Saturday, June 4, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Youm-e-Takbeer Day The Ghauri Missile Day
The Day When We Feel Big !!!!!!!!
The Day When We Feel Proud !!!!!!
The Day When We Relaxed !!!!!
The Day When We Lighting Our Streets !!!!!
The Day When Everyone Happy & Celebrating !!!!!
The Day When Every Muslim Celebrate !!!!!
The Day When Our Dream Come Alive !!!!!
The Day When Our Expections Comes True !!!!!
The Day Which We Waits For 24 Years !!!!!
The Day When 1.5 Million Peoples Threating The World !!!!!
The Day When Every Single PAKISTANI Said "THIS IS IT" !!!!!
The Day When My Family Celebrate As Festival !!!!!
The Day When Pakistan Singing Abdul Qadeer Khan Songs !!!!!
IT WAS 28th May 1998 AT 03:15 PM
When We Become 7th Nuclear State Of The World & 1st In Muslim Ummah......
When We Successfully Conducted 6 Nuclear Test At Chaghi.......
When Whole PAKISTAN Listen ALLAH-O-AKBAR On PTV......
When We Shut Up Our Enemies.......
When We Surprised The World......
I was just 8 Years Old at that time & i dont know why they all are celebrating & i also dont know the value of this Success, But one thing i admit i felt secure bcoz now i knew why i felt like that.
Now We Remember As
Youm-e-Takbeer Day
The Ghauri Missile Day so, Happy 13th Birth Day
& Sir We Salute You bcoz It was happned just bcoz of YOU.
PAKISTAN ZINDABAD
The Day When We Feel Proud !!!!!!
The Day When We Relaxed !!!!!
The Day When We Lighting Our Streets !!!!!
The Day When Everyone Happy & Celebrating !!!!!
The Day When Every Muslim Celebrate !!!!!
The Day When Our Dream Come Alive !!!!!
The Day When Our Expections Comes True !!!!!
The Day Which We Waits For 24 Years !!!!!
The Day When 1.5 Million Peoples Threating The World !!!!!
The Day When Every Single PAKISTANI Said "THIS IS IT" !!!!!
The Day When My Family Celebrate As Festival !!!!!
The Day When Pakistan Singing Abdul Qadeer Khan Songs !!!!!
IT WAS 28th May 1998 AT 03:15 PM
When We Become 7th Nuclear State Of The World & 1st In Muslim Ummah......
When We Successfully Conducted 6 Nuclear Test At Chaghi.......
When Whole PAKISTAN Listen ALLAH-O-AKBAR On PTV......
When We Shut Up Our Enemies.......
When We Surprised The World......
I was just 8 Years Old at that time & i dont know why they all are celebrating & i also dont know the value of this Success, But one thing i admit i felt secure bcoz now i knew why i felt like that.
Now We Remember As
Youm-e-Takbeer Day
The Ghauri Missile Day so, Happy 13th Birth Day
& Sir We Salute You bcoz It was happned just bcoz of YOU.
PAKISTAN ZINDABAD
Sunday, May 22, 2011
PNS Mehran under attack in Karachi
KARACHI: Terrorists have launched an armed attack on PNS Mehran, a heavily guarded facility of Pakistan Navy, located along Sharea Faisal, Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Sunday.
TV images showed smoke billowing from PNS Mehran where terrorists have blown up a four-engine plane of Pakistan Navy by firing a rocket.
Five injured in the incident have so far been shifted to a local hospital.
Earlier, four blasts were reported from the area near PAF base Faisal.
Ambulances and fire tenders were seen rushing toward the base following the powerful blasts that were heard across a wide radius.
Gunshots fired from sophisticated weapons were also heard following the blasts.
TV images showed smoke billowing from PNS Mehran where terrorists have blown up a four-engine plane of Pakistan Navy by firing a rocket.
Five injured in the incident have so far been shifted to a local hospital.
Earlier, four blasts were reported from the area near PAF base Faisal.
Ambulances and fire tenders were seen rushing toward the base following the powerful blasts that were heard across a wide radius.
Gunshots fired from sophisticated weapons were also heard following the blasts.
Terrorists Hits Karachi By Attacking On PNS Mehran Base
KARACHI: Pakistan Naval Shipping (PNS) Mehran Base, a heavily guarded facility of Pakistan Navy located along Shahrah-e-Faisal, has come under a terrorist attack, Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Sunday.
He said terrorists have launched an armed attack on PNS Mehran while the security forces and army personnel are retaliating terrorists, he said.
The minister said that the attack has been countered to a large extent and the security forces have placed strict cordon around the area.
A big fire is still raging at the site, which the firefighters are trying to douse.
Following the attack, PM Yousuf Raza Gilani phoned Interior Minister and inquired about the situation.
Geo News correspondent said that reportedly 10 terrorists have attacked on PNS Mehran with hand grenades while the gunshots are still being heard from inside.
He said terrorists have launched an armed attack on PNS Mehran while the security forces and army personnel are retaliating terrorists, he said.
The minister said that the attack has been countered to a large extent and the security forces have placed strict cordon around the area.
A big fire is still raging at the site, which the firefighters are trying to douse.
Following the attack, PM Yousuf Raza Gilani phoned Interior Minister and inquired about the situation.
Geo News correspondent said that reportedly 10 terrorists have attacked on PNS Mehran with hand grenades while the gunshots are still being heard from inside.
Monday, May 16, 2011
PAF Ready To Beat Down US Drones
ISLAMABAD - Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, Chief of the Air Staff, Pakistan Air Force said Wednesday that PAF today stands ready to defend aerial frontiers of Pakistan.
This he said in his annual address to the members of Air War College, Faisal in Karachi. The Air Chief gave an assessment of current security environment of the country and spelled out his vision for PAF. The Chief of the Air Staff also elaborated PAF’s developmental plans and stated that “Induction of state-of-the-art weapon systems are on track”.
He assured that the existing systems are also in fully operational state and are ready to undertake any operations, as demonstrated in Exercise High Mark-2010 recently. The Chief of Air Staff appreciated the unprecedented coordination between PAF and Pak Army and stated “It has benefited both the services. The PAF and Army are holding joint exercises ‘High Mark-2010 and Azm-e-Nau III’, which will further cement the ties between them”.
Rao Qamar Suleman reiterated his resolve that as a professionally focused force, PAF will continue to play its vital role for the national security and endeavour to live in peace with honour.
The PAF Air War College is the premier institution of Pakistan Air Force, where senior officers of the Pakistan Air Force, sister services and friendly countries are prepared for assumption of key command and staff appointments, especially in the employment of air power.
This he said in his annual address to the members of Air War College, Faisal in Karachi. The Air Chief gave an assessment of current security environment of the country and spelled out his vision for PAF. The Chief of the Air Staff also elaborated PAF’s developmental plans and stated that “Induction of state-of-the-art weapon systems are on track”.
He assured that the existing systems are also in fully operational state and are ready to undertake any operations, as demonstrated in Exercise High Mark-2010 recently. The Chief of Air Staff appreciated the unprecedented coordination between PAF and Pak Army and stated “It has benefited both the services. The PAF and Army are holding joint exercises ‘High Mark-2010 and Azm-e-Nau III’, which will further cement the ties between them”.
Rao Qamar Suleman reiterated his resolve that as a professionally focused force, PAF will continue to play its vital role for the national security and endeavour to live in peace with honour.
The PAF Air War College is the premier institution of Pakistan Air Force, where senior officers of the Pakistan Air Force, sister services and friendly countries are prepared for assumption of key command and staff appointments, especially in the employment of air power.
Gen Pasha’s Attitude Was Provocative
ISLAMABAD: Acting Ameer Jamiat Ulam-e-Islam-F (JUI-F) Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri said on Saturday that the attitude of ISI chief during the last joint in camera session of the Parliament was provocative.
He said that ISI chief did not demonstrate the attitude compatible with our religious teachings. However, he claimed that ISI chief Gen Shuja Pasha did not talk about taking dollars from Saudi Arabia and Libya, rather he had presented their contacts with those countries as a charge.
While talking to The News Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri said that they had not only contacts with Saudi Arabia and Libya but with other Islamic countries too and they were not ashamed of it, rather were proud of it.
Monitoring Desk adds: Haideri claimed to have more knowledge than General Pasha on the Osama raid, reported a private TV channels. Haideri said that all the details were not given in the in camera session.
Haideri said that it was felt in the session that only PML-N used bitter words against ISI but in reality, most of the party MPs praised ISI and army. Maulana Attaur Rehman said that ISI boss was angry with JUI. The Speaker never allowed them to ask questions and they staged a walkout in protest.
He said that ISI chief did not demonstrate the attitude compatible with our religious teachings. However, he claimed that ISI chief Gen Shuja Pasha did not talk about taking dollars from Saudi Arabia and Libya, rather he had presented their contacts with those countries as a charge.
While talking to The News Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri said that they had not only contacts with Saudi Arabia and Libya but with other Islamic countries too and they were not ashamed of it, rather were proud of it.
Monitoring Desk adds: Haideri claimed to have more knowledge than General Pasha on the Osama raid, reported a private TV channels. Haideri said that all the details were not given in the in camera session.
Haideri said that it was felt in the session that only PML-N used bitter words against ISI but in reality, most of the party MPs praised ISI and army. Maulana Attaur Rehman said that ISI boss was angry with JUI. The Speaker never allowed them to ask questions and they staged a walkout in protest.
Indian Govt Daze Up After ISI Warning
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday met the three service chiefs to make a fresh assessment of the security situation, a day after Pakistan's spy chief reportedly warned they had "identified targets" and carried out "rehearsal" for an attack on India.
At the meeting, also attended by defence minister AK Antony and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, Army Chief General VK Singh, Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma and Air Force Chief Air Chief Marshal PV Naik briefed the prime minister about the preparedness of the armed forces.
The sources said the meeting had been scheduled earlier but the Pakistani threat was taken up.
Monday's meeting came a day after Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha warned India that any Abbottabad-like attack by New Delhi would invite a fitting response as targets inside India had been "identified" and "rehearsals" carried out.
The meeting also assumes significance because it comes after a two-day visit by Manmohan Singh to Kabul last week.
The Army has also raised its alertness level in the wake of reports that Pakistan may try to infiltrate militants into Jammu and Kashmir.
At the meeting, also attended by defence minister AK Antony and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, Army Chief General VK Singh, Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma and Air Force Chief Air Chief Marshal PV Naik briefed the prime minister about the preparedness of the armed forces.
The sources said the meeting had been scheduled earlier but the Pakistani threat was taken up.
Monday's meeting came a day after Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha warned India that any Abbottabad-like attack by New Delhi would invite a fitting response as targets inside India had been "identified" and "rehearsals" carried out.
The meeting also assumes significance because it comes after a two-day visit by Manmohan Singh to Kabul last week.
The Army has also raised its alertness level in the wake of reports that Pakistan may try to infiltrate militants into Jammu and Kashmir.
DG ISI In The Eye Of The Storm
The Friday’s in-camera joint sitting of Parliament was memorable. The military top brass presented themselves before public representatives for questioning, and DG ISI Lt General Ahmed Shuja Pasha who had to answer for the intelligence failure in the bin Laden incident accepted, in unqualified terms, his accountability at their hands. This unprecedented gesture, in the context of Pakistan’s history, marred by prolonged rules of the army and the assertion of its power even during civilian governments, was an unmixed victory for democracy in the country. One must say that General Pasha showed grace enough to tender apology for the lapse and declared his readiness to clear himself before any forum and, if found guilty, to resign. He decided to resign soon after the Abbottabad incident but COAS General Kayani had stopped him from doing so. Prime Minister Gilani also deserves a word of praise for making four successful attempts to persuade leader of the opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan to get back to the session every time he had left for his chambers, unhappy at the draft of the resolution. Later, its text was agreed upon and so was the constitution of an independent commission to go into the failure.
The briefing of over 400 MPs could not keep to its mandate of remaining in-camera, as a plethora of details leaked out, though hardly much to add to what the public already knew. Notwithstanding the sharp and awkward questions by the parliamentarians, who blew hot and cold at times, General Pasha kept his cool and kept answering them. His words, “It was due to the technological superiority that they managed to get in undetected…The failure was not intentional, but I admit that it was a mistake…The Parliament is supreme and I feel relieved after presenting myself before it,” must have sounded disarming. Chaudhry Nisar, though, was unsparing in his trenchant, critical questions. General Pasha’s most reassuring remark was that there was no threat to our nuclear assets; they were under foolproof control and command.
