistake. Huge. Ten days later I returned, gasping for Karachi’s polluted, but far sweeter, air. Dubai may have the world’s tallest building and the world’s largest shopping mall, but it also has the world’s tiniest soul. It’s a plastic city built in steel and glass.

It has imported all the worst aspects of western culture (excessive consumption, environmental defilement) without importing any of its benefits (democracy, art). This is a city designed for instant gratification a hedonistic paradise for gluttons to indulge in fast food, fast living and fast women. It’s Las Vegas in a dish dash. You want to eat a gold leaf date? Munch away.

You want to drink a Dhs 3,000 bottle of champagne? Bottoms up. You want a UN selection of hookers at your fingertips? Tres bien. Let’s start with the malls. These cathedrals of capitalism, these mosques of materialism are mausoleums of the living dead. Slack jawed zombies roam around consuming food, clothes and electronics in a desperate attempt to fill the emptiness of their existence.

Article Via :- The Express Tribune

Written By :- George Fulton

Whilst at the Mall of the Emirates the azan goes off. Nobody appears to move to the prayer room; everyone’s too busy performing sajda before Stella McCartney, genuflecting before Gucci, and prostrating themselves at Prada. With Dubai, one recalls F Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby.

The people are modern day Gatsbys, buying shirts that they will never wear and books they will never read. Like Fitzgerald’s roaring 20s America, Dubai is a moral failure a society obsessed with wealth and status. Everyone is trying to keep up with the Jones’ or the Javaids. You see the goras with their perma-tans, streaked highlights and their flabby cleavages.

The upwardly mobile South Asian man prances around wearing a silly shirt with a large picture of a polo player on a horse, whilst their women wear oversized sunglasses and carry oversized handbags. And the Arabs walk about with enough gold bling to blind you at ten paces. But not everything that glitters is gold. And Dubai is not only morally bankrupt it is also financially bankrupt.

Lately, Dubai, and its ruler, Sheikh Mohammed Al-Maktoum have been compared to another piece of literature — Percy Shelley’s famous poem Ozymandias, which illustrates the inevitable decline of all leaders and the empires they build. Shelley finishes it thus: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains.

Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away With $80b of debt and a stock and property market that has tanked, the comparisons with Ozymandias are apt. Abu Dhabi may have bailed them out but can Dubai survive as a regional hub in the long-term? Or will this city of hubris built on sand and folly sink back into the dunes a desert mirage that evaporates once the public relations people, the speculators and the tourists disappear?

So for all you naysayers that bemoan Pakistan and its numerous problems please temper your pessimism. Take time to celebrate our cultural, religious, linguistic plurality and richness. Stop the cynicism coursing through your corroded veins. For all its inadequacies, at least we have a democracy.

For all its irresponsibility, at least we have a robust media. For all the police corruption, at least we are not a police state. For all our littering, at least we have paper wallahs. Remind yourself that at least we have a heart. At least we have a soul. At least we are not Dubai.

George Fulton is a freelance broadcast and print journalist