60% Americans say afghan war not worth it: Poll
A record 60 percent of Americans say the war in Afghanistan has not been worth fighting, according to a new poll which coincides with the Obama administration one-year review of its strategy.
Public dissatisfaction with the war, now America's longest, has spiked by 7 points just since July. Given its costs vs. its benefits, only 34 percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the war's been
worth fighting, down by 9 points to a new low, by a sizable margin.
Negative views of the war for the first time are at the level of those recorded for the war in Iraq, whose unpopularity dragged George W. Bush to historic lows in approval across his second term. On average from 2005 through 2009, 60 percent called that war not worth fighting, the same number who say so, the poll found.
The public's increasingly negative assessment comes after a new strategy, including a surge of U.S. and allied forces, led to the Afghanistan war's bloodiest year. According to icasualties.org, cited by ABC, nearly 500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 4,481 wounded in 2010, compared with 317 killed and 2,114 wounded in 2009, and 155 killed, 793 wounded in 2008.
While opposition to the war has grown, President Barack Obama himself gets more mixed reviews for handling it. This survey, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 45 percent approve of Obama's work on Afghanistan, matching his low, while 46 percent disapprove, a scant 2 points from the high. Still, that's considerably better than Bush's ratings for handling Iraq in his second term -- on average, 63 percent disapproved of how he did.
Public dissatisfaction with the war, now America's longest, has spiked by 7 points just since July. Given its costs vs. its benefits, only 34 percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the war's been
worth fighting, down by 9 points to a new low, by a sizable margin.
Negative views of the war for the first time are at the level of those recorded for the war in Iraq, whose unpopularity dragged George W. Bush to historic lows in approval across his second term. On average from 2005 through 2009, 60 percent called that war not worth fighting, the same number who say so, the poll found.
The public's increasingly negative assessment comes after a new strategy, including a surge of U.S. and allied forces, led to the Afghanistan war's bloodiest year. According to icasualties.org, cited by ABC, nearly 500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 4,481 wounded in 2010, compared with 317 killed and 2,114 wounded in 2009, and 155 killed, 793 wounded in 2008.
While opposition to the war has grown, President Barack Obama himself gets more mixed reviews for handling it. This survey, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 45 percent approve of Obama's work on Afghanistan, matching his low, while 46 percent disapprove, a scant 2 points from the high. Still, that's considerably better than Bush's ratings for handling Iraq in his second term -- on average, 63 percent disapproved of how he did.
No Operation in Waziristan on Dictation: PM Gilani
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan News: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has said foreign hand involved in Balochistan. Addressing the National Assembly session on Thursday, Gilani said that no compromise would be made on the national sovereignty and integrity. The prime minister said...
Titles,
Titles
Current WBA World Light-Welterweight Champion
Former Commonwealth Lightweight Champion
Former WBA International Lightweight Champion
Former WBO Inter-Continental Lightweight Champion [2x]
Trainers
Oliver Harrison (July 2005 – April 2008)[47]
Jorge Rubio (July 2008 – September 2008)[48]
Freddie Roach (October 2008 – present)[49]
Record
Amateur
2003 – Won a gold medal at the AAU Junior Olympic Games.
2004 – Won a gold medal at the European Student Championships and the World Junior Championships.
2004 – Won the Strandja Cup to qualify for the Olympics in Athens
2004 – Won an amateur match against Victor Ortíz, who was stopped in the second round.
2004 – Won a silver medal at the Olympics, beating Marios Kaperonis, Dimitar Stilianov, Jong Sub Baik and Serik Yeleuov. He lost to Mario Kindelan in the final.
2005 – Beat Craig Watson on points in the ABA Championships.
2005 – Won the last match of his amateur career beating Mario Kindelan 19–13 at the Reebok Stadium.
Current WBA World Light-Welterweight Champion
Former Commonwealth Lightweight Champion
Former WBA International Lightweight Champion
Former WBO Inter-Continental Lightweight Champion [2x]
Trainers
Oliver Harrison (July 2005 – April 2008)[47]
Jorge Rubio (July 2008 – September 2008)[48]
Freddie Roach (October 2008 – present)[49]
Record
Amateur
2003 – Won a gold medal at the AAU Junior Olympic Games.
2004 – Won a gold medal at the European Student Championships and the World Junior Championships.