The briefing of over 400 MPs could not keep to its mandate of remaining in-camera, as a plethora of details leaked out, though hardly much to add to what the public already knew. Notwithstanding the sharp and awkward questions by the parliamentarians, who blew hot and cold at times, General Pasha kept his cool and kept answering them. His words, “It was due to the technological superiority that they managed to get in undetected…The failure was not intentional, but I admit that it was a mistake…The Parliament is supreme and I feel relieved after presenting myself before it,” must have sounded disarming. Chaudhry Nisar, though, was unsparing in his trenchant, critical questions. General Pasha’s most reassuring remark was that there was no threat to our nuclear assets; they were under foolproof control and command.
ISI Chief Shuja Pasha SCOFFS On Indian Threat
KARACHI: India is unlikely to give any credence to Pakistan's ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha's threat that any Abbottabad-like attack would invite a befitting response, calling it a "tall claim" to hide his own failure.
Brushing aside Pasha's warning, government sources said the ISI chief is not an operational man and the statement was just a reflection how frustrated he was after Pakistani establishment's failure to detect the US raid on the hideout of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.
"They should better concentrate on domestic problems rather than looking towards India," an official said, pointing to the scores of terrorist strikes taking place in Pakistan everyday, including killing of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi today.
Officials said facing all round flak after the Abbottabad raid, the ISI chief is now trying to divert the attention of the Pakistani people by making "tall claims" like the one he has made on Friday.
"We understand their problem. In fact we sympathise with them. Our advise is, please concentrate on your domestic problems rather than looking towards us," the official said, adding that the Indian armed forces are full capable to thwart any Pakistani misadventure.
In his in-camera address to the joint session of the Senate and National Assembly of Pakistan on Friday, Pasha had warned India that any Abbottabad-like attack by it would invite a befitting response from Pakistan as targets inside the country "had already been identified" and "rehearsal" carried out.
Pasha is under fire over the inability of the ISI to track down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, where he was living, before he was annihilated by US special forces in a covert operation on May 2.
Brushing aside Pasha's warning, government sources said the ISI chief is not an operational man and the statement was just a reflection how frustrated he was after Pakistani establishment's failure to detect the US raid on the hideout of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.
"They should better concentrate on domestic problems rather than looking towards India," an official said, pointing to the scores of terrorist strikes taking place in Pakistan everyday, including killing of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi today.
Officials said facing all round flak after the Abbottabad raid, the ISI chief is now trying to divert the attention of the Pakistani people by making "tall claims" like the one he has made on Friday.
"We understand their problem. In fact we sympathise with them. Our advise is, please concentrate on your domestic problems rather than looking towards us," the official said, adding that the Indian armed forces are full capable to thwart any Pakistani misadventure.
In his in-camera address to the joint session of the Senate and National Assembly of Pakistan on Friday, Pasha had warned India that any Abbottabad-like attack by it would invite a befitting response from Pakistan as targets inside the country "had already been identified" and "rehearsal" carried out.
Pasha is under fire over the inability of the ISI to track down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, where he was living, before he was annihilated by US special forces in a covert operation on May 2.
Why Do One-In-Five American Voters Now Believe Osama Bin Laden Is Still Alive?
Here we go again.
It's been only two weeks since President Obama reported on US national television that an American commando team in four military helicopters had killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan bedroom. Within literally minutes, word of the terrorist's death by gunshot prompted seemingly spontaneous street celebrations outside the White House and elsewhere.
Now comes word from noted pollster John Zogby that while an overwhelming majority buys the administration's account, a surprising almost one-in-five likely American voters believes the Al Qaeda founder is not dead at all, nor buried at sea, as Obama officials have stated.
How could this possibly be?
That's more than twice the accepted estimate of silly folks who think Elvis is 76 now, watching his old movies and collecting Social Security in a secret somewhere.
How could so many presumably normal citizens (19%, according to Zogby) be so ignorant as to....
...not believe the claims of their duly-elected president and the detailed accounts by his deputies of the deadly dark-of-night raid deep into Pakistan by a team of Navy SEALs, the firefight and the flight with the corpse to an American carrier offshore, the confirmation of his DNA, the preparation of his body according to Muslim ritual and its hasty burial somewher
Even Al Qaeda has confirmed its leader's death.
But wait! Isn't that what terrorists would be expected to say to convince enemies to abandon their 10-year manhunt?
This incredulity phenomenon is a curious creation of a high-speed global media so full of unverified and unverifiable information floating about, combined with a modern cynicism about political leaders masquerading as voter wisdom.
After so many lies and misleading claims by politicians over the decades since the Kennedy assassination and its conspiracy theories ("I am not a crook" "I did not have sex with that woman"), the safest way to look wise and experienced these days is to dismiss virtually any public official's statement as a talking point and/or lie.
The widespread arrival of television some 60 years ago and more recently online video has trained people to expect some kind of visual confirmation of virtually any news, either live or shortly after. Its absence almost surely spawns doubts.
President Obama watched the raid live via satellite and has seen the photos. Because he himself was convinced of Bin Laden's death, the president deemed providing visual -- albeit allegedly gruesome -- photographic proof to any doubting fellow Americans was unnecessary. The people could take his word for it.
And he worried it would seem vengeful, even though nearly 3,000 died on 9/11 and another 1,573 Americans have perished in combat against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in what on Obama's watch is now the country's longest war ever. Obama said he wanted to avoid appearing to spike the football in the end zone, although that desire didn't keep him from a ground zero victory lap and talking Bin Laden killing at two subsequent Democratic party fundraisers.
That dismissed domestic concern was outweighed, Obama aides explained, by the president's concern over inflaming those jihadists who've been violently killing American infidels and many of their own faith for nearly two decades.
So no Bin Laden corpse picture because why, some have since asked, the lack of one photograph will somehow prompt these crazies to doff their bomb belts?
Or be a kinder, gentler captor of future prisoners? Could any American commander-in-chief seriously believe this?
Additionally, Obama aides' eager and hurried attempts to tell the raid story to their boss' best advantage lead to countless conflicting details and confusing inaccuracies.
The botched recounting turned a PR homerun into a merely impressive triple, needlessly eroding Obama's credibility even among those wishing Bin Laden ill.
To assuage criticism among some influential Washington pols -- the people who really matter in Obama's non-fundraising day-to-day world -- he offered to show the not-so-nice photos to select members of Congress.
However, although global audiences have been treated to countless photos of atrocities and gruesome scenes in recent years -- severed heads online, bound Abu Ghraib prisoners, Saddam Hussein hanged and burned, mutilated American bodies hanging from a Falluja bridge come vividly to mind -- Obama clearly was more concerned about possible foreign reaction than domestic disbelief, which he doesn't place much stock in.
A strange reaction from someone who tried for four years stonewalling skeptics of something as simple as his birthplace, only to finally give in and release his sealed long-form certificate just this spring -- and then see virtually all the wind immediately disappear from the sails of the so-called birther movement.
Operating in a longtime one-party city like Chicago, Democratic politicians do not often feel beholden to explaining themselves to the obedient public. So, the lesson this president from there obviously drew from his unnecessary birth certificate-sealing confrontation was to do it again with the Bin Laden photos.
-- Usama Abbasi Cheif Repoter Karachi,
Saturday, May 14, 2011
US Report Details Direct RAW Involvement In East Pakistan Secession
ISLAMABAD: A sensational American report has confirmed the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's most powerful intelligence agency, was directly involved in the secession of East Pakistan into Bangladesh, and is currently engaged in similar activities. RAW has a long history of activity in Bangladesh supporting both secular forces and the area's Hindu minority, masterminding the break up of Pakistan in 1971, says the report made available to the News Intelligence Network (NIN) The report has been prepared by the innocent sounding Federation of American Scientists (FAS), a group which is however engaged in analysis and advocacy on science, technology and public policy concerning global security, especially about countries which have nuclear capability.
It is a privately funded non-profit policy organisation, whose Board of Sponsors includes 55 American Nobel laureates. FAS was originally founded as the Federation of Atomic Scientists in 1945 by members of the Manhattan Project, who produced the first atomic bomb. RAW is extensively engaged in disinformation campaigns, espionage, sabotage and terrorism against Pakistan and other neighboring countries, reveals the sensational secret report. It also gives details of the truly alarming involvement of RAW in terrorist activities in Pakistan. The report reveals the involvement of RAW in Bangladesh dating from the 1960s, when it promoted dissatisfaction against Pakistan in the then East Pakistan, including funding Mujibur Rahman's general election in 1970 and providing training and arming to the Mukti Bahini. The report claims an estimated 35,000 RAW agents have entered Pakistan at various times between 1983-99, with 12,000 having worked in the past or working presently in Sindh, 10,000 in Punjab 8,000 in North West Frontier Province and 5,000 in Balochistan. "As many as 40 terrorist camps are currently operating at Rajasthan, East Punjab, [occupied] Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and other parts of India and are run by RAW's Special Service Bureau [SSB]," the report reveals. The report further confirms that throughout the Afghan War, RAW was responsible for the planning and execution of terrorist activities in Pakistan to deter Islamabad from supporting the Afghan liberation movement against India's ally, the Soviet Union.
"The assistance provided to RAW by the KGB enabled RAW to arrange terrorist attacks in Pakistani cities throughout the Afghan War," the report says. "The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan did not end the role of RAW in Pakistan, as it established training camps in East Punjab, [occupied] Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan where agents are trained for terrorist activities," it reveals.
It further says that RAW has become "an effective instrument of India's national power, and has assumed a significant role in formulating India's domestic and foreign policies." RAW, according to the report, has enjoyed the backing of successive Indian governments in these efforts. Working directly under the Prime Minister, the structure rank, pay and perks of the Research and Analysis Wing are kept secret from parliament.
"Current policy debates in India have generally failed to focus on the relative priority given by RAW to activities directed against India's neighbours versus attention to domestic affairs to safeguard India's security and territorial integrity," the report says. It points out that RAW has had limited success in dealing with separatist movements in Manipur and Tripura in the northeast, Tamil Nadu in the south and Punjab and Kashmir in the northwestern part of the country.
RAW, it adds, has failed to neutralise freedom fighters in Kashmir and similar indigenous movements in Kerala, Karnataka and other places, along with economic and industrial espionage activities in New Delhi and Bombay. Giving a background of the intelligence agency, the American report says RAW was set up in 1968 "specifically targeted on Pakistan".
Pakistan, the report says, has accused RAW of sponsoring sabotage in its Punjab province, where it has been supporting the Seraiki movement, "providing financial support to promote its activities in Pakistan and organising an International Seraiki Conference in Delhi in November December 1993". It adds: "RAW has an extensive network of agents and anti-government elements within Pakistan, including dissident elements from various sectarian and ethnic groups of Sindh and Punjab."
According to it, India is funding the current upsurge of terrorism in Pakistan "and has been behind the sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis, which has resulted in thousands of deaths in the last few years." Terrorist activities in Pakistan attributed to the clandestine activities of RAW in the report include:
A car bomb explosion in the Saddar area of Peshawar on 21 December 1995, which caused the death of 37 persons and injured over 50 others.
An explosion at Shaukat Khanum Hospital on 14 April 1996, claiming the lives of seven persons and injuries to over 34 others.
A bus traveling from Lahore to Sahiwal was blown up at Bhai Pheru on 28 April 1996, causing the deaths of 44 persons on the spot and injuring 30 others.
An explosion in a bus near the Sheikhupura Hospital killed nine persons and injured 29 others on 08 May 1996.
An explosion near Alam Chowk, Gujranwala on 10 June 1996 which killed three persons and injured 11 others.
A bomb exploded on a bus on GT Road near Kharian on 10 June 1996, killing 2 persons and injuring 10 others.
On 27 June 1996, an explosion opposite Madrassah Faizul Islam, Faizabad, Rawalpindi, killed 5 persons and injured over 50 others.
A bomb explosion in the Faisalabad Railway Station passenger lounge on 8 July 1996 killed 3 persons and injured 20 others.
Another startling claim made by the American report is that it was RAW that was behind the hijacking of an Indian airliner to Lahore in 1971, "attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement".
The report continues: "During the course of its investigation the Jain Commission received testimony on the official Indian support to the various Sri Lankan Tamil armed groups in Tamil Nadu," the report reveals. From 1981, RAW and the Intelligence Bureau, according to the report, established a network of as many as 30 training bases for these groups in India. Centres were also established at the high-security military installation of Chakrata, near Dehra Dun, and in the Ramakrishna Puram area of New Delhi.
The report says that RAW and the Ministry of External Affairs are provided Rs. 250 million annually as "discretionary grants" for foreign influence operations. "These funds have supported organisations fighting Sikh and Kashmiri separatists in the UK, Canada and the US," it says.
It further reveals: "An Extensive network of Indian operatives is controlled by the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC whose covert activities include the infiltration of US long distance telephone carriers by Indian operatives, with access to all kinds of information, to blackmail relatives of US residents living in India". Citing an example, it says that in 1996, an Indian diplomat was implicated in a scandal over illegal funding of political candidates in the US. Under US law foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to federal elections.
The US District Court in Baltimore sentenced Lalit H. Gadhia, a naturalised US citizen of Indian origin, to three months imprisonment. Gadhia had confessed that he worked as a conduit between the Indian Embassy and various Indian-American organisations for funnelling campaign contributions to influence US lawmakers. Over US $46,000 from the Indian Embassy was distributed among 20 Congressional candidates. The source of the cash used by Gadhia was Devendra Singh, a RAW official assigned to the Indian Embassy in Washington, the report says. It adds that illicit campaign money received in 1995 went to Democratic candidates including US Senators Charles S Robb (D-VA), Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD) and US Representatives Benjamin L Cardin (D-MD) and Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) -- (May 24, 1998).
It is a privately funded non-profit policy organisation, whose Board of Sponsors includes 55 American Nobel laureates. FAS was originally founded as the Federation of Atomic Scientists in 1945 by members of the Manhattan Project, who produced the first atomic bomb. RAW is extensively engaged in disinformation campaigns, espionage, sabotage and terrorism against Pakistan and other neighboring countries, reveals the sensational secret report. It also gives details of the truly alarming involvement of RAW in terrorist activities in Pakistan. The report reveals the involvement of RAW in Bangladesh dating from the 1960s, when it promoted dissatisfaction against Pakistan in the then East Pakistan, including funding Mujibur Rahman's general election in 1970 and providing training and arming to the Mukti Bahini. The report claims an estimated 35,000 RAW agents have entered Pakistan at various times between 1983-99, with 12,000 having worked in the past or working presently in Sindh, 10,000 in Punjab 8,000 in North West Frontier Province and 5,000 in Balochistan. "As many as 40 terrorist camps are currently operating at Rajasthan, East Punjab, [occupied] Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and other parts of India and are run by RAW's Special Service Bureau [SSB]," the report reveals. The report further confirms that throughout the Afghan War, RAW was responsible for the planning and execution of terrorist activities in Pakistan to deter Islamabad from supporting the Afghan liberation movement against India's ally, the Soviet Union.
"The assistance provided to RAW by the KGB enabled RAW to arrange terrorist attacks in Pakistani cities throughout the Afghan War," the report says. "The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan did not end the role of RAW in Pakistan, as it established training camps in East Punjab, [occupied] Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan where agents are trained for terrorist activities," it reveals.
It further says that RAW has become "an effective instrument of India's national power, and has assumed a significant role in formulating India's domestic and foreign policies." RAW, according to the report, has enjoyed the backing of successive Indian governments in these efforts. Working directly under the Prime Minister, the structure rank, pay and perks of the Research and Analysis Wing are kept secret from parliament.
"Current policy debates in India have generally failed to focus on the relative priority given by RAW to activities directed against India's neighbours versus attention to domestic affairs to safeguard India's security and territorial integrity," the report says. It points out that RAW has had limited success in dealing with separatist movements in Manipur and Tripura in the northeast, Tamil Nadu in the south and Punjab and Kashmir in the northwestern part of the country.
RAW, it adds, has failed to neutralise freedom fighters in Kashmir and similar indigenous movements in Kerala, Karnataka and other places, along with economic and industrial espionage activities in New Delhi and Bombay. Giving a background of the intelligence agency, the American report says RAW was set up in 1968 "specifically targeted on Pakistan".
Pakistan, the report says, has accused RAW of sponsoring sabotage in its Punjab province, where it has been supporting the Seraiki movement, "providing financial support to promote its activities in Pakistan and organising an International Seraiki Conference in Delhi in November December 1993". It adds: "RAW has an extensive network of agents and anti-government elements within Pakistan, including dissident elements from various sectarian and ethnic groups of Sindh and Punjab."
According to it, India is funding the current upsurge of terrorism in Pakistan "and has been behind the sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis, which has resulted in thousands of deaths in the last few years." Terrorist activities in Pakistan attributed to the clandestine activities of RAW in the report include:
A car bomb explosion in the Saddar area of Peshawar on 21 December 1995, which caused the death of 37 persons and injured over 50 others.
An explosion at Shaukat Khanum Hospital on 14 April 1996, claiming the lives of seven persons and injuries to over 34 others.
A bus traveling from Lahore to Sahiwal was blown up at Bhai Pheru on 28 April 1996, causing the deaths of 44 persons on the spot and injuring 30 others.
An explosion in a bus near the Sheikhupura Hospital killed nine persons and injured 29 others on 08 May 1996.
An explosion near Alam Chowk, Gujranwala on 10 June 1996 which killed three persons and injured 11 others.
A bomb exploded on a bus on GT Road near Kharian on 10 June 1996, killing 2 persons and injuring 10 others.
On 27 June 1996, an explosion opposite Madrassah Faizul Islam, Faizabad, Rawalpindi, killed 5 persons and injured over 50 others.
A bomb explosion in the Faisalabad Railway Station passenger lounge on 8 July 1996 killed 3 persons and injured 20 others.
Another startling claim made by the American report is that it was RAW that was behind the hijacking of an Indian airliner to Lahore in 1971, "attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement".
The report continues: "During the course of its investigation the Jain Commission received testimony on the official Indian support to the various Sri Lankan Tamil armed groups in Tamil Nadu," the report reveals. From 1981, RAW and the Intelligence Bureau, according to the report, established a network of as many as 30 training bases for these groups in India. Centres were also established at the high-security military installation of Chakrata, near Dehra Dun, and in the Ramakrishna Puram area of New Delhi.
The report says that RAW and the Ministry of External Affairs are provided Rs. 250 million annually as "discretionary grants" for foreign influence operations. "These funds have supported organisations fighting Sikh and Kashmiri separatists in the UK, Canada and the US," it says.
It further reveals: "An Extensive network of Indian operatives is controlled by the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC whose covert activities include the infiltration of US long distance telephone carriers by Indian operatives, with access to all kinds of information, to blackmail relatives of US residents living in India". Citing an example, it says that in 1996, an Indian diplomat was implicated in a scandal over illegal funding of political candidates in the US. Under US law foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to federal elections.
The US District Court in Baltimore sentenced Lalit H. Gadhia, a naturalised US citizen of Indian origin, to three months imprisonment. Gadhia had confessed that he worked as a conduit between the Indian Embassy and various Indian-American organisations for funnelling campaign contributions to influence US lawmakers. Over US $46,000 from the Indian Embassy was distributed among 20 Congressional candidates. The source of the cash used by Gadhia was Devendra Singh, a RAW official assigned to the Indian Embassy in Washington, the report says. It adds that illicit campaign money received in 1995 went to Democratic candidates including US Senators Charles S Robb (D-VA), Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD) and US Representatives Benjamin L Cardin (D-MD) and Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) -- (May 24, 1998).
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Azlan Shah Cup: Pakistan rally to beat India 3-1
IPOH ( Malaysia): India squandered a first half lead to suffer an embarrassing 1-3 defeat against arch-rivals Pakistan in a crucial match of the Azlan Shah Cup hockey tournament in Ipoh on Wednesday.
For India Rupinder Pal Singh (20th minute) scored the lone goal, while Umar Butta (49th), Mohammad Imran (55th) and veteran Sohail Abbas (57th) found the net for Pakistan in a high-voltage encounter between to the two traditional rivals.
India started the game on a positive note and created numerous scoring chances in the opening half but could not sustain the tempo.
Rupinder Pal Singh, the find of the tournament, capitalised on one such opportunity and increased his personal tally, handing India the lead in the 20th minute with a powerful dragflick from their second penalty corner.
However, it was a completely different scenario after the change of ends as, trailing by a goal, Pakistan came out all guns blazing and launched continuous raids on the Indian citadel.
Their efforts bore fruit in the 49th minute when Butta capiotalised on Diwakar Ram and Gurbaj Singh's defensive lapse to equalise for Pakistan.
Imran made it 2-1 in the 55th minute converting a penalty corner and two minutes later it was Abbas' turn to slam home the ball from another short corner to literally take the game away from the Indians.
Rupinder, who made a huge impact in the tournament after finding a place in the squad due to absence of ace penalty corner taker Sandeep Singh, gave the lead with his sixth goal of the tournament but India failed to add any more.
After India's complete domination in the initial stages, Pakistan earned their first penalty corner in the 25th minute, only for Sohail Abbas to shoot wide to the left.
Soon after, Mohammad Rizwan Senior sent in a diagonal cross from the right, but there were no strikers in front of Indian goal to capitalise on it.
India forced another penalty corner in the last minute before half-time, but this time Rupinder's soaring drag-flick was cleared by goalkeeper Imran Shah for a corner.
Going into the second half with a 1-0 lead, the Indian citadel came under pressure on two occasions within four minutes. Indian goalkeeper Adrian D'Souza charged out to thwart Rehan Butt in the 38th minute when the unmarked striker got the ball in a one-on-one situation with the custodian.
A minute later, Shakeel Abbasi sent a flick high over the cross-piece after darting in from the right flank.
Rupinder made a fine clearance from under Rehan's stick as he shaped to take a close-range shot at the goal in the 41st minute, but the pressure exerted by Pakistan was too much and in the 49th minute, Umar Bhutta scored the equaliser after getting Fareed Ahmed's pass from left.
Pakistan seized control of the match midway through the second session with two penalty corner conversions in two minutes.
Captain Muhammad Imran beat the Indian defence with a drag-flick that went into the cage to the right of the goalkeeper in the 56th minute and Sohail Abbas made it 3-1 a minute later with a similar drag-flick into the net.
India made some desperate efforts to bounce back into the game, but their moves failed to produce results against the experienced Pakistan team, which featured most members of the Guangzhou Asian Games gold winning squad.
Seeking to prepare their team ahead of the Champions Trophy and the Olympic Qualifier, India have fielded a young team without several top senior players who are injured or were not considered for selection after not turning up for the preparatory camp.
For India Rupinder Pal Singh (20th minute) scored the lone goal, while Umar Butta (49th), Mohammad Imran (55th) and veteran Sohail Abbas (57th) found the net for Pakistan in a high-voltage encounter between to the two traditional rivals.
India started the game on a positive note and created numerous scoring chances in the opening half but could not sustain the tempo.
Rupinder Pal Singh, the find of the tournament, capitalised on one such opportunity and increased his personal tally, handing India the lead in the 20th minute with a powerful dragflick from their second penalty corner.
However, it was a completely different scenario after the change of ends as, trailing by a goal, Pakistan came out all guns blazing and launched continuous raids on the Indian citadel.
Their efforts bore fruit in the 49th minute when Butta capiotalised on Diwakar Ram and Gurbaj Singh's defensive lapse to equalise for Pakistan.
Imran made it 2-1 in the 55th minute converting a penalty corner and two minutes later it was Abbas' turn to slam home the ball from another short corner to literally take the game away from the Indians.
Rupinder, who made a huge impact in the tournament after finding a place in the squad due to absence of ace penalty corner taker Sandeep Singh, gave the lead with his sixth goal of the tournament but India failed to add any more.
After India's complete domination in the initial stages, Pakistan earned their first penalty corner in the 25th minute, only for Sohail Abbas to shoot wide to the left.
Soon after, Mohammad Rizwan Senior sent in a diagonal cross from the right, but there were no strikers in front of Indian goal to capitalise on it.
India forced another penalty corner in the last minute before half-time, but this time Rupinder's soaring drag-flick was cleared by goalkeeper Imran Shah for a corner.
Going into the second half with a 1-0 lead, the Indian citadel came under pressure on two occasions within four minutes. Indian goalkeeper Adrian D'Souza charged out to thwart Rehan Butt in the 38th minute when the unmarked striker got the ball in a one-on-one situation with the custodian.
A minute later, Shakeel Abbasi sent a flick high over the cross-piece after darting in from the right flank.
Rupinder made a fine clearance from under Rehan's stick as he shaped to take a close-range shot at the goal in the 41st minute, but the pressure exerted by Pakistan was too much and in the 49th minute, Umar Bhutta scored the equaliser after getting Fareed Ahmed's pass from left.
Pakistan seized control of the match midway through the second session with two penalty corner conversions in two minutes.
Captain Muhammad Imran beat the Indian defence with a drag-flick that went into the cage to the right of the goalkeeper in the 56th minute and Sohail Abbas made it 3-1 a minute later with a similar drag-flick into the net.
India made some desperate efforts to bounce back into the game, but their moves failed to produce results against the experienced Pakistan team, which featured most members of the Guangzhou Asian Games gold winning squad.
Seeking to prepare their team ahead of the Champions Trophy and the Olympic Qualifier, India have fielded a young team without several top senior players who are injured or were not considered for selection after not turning up for the preparatory camp.
Friday, May 6, 2011
AL-QAEDA NOTICE: OFFICIAL: CEASE and DESIST
As of July 14, 2004 the US Patent and Trademark Office has granted me rights of trademark protection for my service mark "AL-QAEDA"
As such I would appreciate that any and all party using my trademark "AL-QAEDA" without expressed written permission by me cease and desist henceforth or I will be forced to seek damages as may be caused by the unfair use of my service mark..
BELOW IS A COPY OF MY TRADEMARK AL-QAEDA as LISTED in the US PATENT AND TRADEMARK DATABASE as of TODAY.
Again this shall serve as my first public demand for groups to immediately cease and desist in the illegal infringements on my service marks.
AL-QAEDA
Word Mark AL-QAEDA
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: tshirts,sportswear, and caps. FIRST USE: 19990911. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990911
IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: news and current event website. FIRST USE: 19990911. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990911
IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: counter-terrorism organization. FIRST USE: 19990911. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990911
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78444968
Filing Date July 1, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Messner, Jon INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 10844 Lakeside Ct Bishopville MARYLAND 21842
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
As such I would appreciate that any and all party using my trademark "AL-QAEDA" without expressed written permission by me cease and desist henceforth or I will be forced to seek damages as may be caused by the unfair use of my service mark..
BELOW IS A COPY OF MY TRADEMARK AL-QAEDA as LISTED in the US PATENT AND TRADEMARK DATABASE as of TODAY.
Again this shall serve as my first public demand for groups to immediately cease and desist in the illegal infringements on my service marks.
AL-QAEDA
Word Mark AL-QAEDA
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: tshirts,sportswear, and caps. FIRST USE: 19990911. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990911
IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: news and current event website. FIRST USE: 19990911. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990911
IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: counter-terrorism organization. FIRST USE: 19990911. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990911
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78444968
Filing Date July 1, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Messner, Jon INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 10844 Lakeside Ct Bishopville MARYLAND 21842
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bin Laden The Top Story
Map:
Bin Laden killed at compound in Pakistan
Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces early Monday in a raid on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a military and tourist town of about 100,000 people. The compound was located in a neighborhood populated by military families one mile from the elite Pakistan Military Academy.
The compound
The three-story house where officials say bin Laden and his relatives were living was built in 2005 and, at eight times the size of the surrounding houses, was worth about $1 million. It had no Internet or telephone connection and was surrounded by high walls topped with barbed wire. Residents burned their trash in an outdoor area of the compound instead of placing it outside to be picked up.
The raid
At about 1 a.m. Monday, two helicopters coming from Afghanistan were seen flying above the neighborhood. One lowered American commandoes to the ground, and the other crashed into one of the compound's walls after a mechanical failure. According to a senior U.S. intelligence official, bin Laden died "almost certainly" from a bullet to the head near the end of a 40-minute firefight inside the house. Three other adult males, including one of bin Laden's sons, and a woman that U.S. officials say was used as a human shield were also killed, but none of the Americans were injured. The crew destroyed the downed helicopter with explosives, so as not to leave the technology behind, and U.S. forces flew back to Afghanistan with bin Laden's body.
The body's route
After he was shot and killed at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, Osama bin Laden's body was flown by helicopter to Afghanistan for identification, then airlifted to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in an undisclosed location in the Arabian Sea.
The team
The team that killed Osama bin Laden is from the U.S. Navy's Special Warfare Development Group (NSWDG), a tier one counterterrorism and Special Mission Unit, or "black unit," that is headquartered in Virginia Beach. The team is a component of the Joint Special Operations Command.
Burial at sea
Bin Laden's preparation for burial included some traditional Muslim practices, according to an unnamed senior Defense Department official. Muslim scholars disagree about whether the burial was, in fact, done according to Islam's mandates. What we know about the 50-minute rites:
Bin Laden's body was washed while on the aircraft carrier. Islam dictates that male relatives or a surviving spouse wash the body with soap and water in very specific ways, three, five or seven times. The official did not give details as to who washed the body or how it was done.
The body was wrapped in a white sheet. Islam requires three clean, preferably white sheets, tied around the body with rope. The body is to be placed in a specific position with the hands on the chest.
3. Prayer
An officer read "religious remarks" which were translated into Arabic. A Muslim service is very specific, with certain prayer recitations, and is carefully choreographed down to where various people stand in relation to the imam and the positioning of mourner's hands.
An officer read "religious remarks" which were translated into Arabic. A Muslim service is very specific, with certain prayer recitations, and is carefully choreographed down to where various people stand in relation to the imam and the positioning of mourner's hands.
4. Burial
Bin Laden's body was placed in a weighted bag, laid on a flat board and tipped so that it slid into the sea. Muslims are traditionally buried in a deep hole without a coffin, on their right sides, facing Mecca. Burial for someone who dies at sea requires weighting the body before putting it into the water.
Bin Laden's body was placed in a weighted bag, laid on a flat board and tipped so that it slid into the sea. Muslims are traditionally buried in a deep hole without a coffin, on their right sides, facing Mecca. Burial for someone who dies at sea requires weighting the body before putting it into the water.
5. Timing
Bin Laden's body went into the sea Monday at 2 a.m. EST (11 a.m. in Pakistan), about 10 hours after his death. Islam requires that a body be buried within 24 hours, ideally before the sun begins to set.
Bin Laden's body went into the sea Monday at 2 a.m. EST (11 a.m. in Pakistan), about 10 hours after his death. Islam requires that a body be buried within 24 hours, ideally before the sun begins to set.
How do they know it was bin Laden?
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the body was identified in these ways:
Visual: U.S. Special Operations Forces and one of his wives who survived the raid identified bin Laden.
Comparative: Special Forces compared the body to photographs. The official cited "facial recognition" as well, but it was unclear whether that was software or some other method.
DNA: Tests Monday confirmed with "99.9 percent certainty" that the body was bin Laden's by matching samples with those of family members, according to White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan.
SOURCES: ISI PAKISTANUSAMA-BIN-LADIN MYSTERY
A person who was made by USA it-self in Soviet Union War, a person who supposed to be leader of AL-QUIDA.a person who supposed to be responsible of 9.11....who is usama? When did he die?years ago OR ,today EITHER he still alive?0r was he never born? why Americans hate usama just for 9/11 than think about AFGHANISTAN what US Army did there killing under 10 years old childerns just for enjoyment & taking HEAD of a dead body as Monumental...According to US media he killed in CIA Operation on 1st May 2011 and his dead body is thrown in Sea with in few hours.. How is that possible? How could US trust few Army 0fficers that they killed him??? Why they didnt bring his dead body in US? & shown the world,As USA did with SADDAM HUSSAIN...
I belive this is all just non.sence...there is no clear evidence that he is killed.it is just a drama:
*To improve status of US army bcoz US Army Failed in both Fields.
*Making a Escape Way from AFGHANISTAN by saying that we achived our Goal
*0r may be Obama start his Election Campaign
.Who did 9/11? Usama? Or jews? Why all jews were absent from World Trade Center on the Day of 9/11...why to believe fake videos of BBC and CNN? Its a mystery a big mystery...a vilian of the world that never exist...according to media UBL has been killed for times before aswell and today His 5th DEAD.,Tell me what is the evidence that there is a person exist with named Usama-Bin-Ladin.
THIS IS MY QUESTION TO THE WORLD.......................
I belive this is all just non.sence...there is no clear evidence that he is killed.it is just a drama:
*To improve status of US army bcoz US Army Failed in both Fields.
*Making a Escape Way from AFGHANISTAN by saying that we achived our Goal
*0r may be Obama start his Election Campaign
.Who did 9/11? Usama? Or jews? Why all jews were absent from World Trade Center on the Day of 9/11...why to believe fake videos of BBC and CNN? Its a mystery a big mystery...a vilian of the world that never exist...according to media UBL has been killed for times before aswell and today His 5th DEAD.,Tell me what is the evidence that there is a person exist with named Usama-Bin-Ladin.
THIS IS MY QUESTION TO THE WORLD.......................
Saturday, April 30, 2011
PAKISTAN'S MISSILE TECHNOLOGY
On April 6, 1998 Pakistan carried out a successful flight-test of a medium range surface ballistic missile. It is the fifth in the current Hatf series and has been named Ghauri. It has an optimum range of 1500 kilometers and can carry a payload of about 700 kg. The missile is in the research and development phase and is part of the Integrated Missile Research and Development Programme. The test confers on Pakistan a credible indigenous missile capability.
Hatf V (Ghauri) was fired from Malute, near the city of Jhelum, about 76 miles south of the Capital Islamabad at 7.25 a.m. It climbed to a height of 350 kilometers before taking the direction to its planned impact area in the desert of Balochistan where it hit the designated target at 7.33 a.m. after a flight of eight minutes. Hatf V (Ghauri) missile weight 16 tons and consists of 13 tons of fuel, a one ton warhead and the remaining weight is of the casing and equipment.
Pakistan started planning its missile programme in early 1987, on the explicit information gained that India was on the road to pursue its missile programmes, writes General Mirza Aslam Beg, a former chief of the Army Staff in his article Ghauri won't rock the region' (DAWN April 27, 1998) General Beg continues Its authenticity was checked and rechecked. General Zia ul Haq , who was the then president, in consultation with the concerned departments, took two crucial decisions. The first one was based on moral principles that Pakistan would not develop chemical weapons. The second one was to build missiles of short and medium range capabilities, to be equipped with proper guidance systems.
General Beg says that the name Hatf for the surface-to-surface missile was selected by the Research and Development (R & D) Committee of the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army, as it was the name of the lance of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) which was used in many ghazva , and had the unique distinction of never missing its target. Similarly the name Anza, a lance of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was selected for a similar consideration, for the shoulder-fired ground-to-air missile, which was also developed during the same period. later the anti-tank Baktarshikan missile was also produced.
The testing of Hatf V (Ghauri) missile is the result of the dedication, hard work and single minded devotion to a cause displayed by our scientists and engineers working on the research and development of missile technology. Initially Hatf I was developed with a range of 80 kilometers and a payload of 500 kgs. Efforts continued to improve its performance, resulting in Hatf II with an enhanced range of 250 kms and the same payload of 500 kgs. Both were free flight missiles with inertial guidance systems following a ballistic trajectory. Hatf II was produced in 1989 and displayed at the Pakistan Day parade of March 23, 1990 and 1991.
The testing of Hatf III in July last year was a major break-through in missile development in Pakistan. It has a range of 600 kms with a payload of 500 kgs and a proper terminal guidance system giving it an accuracy of 0.1 per cent, as the circular error probability ( CEP) at 600 kms, similar to the Indian Prithvi surface to surface ballistic missile at 250 kms. This meant that Hatf III was to be controlled by an on-board computer for accuracy and was not to follow a purely ballistic trajectory. The main features of Hatf III missile are its two-stage rocket ability for war-head separation, a terminal guidance system and five different types of warheads. The most difficult part of the missile was the its guidance system which was developed entirely by Pakistani engineers and scientists.
By successfully test-firing Hatf V (Ghauri) missile overland within Pakistan territory our engineers and scientists have amply demonstrated their own technical skills and accuracy of the missile. India on the other hand tests her missiles from the missile range at Chandipur-on-Sea on the Orissa coast, and these are fired into the Bay of Bengal. India successfully tested its intermediate range ballistic missile Agni' on May 22, 1989, after two failed attempts to test the system earlier in the year.
In a successful first launch of Hatf V (Ghauri) missile, which is capable of reaching targets 1500 kms away, Pakistani scientists and engineers have demonstrated their skill and mastery of the modern and up to date missile technology. It means our scientists and engineers have been able to overcome the problems presented by the first four major sub-systems of a medium-range ballistic missile. These are the rocket boosters, navigation and guidance system, missile flight control system and the re-entry vehicle. The fifth is of course the warhead. These sub-systems can be tested separately but it is important for success to integrate them and to flight-test the complete missile system as was done in the case of Hatf V (Ghauri) using a dummy warhead.
Gregory Koblentz, a junior fellow with the Nuclear Non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. in his article Theater Missile Defence and South Asia', A Volatile Mix', published in the Non-Proliferation Review, vol 4, No. 3 of 1997 writes According to the Pentagon, Pakistan's missile programmes are driven by a desire to augment limited offensive air capabilities against India, which holds a nearly 3.1 advantage in combat aircraft, and to field a more effective delivery system. Therefore, without a credible aerial delivery capability, Pakistan will have to rely mainly on ballistic missiles to overwhelm India's defences.
Foreign experts believe that India and Pakistan are fast developing ballistic missiles. As with other weapons programmes, Pakistani and Indian pursuit of ballistic missiles is largely driven by the perception that these missiles are necessary to counter their rival's capabilities. India's development of Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) is also motivated by its desire to be recognized as a great power and strategic competitor with China, they feel.
India started its missile programme in 1983. The Pakistan-specific' short range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Prithvi' was first tested in 1988 and after conducting about 15 tests to perfect it, the production of the missile was started in 1994. The most advanced long range Prithvi missile was test-fired by India in January 1996. With its longer range of about 150 miles the missile can strike most major cities of Pakistan five minutes after launch. A shorter range version of the missile, which can carry a 1000 kms warhead approximately 90 miles, was already in limited production. Both versions are highly mobile, and although India insists that all Prithvis will be tipped by conventional explosives, both are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Washington was so concerned that the Prithvi missile launch would provoke a strong Pakistani response that Deputy U.S. National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger was dispatched to Islamabad in February 1996 to counsel restraint.
The arrival of the new Prithvi, said the U.S. News & World Report of February 12, 1996, will qualitatively change the nature of the strategic balance ( between India and Pakistan), because ballistic missiles reach targets faster than other weapons and are difficult to defend against. The report goes on to say, Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao (at the time) has been careful not to openly acknowledge Prithvi production or deployment. But sources in the Indian Defence Ministry say the first short-range missiles already have been handed over to the Army, which has set up a special unit called the 33rd Missile Group in the southern city of Secunderabad. The report concludes by saying Pakistan, a narrow country that is vulnerable even to short-range missiles, has struggled to keep pace.
On May 27, 1997, without any provocation India sent a Russian made MIG-25R military reconnaissance aircraft deep into Pakistan airspace. This was followed a week later by the move forward to the Pakistan border of India's ground-to-ground ballistic missile Prithvi', as reported by U.S. officials in Washington on June 4, 1997, who disclosed that India's military forces recently moved a handful of medium-range ballistic to a prospective launch site near the Pakistani border. U.S. intelligence have concluded that fewer than a dozen of them are now located near the city of Jullundur in the state of East Punjab in north west India.
We know that the missiles have been moved, and in the wrong direction said one US official who is familiar with intelligence reports on the matter. This is going to prompt a bad reaction-even an overreaction in Pakistan, said another official. The US officials expressed uncertainty why the missiles were moved to that site at a time when senior Indian and Pakistani political officials have been moving toward an improved dialogue and a possible reduction of political tension. The Washington Post also reported in its issue of June 3, 1997, deployment of the Indian Ballistic Missiles at a prospective launch site near Pakistan's border.
As a consequence the Pakistan Foreign Office on June 3, 1997 expressed serious concern at the deployment of medium-range ballistic missile, Prithvi, by India near Pakistan's borders and said it reserved the right to take measures for its security. The statement said The deployment of Prithvi missiles entails a qualitative change in the security environment in South Asia and could trigger a dangerous ballistic arms race in the region.
The Pakistan Foreign Minister Mr. Gohar Ayub Khan in a letter to the US Secretary of State Ms. Madeline Albright said that the deployment of Prithvi missiles by India near Pakistan border has created a dangerous security environment combined with a potential of unleashing a missile race in South Asia. He said India appears to have been encouraged by the discriminatory American Legislation against Pakistan that has resulted in a serious military imbalance in the region. The letter continued by saying that the Indian missile threat leaves us no choice but to take appropriate measures.
India denied that any missiles had been deployed near the Pakistan border. The Indian Prime Minister at the time Mr. I.K. Gujral while talking to the representative of the weekly India Abroad' in Washington on July 14, 1997 said that India had undertaken missile manufacturing for a long time and had not made a secret of it. India's present storage capacities have been filled. Since it could not spend money building more storage capacities, the Jullundur capacity was used for Prithvi. This statement is in complete variance with the US disclosure based on the intelligence estimates that a handful of medium-range ballistic missiles had been moved to their prospective launch sites near the Pakistani border. They have in fact been issued to the No. 60 Artillery Regiment located in the area for some time.
Violation of Pakistan's air space and the deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles by India near the Pakistan border created some misgivings in the official and political circles in the country and some alarm in the public's mind. The test-firing of Haft III rocket by Pakistan in July 1997 seems to have been a natural consequence for a small country safeguarding its security interests in the absence of any outside support.
In the meantime India had decided to acquire the Russian made S-300V air defence and anti-ballistic missile system. This is similar to the US patriot missile and is capable of targeting incoming enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles. The agreement was signed by India's former Defence Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav during his visit to Russia on July 14, 1997, heading a high-powered defence delegation consisting of the Secretary of Defence and the Vice-Chiefs of the three defence services.
The daily Telegraph of London had reported that the Indian Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) had been instructed by the government of India to carry out detailed evaluation of the advanced technologies of the Russian S 300V anti-ballistic missile in consultation with the Army and Air Force for possible incorporation in the later version of the Indian Akash' surface-to-surface missile to provide it anti-ballistic missile capability.
India started her ambitious Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) in July 1983 with an original cost of production at Rs. 3,380 million which has since been revised to Rs. 7840 million. The original plan was to design and develop Prithvi (Earth) Medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile; Trishul (Trident) anti-ship missile; Akash (Sky) surface-to-surface air missile; Nag (Cobra) anti-tank missile and Agni ( Fire) an Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). However later Surya and Sagarika have been added to the IGMPD. The Surya is an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) with a range of 12,000 to 20,000 km, while Sagarika has range of 300 km and is a submarine launched ballistic missile. The Navy also wants a redesigned Prithvi ballistic missile for its use.
The hectic missile activity going on in India is a cause of great concern for her small neighbours. It is therefore the duty of every government to protect the country from foreign aggression and internal subversion. It was therefore appropriate and timely for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to declare, while addressing the National Defence College in Islamabad on April 6, 1998, his resolve to make Pakistan a strong, stable, prosperous and democratic country. Defence of Pakistan was being given priority as he considered a strong defence essential for economic development of the country.
The new BJP-led government in India has aggravated to a large extent Pakistan's defence problems owing to additional provocation and threats emanating from India. This is evident from its election promises and the action taken and contemplated on assuming power. Mr. Savita Pande, a research fellow at India's Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis writing in The Pioneer' of New Delhi in its issue of February 17, 1998 says that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in its 31- page manifesto has promised to re-evaluate the country's nuclear policy and exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons. It has also declared its intent to expedite the development of the Agni series of ballistic missiles (India's intermediate range missile with a range of 2,500 kms). The author goes on to say that the party's (BJP) nuclear agenda can no longer be dismissed as mere pre-poll propaganda. As BJP's attaining power in India will place it in a position to call the shots in nuclear and strategic issues. The author concludes with the following words. By mentioning the completion of the Agni programme in the same breath as the induction of nuclear weapons, the BJP has made its posture more credible both inside and globally. How soon will the BJP government carry out its election promises is the deadly question which is receiving the urgent attention of India's small neighbours. The situation is also being watched by the Western government who have interest in South Asia and the region around it.
Russia is helping India to build a Sea-launched ballistic missile system that can carry a nuclear warhead and strike deep into Pakistan, the New York Times' (NYT) reported on April 27, 1998. In an exclusive report the Times' said India was getting Russian assistance since last three years. The newspaper quoting an official of the US administration said, despite assurances from Russia that its scientists were not contributing restricted technology to India's missile programme, the assistance had continued. US Vice President Al Gore and other senior administration officials had appealed to Russia to halt the support, but Russia paid little attention to it. India, the NYT noted, has long had military ties to Russia, it has been trying for years to develop a series of more powerful missiles. Although not tested , the sea-launched missile, the Sagarika, whose name means Oceanic in Hindi, is said to have a range of nearly 200 miles and is meant to be launched from submerged submarines.
The NYT said this would be a technological breakthrough for India in its arms race with Pakistan. American intelligence officials regard the simmering rivalry one of the most dangerous flash points for conventional or even nuclear war. Clearly this (Russian) cooperation with India raises questions said a senior US administration official, who, as with others, insisted on anonymity, because of political sensitivities and to protect American intelligence sources. Another officials who tracked the reports said the Russian help to India had included significant engineering services as well as parts and equipment necessary to build and launch the missile, said the Times.
It should be appreciated that India is making an all out effort to develop a large-scale missile industry capable of browbeating and dominating South Asia and the region around it. Missile technology was freely transferred from Western sources and is now being done by the Russian. India's acquisition of missiles and other high-profile defence equipment is well beyond her legitimate defence requirements. It poses a valid and active threat to the independence of her small neighbours. It is with this background that the successful test-firing of Pakistan's Hatf V (Ghauri) missile had been welcomed with some enthusiasm by the entire nation. The development of missile technology will give strength to the Prime Minister's resolve to make Pakistan militarily strong and giving priority to defence, as it contributes enormously to the well being of the country and its economic development. It must be remembered that weakness has over the ages invited aggression whereas adequate strength has deterred it.
The significance of Pakistan's missile technology resulting in the test-firing of Hatf V (Ghauri) and the impact it is likely to have on regional, particularly South Asian defence capabilities and the balance it will create has been discussed in great details in official circles and the press of both India and Pakistan. The upshot is, that at present India's Pakistan-specific Prithvi missile deployed on our borders covers most of the important towns, airfields and communication centres in Pakistan.
This should give any potential aggressor cause for genuine concern and caution its military planners.
In the modern defence concept, the missile system is the most essential element. In fact it is now the core of any viable defence structure and the cutting edge of an adequate defence capability of any nation. It cannot therefore be ignored by the defence planners. In Pakistan's security environment an adequate missile defence will prove an effective and reliable deterrent. The essence of deterrence worldwide, is a country's power to retaliate in kind. It was after all, the power of deterrence that prevented a third World War between the Western allies and the Soviet empire for over 50 years. In case of South Asia deterrence should provide the foundation for lasting peace and security on the basis of sovereign equality of nations and in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.
Hatf V (Ghauri) was fired from Malute, near the city of Jhelum, about 76 miles south of the Capital Islamabad at 7.25 a.m. It climbed to a height of 350 kilometers before taking the direction to its planned impact area in the desert of Balochistan where it hit the designated target at 7.33 a.m. after a flight of eight minutes. Hatf V (Ghauri) missile weight 16 tons and consists of 13 tons of fuel, a one ton warhead and the remaining weight is of the casing and equipment.
Pakistan started planning its missile programme in early 1987, on the explicit information gained that India was on the road to pursue its missile programmes, writes General Mirza Aslam Beg, a former chief of the Army Staff in his article Ghauri won't rock the region' (DAWN April 27, 1998) General Beg continues Its authenticity was checked and rechecked. General Zia ul Haq , who was the then president, in consultation with the concerned departments, took two crucial decisions. The first one was based on moral principles that Pakistan would not develop chemical weapons. The second one was to build missiles of short and medium range capabilities, to be equipped with proper guidance systems.
General Beg says that the name Hatf for the surface-to-surface missile was selected by the Research and Development (R & D) Committee of the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army, as it was the name of the lance of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) which was used in many ghazva , and had the unique distinction of never missing its target. Similarly the name Anza, a lance of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was selected for a similar consideration, for the shoulder-fired ground-to-air missile, which was also developed during the same period. later the anti-tank Baktarshikan missile was also produced.
The testing of Hatf V (Ghauri) missile is the result of the dedication, hard work and single minded devotion to a cause displayed by our scientists and engineers working on the research and development of missile technology. Initially Hatf I was developed with a range of 80 kilometers and a payload of 500 kgs. Efforts continued to improve its performance, resulting in Hatf II with an enhanced range of 250 kms and the same payload of 500 kgs. Both were free flight missiles with inertial guidance systems following a ballistic trajectory. Hatf II was produced in 1989 and displayed at the Pakistan Day parade of March 23, 1990 and 1991.
The testing of Hatf III in July last year was a major break-through in missile development in Pakistan. It has a range of 600 kms with a payload of 500 kgs and a proper terminal guidance system giving it an accuracy of 0.1 per cent, as the circular error probability ( CEP) at 600 kms, similar to the Indian Prithvi surface to surface ballistic missile at 250 kms. This meant that Hatf III was to be controlled by an on-board computer for accuracy and was not to follow a purely ballistic trajectory. The main features of Hatf III missile are its two-stage rocket ability for war-head separation, a terminal guidance system and five different types of warheads. The most difficult part of the missile was the its guidance system which was developed entirely by Pakistani engineers and scientists.
By successfully test-firing Hatf V (Ghauri) missile overland within Pakistan territory our engineers and scientists have amply demonstrated their own technical skills and accuracy of the missile. India on the other hand tests her missiles from the missile range at Chandipur-on-Sea on the Orissa coast, and these are fired into the Bay of Bengal. India successfully tested its intermediate range ballistic missile Agni' on May 22, 1989, after two failed attempts to test the system earlier in the year.
In a successful first launch of Hatf V (Ghauri) missile, which is capable of reaching targets 1500 kms away, Pakistani scientists and engineers have demonstrated their skill and mastery of the modern and up to date missile technology. It means our scientists and engineers have been able to overcome the problems presented by the first four major sub-systems of a medium-range ballistic missile. These are the rocket boosters, navigation and guidance system, missile flight control system and the re-entry vehicle. The fifth is of course the warhead. These sub-systems can be tested separately but it is important for success to integrate them and to flight-test the complete missile system as was done in the case of Hatf V (Ghauri) using a dummy warhead.
Gregory Koblentz, a junior fellow with the Nuclear Non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. in his article Theater Missile Defence and South Asia', A Volatile Mix', published in the Non-Proliferation Review, vol 4, No. 3 of 1997 writes According to the Pentagon, Pakistan's missile programmes are driven by a desire to augment limited offensive air capabilities against India, which holds a nearly 3.1 advantage in combat aircraft, and to field a more effective delivery system. Therefore, without a credible aerial delivery capability, Pakistan will have to rely mainly on ballistic missiles to overwhelm India's defences.
Foreign experts believe that India and Pakistan are fast developing ballistic missiles. As with other weapons programmes, Pakistani and Indian pursuit of ballistic missiles is largely driven by the perception that these missiles are necessary to counter their rival's capabilities. India's development of Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) is also motivated by its desire to be recognized as a great power and strategic competitor with China, they feel.
India started its missile programme in 1983. The Pakistan-specific' short range surface-to-surface ballistic missile Prithvi' was first tested in 1988 and after conducting about 15 tests to perfect it, the production of the missile was started in 1994. The most advanced long range Prithvi missile was test-fired by India in January 1996. With its longer range of about 150 miles the missile can strike most major cities of Pakistan five minutes after launch. A shorter range version of the missile, which can carry a 1000 kms warhead approximately 90 miles, was already in limited production. Both versions are highly mobile, and although India insists that all Prithvis will be tipped by conventional explosives, both are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Washington was so concerned that the Prithvi missile launch would provoke a strong Pakistani response that Deputy U.S. National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger was dispatched to Islamabad in February 1996 to counsel restraint.
The arrival of the new Prithvi, said the U.S. News & World Report of February 12, 1996, will qualitatively change the nature of the strategic balance ( between India and Pakistan), because ballistic missiles reach targets faster than other weapons and are difficult to defend against. The report goes on to say, Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao (at the time) has been careful not to openly acknowledge Prithvi production or deployment. But sources in the Indian Defence Ministry say the first short-range missiles already have been handed over to the Army, which has set up a special unit called the 33rd Missile Group in the southern city of Secunderabad. The report concludes by saying Pakistan, a narrow country that is vulnerable even to short-range missiles, has struggled to keep pace.
On May 27, 1997, without any provocation India sent a Russian made MIG-25R military reconnaissance aircraft deep into Pakistan airspace. This was followed a week later by the move forward to the Pakistan border of India's ground-to-ground ballistic missile Prithvi', as reported by U.S. officials in Washington on June 4, 1997, who disclosed that India's military forces recently moved a handful of medium-range ballistic to a prospective launch site near the Pakistani border. U.S. intelligence have concluded that fewer than a dozen of them are now located near the city of Jullundur in the state of East Punjab in north west India.
We know that the missiles have been moved, and in the wrong direction said one US official who is familiar with intelligence reports on the matter. This is going to prompt a bad reaction-even an overreaction in Pakistan, said another official. The US officials expressed uncertainty why the missiles were moved to that site at a time when senior Indian and Pakistani political officials have been moving toward an improved dialogue and a possible reduction of political tension. The Washington Post also reported in its issue of June 3, 1997, deployment of the Indian Ballistic Missiles at a prospective launch site near Pakistan's border.
As a consequence the Pakistan Foreign Office on June 3, 1997 expressed serious concern at the deployment of medium-range ballistic missile, Prithvi, by India near Pakistan's borders and said it reserved the right to take measures for its security. The statement said The deployment of Prithvi missiles entails a qualitative change in the security environment in South Asia and could trigger a dangerous ballistic arms race in the region.
The Pakistan Foreign Minister Mr. Gohar Ayub Khan in a letter to the US Secretary of State Ms. Madeline Albright said that the deployment of Prithvi missiles by India near Pakistan border has created a dangerous security environment combined with a potential of unleashing a missile race in South Asia. He said India appears to have been encouraged by the discriminatory American Legislation against Pakistan that has resulted in a serious military imbalance in the region. The letter continued by saying that the Indian missile threat leaves us no choice but to take appropriate measures.
India denied that any missiles had been deployed near the Pakistan border. The Indian Prime Minister at the time Mr. I.K. Gujral while talking to the representative of the weekly India Abroad' in Washington on July 14, 1997 said that India had undertaken missile manufacturing for a long time and had not made a secret of it. India's present storage capacities have been filled. Since it could not spend money building more storage capacities, the Jullundur capacity was used for Prithvi. This statement is in complete variance with the US disclosure based on the intelligence estimates that a handful of medium-range ballistic missiles had been moved to their prospective launch sites near the Pakistani border. They have in fact been issued to the No. 60 Artillery Regiment located in the area for some time.
Violation of Pakistan's air space and the deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles by India near the Pakistan border created some misgivings in the official and political circles in the country and some alarm in the public's mind. The test-firing of Haft III rocket by Pakistan in July 1997 seems to have been a natural consequence for a small country safeguarding its security interests in the absence of any outside support.
In the meantime India had decided to acquire the Russian made S-300V air defence and anti-ballistic missile system. This is similar to the US patriot missile and is capable of targeting incoming enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles. The agreement was signed by India's former Defence Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav during his visit to Russia on July 14, 1997, heading a high-powered defence delegation consisting of the Secretary of Defence and the Vice-Chiefs of the three defence services.
The daily Telegraph of London had reported that the Indian Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) had been instructed by the government of India to carry out detailed evaluation of the advanced technologies of the Russian S 300V anti-ballistic missile in consultation with the Army and Air Force for possible incorporation in the later version of the Indian Akash' surface-to-surface missile to provide it anti-ballistic missile capability.
India started her ambitious Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) in July 1983 with an original cost of production at Rs. 3,380 million which has since been revised to Rs. 7840 million. The original plan was to design and develop Prithvi (Earth) Medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile; Trishul (Trident) anti-ship missile; Akash (Sky) surface-to-surface air missile; Nag (Cobra) anti-tank missile and Agni ( Fire) an Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile (IRBM). However later Surya and Sagarika have been added to the IGMPD. The Surya is an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) with a range of 12,000 to 20,000 km, while Sagarika has range of 300 km and is a submarine launched ballistic missile. The Navy also wants a redesigned Prithvi ballistic missile for its use.
The hectic missile activity going on in India is a cause of great concern for her small neighbours. It is therefore the duty of every government to protect the country from foreign aggression and internal subversion. It was therefore appropriate and timely for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to declare, while addressing the National Defence College in Islamabad on April 6, 1998, his resolve to make Pakistan a strong, stable, prosperous and democratic country. Defence of Pakistan was being given priority as he considered a strong defence essential for economic development of the country.
The new BJP-led government in India has aggravated to a large extent Pakistan's defence problems owing to additional provocation and threats emanating from India. This is evident from its election promises and the action taken and contemplated on assuming power. Mr. Savita Pande, a research fellow at India's Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis writing in The Pioneer' of New Delhi in its issue of February 17, 1998 says that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in its 31- page manifesto has promised to re-evaluate the country's nuclear policy and exercise the option to induct nuclear weapons. It has also declared its intent to expedite the development of the Agni series of ballistic missiles (India's intermediate range missile with a range of 2,500 kms). The author goes on to say that the party's (BJP) nuclear agenda can no longer be dismissed as mere pre-poll propaganda. As BJP's attaining power in India will place it in a position to call the shots in nuclear and strategic issues. The author concludes with the following words. By mentioning the completion of the Agni programme in the same breath as the induction of nuclear weapons, the BJP has made its posture more credible both inside and globally. How soon will the BJP government carry out its election promises is the deadly question which is receiving the urgent attention of India's small neighbours. The situation is also being watched by the Western government who have interest in South Asia and the region around it.
Russia is helping India to build a Sea-launched ballistic missile system that can carry a nuclear warhead and strike deep into Pakistan, the New York Times' (NYT) reported on April 27, 1998. In an exclusive report the Times' said India was getting Russian assistance since last three years. The newspaper quoting an official of the US administration said, despite assurances from Russia that its scientists were not contributing restricted technology to India's missile programme, the assistance had continued. US Vice President Al Gore and other senior administration officials had appealed to Russia to halt the support, but Russia paid little attention to it. India, the NYT noted, has long had military ties to Russia, it has been trying for years to develop a series of more powerful missiles. Although not tested , the sea-launched missile, the Sagarika, whose name means Oceanic in Hindi, is said to have a range of nearly 200 miles and is meant to be launched from submerged submarines.
The NYT said this would be a technological breakthrough for India in its arms race with Pakistan. American intelligence officials regard the simmering rivalry one of the most dangerous flash points for conventional or even nuclear war. Clearly this (Russian) cooperation with India raises questions said a senior US administration official, who, as with others, insisted on anonymity, because of political sensitivities and to protect American intelligence sources. Another officials who tracked the reports said the Russian help to India had included significant engineering services as well as parts and equipment necessary to build and launch the missile, said the Times.
It should be appreciated that India is making an all out effort to develop a large-scale missile industry capable of browbeating and dominating South Asia and the region around it. Missile technology was freely transferred from Western sources and is now being done by the Russian. India's acquisition of missiles and other high-profile defence equipment is well beyond her legitimate defence requirements. It poses a valid and active threat to the independence of her small neighbours. It is with this background that the successful test-firing of Pakistan's Hatf V (Ghauri) missile had been welcomed with some enthusiasm by the entire nation. The development of missile technology will give strength to the Prime Minister's resolve to make Pakistan militarily strong and giving priority to defence, as it contributes enormously to the well being of the country and its economic development. It must be remembered that weakness has over the ages invited aggression whereas adequate strength has deterred it.
The significance of Pakistan's missile technology resulting in the test-firing of Hatf V (Ghauri) and the impact it is likely to have on regional, particularly South Asian defence capabilities and the balance it will create has been discussed in great details in official circles and the press of both India and Pakistan. The upshot is, that at present India's Pakistan-specific Prithvi missile deployed on our borders covers most of the important towns, airfields and communication centres in Pakistan.
Hatf VI (Ghauri) missile is deployed in Pakistan it will cover most of India except its eastern and southern portion and the coast, along the Bay of Bengal. It will deprive India of the advantage of strategic depth that it enjoys at present in relation to Pakistan. It will therefore give Pakistan a degree of defence parity that has been reducing in the last few years. Pakistan will now be in a position to hit back effectively if subjected to aggression by India and inflict unacceptable damage to India's important and vulnerable areas and particularly those areas which were hitherto considered safe, owing to the distance from the Pakistan border. |
In the modern defence concept, the missile system is the most essential element. In fact it is now the core of any viable defence structure and the cutting edge of an adequate defence capability of any nation. It cannot therefore be ignored by the defence planners. In Pakistan's security environment an adequate missile defence will prove an effective and reliable deterrent. The essence of deterrence worldwide, is a country's power to retaliate in kind. It was after all, the power of deterrence that prevented a third World War between the Western allies and the Soviet empire for over 50 years. In case of South Asia deterrence should provide the foundation for lasting peace and security on the basis of sovereign equality of nations and in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.
Friday, April 29, 2011
CIA Start Purging From Pakistan
The United States was never, and is not, an enemy of Pakistan. But the US political, military and intelligence thrust in Afghanistan over eight years has decidedly placed the US on the side of our enemies. This is a US choice, not a compulsion.
From day one, Washington chose to turn Kabul into the new hub of anti-Pakistanism in the region. A lot of evidence suggests a CIA role in tolerating and exacerbating anti-Pakistan insurgencies along our Afghan border. Today all anti-Pakistan terrorists take refuge in US-controlled Afghanistan. American political engineering inside Islamabad [‘Exhibit A: the crumbling coalition government’] is motivated by an overriding key objective: downsizing the Pakistani military and forcing the nation to accept Indian regional hegemony. If Pakistan does not accept this it will be punished.
The role of CIA drones in destroying Al-Qaeda is a myth. The agency’s figures on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s border regions are questionable, to begin with. The single-biggest achievement of drone missiles is pushing Pakistani tribesmen into the hands of terrorists and mind-control technicians who reprogramme them to kill Pakistani civilians and soldiers.
US claims about the Pakistani tribal belt becoming the most dangerous place in the world is another myth. Over the past 13 months, most of the terror plots in the United States and Europe came from US and European citizens, some of them were of Pakistani origin, who visited this region from the Afghan, not Pakistani, side, and under the noses of the US, ISAF and NATO. How these people managed to slip through tight American and European security procedures is inexplicable, but the stories were always timed with US pressure on Pakistan to start a new civil war against its own people in North Waziristan.
We must eliminate terrorists who kill Pakistanis, but also we must win back tribal Pakistanis. That is not possible without ending foreign meddling and terror sanctuaries in the CIA’s Afghan backyard. The TTP and Swat terrorists cannot survive if not for the American sanctuary in Afghanistan.
A third American myth that needs to be blown is our tribal belt being the source of US failure in Afghanistan. A few on our side of the border sympathising with the Pakhtun-led resistance in Afghanistan because of tribal affinities cannot turn the tables in Kabul. The impending US rout and the growing Pakhtun resistance are a direct result of America’s 2002 plan to punish the Pakhtuns—against strong Pakistani advice. That blunder is the driving force behind Afghan resistance, not Pakistan’s tribal belt.
Pakistanis have had it with this double game. The dramatic escape from Pakistan last month of CIA’s Islamabad station chief is one sign of this. He and his staff are involved in the murder of Pakistanis in an illegal covert war: the UN mandate for American occupation in Afghanistan does not include a role for the CIA to wage a covert war in Pakistan.
The CIA’s responsibility for these murders extends to Pakistanis killed in at least two attacks mounted by Pakistani forces earlier this year, one of them in Tirah Valley—based most likely on flawed CIA intelligence—resulting in the killing of more than 60 Pakistanis.
In the case of the two attacks based on CIA information, the data was so flawed in one case that the Pakistani army chief had to personally apologize for the wrongful deaths and compensate the victims. The bold move by the army chief indicated dismay within the military over innocent Pakistani casualties. It represented a break from the days of his predecessor Pervez Musharraf, whose administration sanctioned, and owned, the CIA’s Pakistan operations.
The US government and the CIA were quick to plant stories accusing the ISI of leaking Mr. Jonathan Banks’ name. But Mr. Banks’ identity is on record in the files of the Pakistani embassy in Washington and in the Foreign Office in Islamabad. This is why even the next CIA station chief is not safe as long as determined Pakistanis are out there seeking justice through a lawsuit.
Statements attributed to President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani clearly show they consented to Pakistani civilian casualties in CIA attacks. US journalist Bob Woodward quoted Mr. Zardari as telling senior US officials he was not concerned about civilian Pakistani deaths. And former US ambassador Anne W Patterson wrote in a diplomatic cable to Washington that Mr. Gilani encouraged US officials in a meeting to continue CIA drone attacks, and that he would cover up for civilian deaths in public. This is probably why drone attacks in just one year, 2010, at 136 attacks, exceeded the number of attacks in the preceding six years: 96 in 2004-2009.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s envoy in Washington Husain Haqqani has been lobbying to get CIA agents and private US security contractors into Pakistan. His wish was granted last year when President Zardari allowed him the discretion to issue visas in Washington without verification. On one occasion, almost 500 such visas were granted in less than 24 hours. Mr. Haqqani has been bullish about allowing undercover US intelligence and military personnel into Pakistan and often argued with his diplomatic superiors over this. Last year, he even complained about the ISI chief to the prime minister over visas to Americans. The classified letter strangely leaked to an Indian television channel in New Delhi.
But if the pro-US Zardari government is involved, what is the Pakistani military doing? Perhaps Gen. Kayani does not wish to challenge the civilian government’s understandings with Washington because that could lead him down the slippery slope of military intervention, which the army chief doesn’t favor.
It is important that the CIA and its agents are purged from Pakistan as soon as possible. Here is a comment that an American left on a US website after reports that CIA drones killed tens of people in Pakistan in the last week of 2010: “It’s interesting to witness a country actively cooperating and assisting another country waging war against itself. What a proud nation that must be.”
Pakistan Army will support me: Pervez Musharraf
Former President Pervez Musharraf has said that he firmly believes that country’s army will support him once he returns to the country because he has served that institution for over 35 years.
Talking to Wajahat Khan at “Ikhtalaf”, an Aaj News programme, on Friday, he reiterated his plan about his return to the country, saying that he would definitely go to Pakistan and try to win next elections there as he was wants to play his role in the country’s politics and take the country out of challenges it is facing today.
Answering a question, he said the first task of any state is its people’s well-being and improvement in their quality of life. “State exists for people; their well-being and welfare,” he added. Talking about his aims and objects, he said he wants to win next elections with at least a simple majority to form government, adding that although he wants a single party with a simple majority forming the government, he sees no harm if there is a coalition government after the elections.
Answering a question, he said that although he now had disappointments with the Chaudhries, they were the best choice in 2002 to create PML-Q out of PML-N. Answering a question about his harsh criticism of the Sharif brothers, he defended his remarks against the two leaders, saying “I’m no Christian, I’m Muslim and will therefore retaliate with equal or even more force against their attacks on me”. He also defended his position in relation to action against Nawab Akbar Bugti and Lal Masjid operation, adding that these issues were required to be properly explained to the people. However, he added, the media did not play its due role in this respect.
Answering a question about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former President said that it is not true that the entire PPP holds him responsible for her murder.
In answer to criticism on his remarks that ISI had been training Kashmiri Mujahideen, he denied that he ever made such remarks, adding that a German magazine had published those remarks out of context. He insisted that his stature has suffered no setback–from the days when he was on top of everything to his programmes with children in his last days at the presidency where he was often seen mumbling. “I have never mumbled or slurred,” he said, adding that his statures remains the same. According to him, he has a quite significant following and the lectures he delivers across the world are attended by a large number of people.
Should CIA Start Wearing Military Uniform?
The first four Directors of the CIA (from 1947-1953) were military officers, but since then, there has been a tradition (generally though imperfectly observed) of keeping the agency under civilian rather than military leadership. That's why George Bush's 2006 nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to the CIA provoked so many objections from Democrats (and even some Republicans).
The Hayden nomination triggered this comment from the current Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein: "You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence. The CIA is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency." The then-top Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, said "she hears concerns from civilian CIA professionals about whether the Defense Department is taking over intelligence operations" and "shares those concerns." On Meet the Press, Nancy Pelosi cited tensions between the DoD and the CIA and said: "I don't see how you have a four-star general heading up the CIA." Then-Sen. Joe Biden worried that the CIA, with a General in charge, will "just be gobbled up by the Defense Department." Even the current GOP Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, voiced the same concern about Hayden: "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."
Of course, like so many Democratic objections to Bush policies, that was then and this is now. Yesterday, President Obama announced -- to very little controversy -- that he was nominating Gen. David Petraeus to become the next CIA Director. The Petraeus nomination raises all the same concerns as the Hayden nomination did, but even more so: Hayden, after all, had spent his career in military intelligence and Washington bureaucratic circles and thus was a more natural fit for the agency; by contrast, Petraues is a pure military officer and, most of all, a war fighting commander with little background in intelligence. But in the world of the Obama administration, Petraeus' militarized, warrior orientation is considered an asset for running the CIA, not a liability.
That's because the CIA, under Obama, is more militarized than ever, as devoted to operationally fighting wars as anything else, including analyzing and gathering intelligence. This morning's Washington Post article on the Petraeus nomination -- headlined: "Petraeus would helm an increasingly militarized CIA" -- is unusual in presenting such a starkly forthright picture of how militarized the U.S. has become under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner:
Gen. David H. Petraeus has served as commander in two wars launched by the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. If confirmed as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Petraeus would effectively take command of a third -- in Pakistan.
Petraeus's nomination comes at a time when the CIA functions, more than ever in its history, as an extension of the nation's lethal military force.
CIA teams operate alongside U.S. special operations forces in conflict zones from Afghanistan to Yemen. The agency has also built up a substantial paramilitary capability of its own. But perhaps most significantly, the agency is in the midst of what amounts to a sustained bombing campaign over Pakistan using unmanned Predator and Reaper drones.
Since Obama took office there have been at least 192 drone missile strikes, killing as many as 1,890 militants, suspected terrorists and civilians. Petraeus is seen as a staunch supporter of the drone campaign, even though it has so far failed to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat or turn the tide of the Afghan war. . . .
Petraeus has spent relatively little time in Washington over the past decade and doesn't have as much experience with managing budgets or running Washington bureaucracies as CIA predecessors Leon E. Panetta and Michael V. Hayden. But Petraeus has quietly lobbied for the CIA post, drawn in part by the chance for a position that would keep him involved in the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.
It's rare for American media outlets to list all of our "wars" this way, including the covert ones (and that list does not even include the newest one, in Libya, where drone attacks are playing an increasingly prominent role as well). But Barack Obama does indeed preside over numerous American wars in the Muslim world, including some that he started (Libya and Yemen) and others which he's escalated (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Because our wars are so often fought covertly, the CIA has simply become yet another arm of America's imperial war-fighting machine, thus making it the perfect fit for Bush and Obama's most cherished war-fighting General to lead (Petraeus will officially retire from the military to take the position, though that obviously does not change who he is, how he thinks, and what his loyalties are).
One reason why it's so valuable to keep the CIA under civilian control is because its independent intelligence analyst teams often serve as one of the very few capable bureaucratic checks against the Pentagon and its natural drive for war. That was certainly true during the Bush years when factions in the CIA rebelled against the dominant neocon Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith clique, but it's been true recently as well:
Others voiced concern that Petraeus is too wedded to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and the troop-heavy, counterinsurgency strategy he designed -- to deliver impartial assessments of those wars as head of the CIA.
Indeed, over the past year the CIA has generally presented a more pessimistic view of the war in Afghanistan than Petraeus has while he has pushed for an extended troop buildup.
That's why, noted The Post, there is "some grumbling among CIA veterans opposed to putting a career military officer in charge of an agency with a long tradition of civilian leadership." But if one thing is clear in Washington, it's that neither political party is willing or even able to stand up to the military establishment, and especially not a General as sanctified in Washington circles as Petraeus. It's thus unsurprising that "Petraeus seems unlikely to encounter significant opposition from Capitol Hill" and that, without promising to vote for his confirmation, Sen. Feinstein -- who raised such a ruckus over the appointment of Hayden -- yesterday "signaled support for Petraeus."
The nomination of Petraeus doesn't change much; it merely reflects how Washington is run. That George Bush's favorite war-commanding General -- who advocated for and oversaw the Surge in Iraq -- is also Barack Obama's favorite war-commanding General, and that Obama is now appointing him to run a nominally civilian agency that has been converted into an "increasingly militarized" arm of the American war-fighting state, says all one needs to know about the fully bipartisan militarization of American policy. There's little functional difference between running America's multiple wars as a General and running them as CIA Director because American institutions in the National Security State are all devoted to the same overarching cause: Endless War.
The Hayden nomination triggered this comment from the current Democratic Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein: "You can't have the military control most of the major aspects of intelligence. The CIA is a civilian agency and is meant to be a civilian agency." The then-top Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, said "she hears concerns from civilian CIA professionals about whether the Defense Department is taking over intelligence operations" and "shares those concerns." On Meet the Press, Nancy Pelosi cited tensions between the DoD and the CIA and said: "I don't see how you have a four-star general heading up the CIA." Then-Sen. Joe Biden worried that the CIA, with a General in charge, will "just be gobbled up by the Defense Department." Even the current GOP Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, voiced the same concern about Hayden: "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."
Of course, like so many Democratic objections to Bush policies, that was then and this is now. Yesterday, President Obama announced -- to very little controversy -- that he was nominating Gen. David Petraeus to become the next CIA Director. The Petraeus nomination raises all the same concerns as the Hayden nomination did, but even more so: Hayden, after all, had spent his career in military intelligence and Washington bureaucratic circles and thus was a more natural fit for the agency; by contrast, Petraues is a pure military officer and, most of all, a war fighting commander with little background in intelligence. But in the world of the Obama administration, Petraeus' militarized, warrior orientation is considered an asset for running the CIA, not a liability.
That's because the CIA, under Obama, is more militarized than ever, as devoted to operationally fighting wars as anything else, including analyzing and gathering intelligence. This morning's Washington Post article on the Petraeus nomination -- headlined: "Petraeus would helm an increasingly militarized CIA" -- is unusual in presenting such a starkly forthright picture of how militarized the U.S. has become under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner:
Gen. David H. Petraeus has served as commander in two wars launched by the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. If confirmed as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Petraeus would effectively take command of a third -- in Pakistan.
Petraeus's nomination comes at a time when the CIA functions, more than ever in its history, as an extension of the nation's lethal military force.
CIA teams operate alongside U.S. special operations forces in conflict zones from Afghanistan to Yemen. The agency has also built up a substantial paramilitary capability of its own. But perhaps most significantly, the agency is in the midst of what amounts to a sustained bombing campaign over Pakistan using unmanned Predator and Reaper drones.
Since Obama took office there have been at least 192 drone missile strikes, killing as many as 1,890 militants, suspected terrorists and civilians. Petraeus is seen as a staunch supporter of the drone campaign, even though it has so far failed to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat or turn the tide of the Afghan war. . . .
Petraeus has spent relatively little time in Washington over the past decade and doesn't have as much experience with managing budgets or running Washington bureaucracies as CIA predecessors Leon E. Panetta and Michael V. Hayden. But Petraeus has quietly lobbied for the CIA post, drawn in part by the chance for a position that would keep him involved in the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.
It's rare for American media outlets to list all of our "wars" this way, including the covert ones (and that list does not even include the newest one, in Libya, where drone attacks are playing an increasingly prominent role as well). But Barack Obama does indeed preside over numerous American wars in the Muslim world, including some that he started (Libya and Yemen) and others which he's escalated (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Because our wars are so often fought covertly, the CIA has simply become yet another arm of America's imperial war-fighting machine, thus making it the perfect fit for Bush and Obama's most cherished war-fighting General to lead (Petraeus will officially retire from the military to take the position, though that obviously does not change who he is, how he thinks, and what his loyalties are).
One reason why it's so valuable to keep the CIA under civilian control is because its independent intelligence analyst teams often serve as one of the very few capable bureaucratic checks against the Pentagon and its natural drive for war. That was certainly true during the Bush years when factions in the CIA rebelled against the dominant neocon Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith clique, but it's been true recently as well:
Others voiced concern that Petraeus is too wedded to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and the troop-heavy, counterinsurgency strategy he designed -- to deliver impartial assessments of those wars as head of the CIA.
Indeed, over the past year the CIA has generally presented a more pessimistic view of the war in Afghanistan than Petraeus has while he has pushed for an extended troop buildup.
That's why, noted The Post, there is "some grumbling among CIA veterans opposed to putting a career military officer in charge of an agency with a long tradition of civilian leadership." But if one thing is clear in Washington, it's that neither political party is willing or even able to stand up to the military establishment, and especially not a General as sanctified in Washington circles as Petraeus. It's thus unsurprising that "Petraeus seems unlikely to encounter significant opposition from Capitol Hill" and that, without promising to vote for his confirmation, Sen. Feinstein -- who raised such a ruckus over the appointment of Hayden -- yesterday "signaled support for Petraeus."
The nomination of Petraeus doesn't change much; it merely reflects how Washington is run. That George Bush's favorite war-commanding General -- who advocated for and oversaw the Surge in Iraq -- is also Barack Obama's favorite war-commanding General, and that Obama is now appointing him to run a nominally civilian agency that has been converted into an "increasingly militarized" arm of the American war-fighting state, says all one needs to know about the fully bipartisan militarization of American policy. There's little functional difference between running America's multiple wars as a General and running them as CIA Director because American institutions in the National Security State are all devoted to the same overarching cause: Endless War.
What is happening between the US and Pakistan? Or is it CIA vs ISI Now !!!!
Those who recall my attempt some months ago to explain Joe Biden’s hurriedly-arranged visit to Pakistan, would recall that I tried outlining why and how Pakistan was assisting the Afghans to find an Afghan solution for their future — a future in which all Afghans across the ethnic divide would participate, including the various chapters of the Afghan Taliban. While Pakistan would assist, the ‘(Burhanuddin) Rabbani initiative’ was intended to be exclusively Afghan.
I also mentioned in the same article that, when Biden’s hurriedly-scheduled visit was announced, The Washington Post (concluding from the briefings he received) outlined his messages to Pakistan. Apart from increased military and civil aid/assistance, these included a reassurance that no ground attack by US/Isaf forces would occur on Pakistani soil, the US would no longer press for an operation by the Pakistan Army in North Waziristan Agency (NWA) and, that “Pakistan has an important, if not dominant role in Afghanistan”.
A month later, we were caught up in the Raymond Davis imbroglio. However, that, too, was settled amicably and CIA operatives in Pakistan were grossly reduced. It should have been expected that relations between these two ‘allies’ would improve. But what has happened since? Let us examine recent developments before attempting to understand why these have occurred.
The day after Davis’s release, a drone attack in NWA killed around 44 civilians (no militants). For the first time, Pakistan launched a genuinely strong protest; so much so, that the army chief, General Kayani, vocally condemned the attack (a first). For some days, the Pakistan Air Force patrolled the skies along the Durand Line and drone attacks halted. In the meantime, our ISI chief travelled to Washington for a meeting with his counterpart at the CIA.
He had not yet set foot in Pakistan when, on April 22, another drone attack in NWA killed 22 people, including women and children! I have frequently commented that, since 2008, drone attacks by the CIA have become increasingly accurate in targeting militants and the (indecent term) ‘collateral damage’ has become minimal. Suddenly, after Davis’s departure, these have become even more inaccurate than they were in the period from 2006-2008! Why?
In his online article, “Carving up Pakistan: The Balochistan gambit”, Tony Cartalucci wrote on April 22: “In a broader geopolitical context, these constant and seemingly random attacks in western Pakistan serve a more diabolical purpose. With each attack on ‘suspected militants’, the all-inclusive term used to describe CIA targets, the authority and stability of Pakistan’s establishment is undermined and whittled away. With many of the attacks claiming the lives of civilians, outrage and unrest is purposefully being fanned and spread. The recipient of this outrage and unrest is a national government seemingly bent to the will of the United States as it callously murders Pakistanis. In particular, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is being intentionally weakened, undermined and isolated from the whole of Pakistan”.
The last sentence is given credence by the fact that, after a considerable interval, during which the ISI was not subjected to false allegations by the US, suddenly US military chief Admiral Mullen found it necessary to castigate this organisation again. With such vehemence did he do so, that once again, Pakistan’s army chief had to decry this ‘negative propaganda’!
Then there is the incident of the two-day firefight in Dir! Where did that come from? It certainly isn’t al Qaeda, which maintains only a token presence in Afghanistan, having moved to greener pastures in the Middle East and Iraq. Equally certainly, it wasn’t the Taliban.
In his online article “CIA Directs and Funds Terrorism In Pakistan CIA’s Afghan Kill Teams Expand US War in Pakistan”, published September 21, 2010, Spencer Ackerman points at the likely perpetrators. “Let there be no doubt that the US is at war in Pakistan. It’s not just the drone strikes. According to insider journalist Bob Woodward’s new book, the CIA manages a large and lethal band of Afghan fighters to infiltrate into Pakistan and attack al Qaeda’s bases. What could possibly go wrong?” He adds, “Administration officials didn’t just confirm the existence of the teams — they bragged about them. ‘This is one of the best Afghan fighting forces and it’s made major contributions to stability and security,’ says one US official who would only talk on condition of anonymity — and who wouldn’t elaborate”. Ackerman concludes, “One of the larger political narratives Woodward’s book apparently presents is President Obama’s inability to either bring the Afghanistan war to a close or find good options for tailoring it to the US’ main enemies in Pakistan. When the CIA comes to the Oval Office with a plan for inflicting damage on the safe havens — no matter how fraught with risk and blowback the plan is — is it any surprise that Obama would approve it?”
Ackerman’s comments seem to confirm my growing belief that US foreign policy, at least towards this region, is not tailored in the White House, but in the Pentagon and Langley. If the GHQ has a definite input in our foreign policy, it seems we are only following the sterling example of ‘the World’s Greatest Democracy’, the US of A!
And what is more, the US has, once again, linked this seizure of promised aid as well as its intent to continue its inaccurate drone attacks in NWA to the precondition that Pakistan undertake a military operation in NWA — if not, no aid and drone attacks now (rather obviously) targeting civilians will continue!
“Elementary, my dear Watson”, as the inimical Sherlock Holmes would have said, “the US has to destabilise Pakistan”. The only question is: Why?
Cruise Missile, Hatf-8. Pakistan has conducted a successful test flight near Kashmor.
The nuclear-capable missile test is part of the continuing process of improving the technical parameters of the weapon system. The RA’Ad missile, with a range of over 350 km, has been developed exclusively for launch from aerial platforms. The state of the art Ra’ad cruise missile with stealth capabilities is a low altitude, terrain-hugging missile with high maneuverability, and can deliver nuclear and conventional warheads with pinpoint accuracy. The successful launch has been appreciated by the president and prime minister of Pakistan, and chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee who have congratulated the scientists and engineers on their outstanding achievement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)