2004 – Won the Strandja Cup to qualify for the Olympics in Athens
2004 – Won an amateur match against Victor Ortíz, who was stopped in the second round.
2004 – Won a silver medal at the Olympics, beating Marios Kaperonis, Dimitar Stilianov, Jong Sub Baik and Serik Yeleuov. He lost to Mario Kindelan in the final.
2005 – Beat Craig Watson on points in the ABA Championships.
2005 – Won the last match of his amateur career beating Mario Kindelan 19–13 at the Reebok Stadium.
Outside boxing
Outside boxing
[edit] Charitable and community work
After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Khan assisted in helping raise £1 million for victims of the disaster.[34] After the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Khan went to Pakistan and handed out food parcels to children in a camp.[35]
In July 2006 Khan became involved in the No Messin' campaign, which promotes child safety around British railways.[36] The same year he performed an Umrah (a pilgrimage to Mecca).[37]
In 2008, he raised more than £6,000 for a firefighter who was badly burned while trying to save a family from an arson attack in Bolton.[38][39] Khan along with a few other famous faces took part in a charity football match at Valley Parade in Bradford, the proceeds of the match went to the family of the murdered police officer Sharon Beshenivsky.
He has spent £1 million of his own money on opening the Gloves Community Centre and boxing gym in Bolton to get youths off the streets.[40][41]
He has shown support for the White Ribbon Campaign, which encourages men to play a role in ending violence against women. (WRC)
[edit] Media
Khan was involved in a TV programme for Channel 4, Amir Khan's Angry Young Men, which consisted of three 50-minute episodes. The programme centred around troubled angry men and aimed to use the disciplines of boxing, coupled with faith and family values, to help re-focus their lives and steer them away from trouble in the future. It was screened in August/September 2007.
He has also been on a show called Proud Parents with his parents.
In April 2008, Khan appeared on TV game show Beat the Star, and in January 2009 he guested on a celebrity version of ITV1's Family Fortunes, pitted against Jennie Bond.
Amir appeared at the MOBO Awards 2009 where he presented the award for Best Video.
Amir has also appeared in Aik Din Geo Ke Saath, a show broadcast by the Pakistani television channel, Geo.
In April 2010, Khan featured as one of the guest stars (alongside comedian Jack Whitehall) in Sky One's sports-themed topical comedy show, A League of Their Own.
Recently, Amir also shot a music video for his entrance song, alongside Mr. Capone-E.
[edit] Motoring offences and incidents
On 23 October 2007, Khan was convicted of careless driving at Bolton Crown Court and given a six-month driving ban and a £1000 fine. The conviction related to an incident that occurred on 2 March 2006 in the centre of Bolton, when Khan's car hit and broke the leg of a pedestrian who was running on a pelican crossing trying to avoid cars. Immediately prior to the accident Khan had swerved around a line of stopped cars and went through a traffic light that had just turned red. He was cleared of dangerous driving[42] and the pedestrian received an interim payment of £40,000.[43] Khan was also summoned to appear in court in Rochdale on 26 October 2007, accused of travelling in excess of 140 mph on the M62 motorway on 31 December 2006. He failed to appear and the case was adjourned to 2 November 2007, with the District Judge warning that he would issue an arrest warrant if the accused did not appear by then. He was also charged with not producing his driving licence and insurance certificate.[44] On 7 January 2008 Khan was fined £1000 and banned for 42 days for the speeding offence.[45]
On 12 July 2009, Khan was once again involved in a motoring incident, this time a collision with a young cyclist. However, no action will be taken against Khan after police concluded that he was not to blame for the incident in Moor Lane following interviews with a number of witnesses.[46]
[edit] Charitable and community work
After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Khan assisted in helping raise £1 million for victims of the disaster.[34] After the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Khan went to Pakistan and handed out food parcels to children in a camp.[35]
In July 2006 Khan became involved in the No Messin' campaign, which promotes child safety around British railways.[36] The same year he performed an Umrah (a pilgrimage to Mecca).[37]
In 2008, he raised more than £6,000 for a firefighter who was badly burned while trying to save a family from an arson attack in Bolton.[38][39] Khan along with a few other famous faces took part in a charity football match at Valley Parade in Bradford, the proceeds of the match went to the family of the murdered police officer Sharon Beshenivsky.
He has spent £1 million of his own money on opening the Gloves Community Centre and boxing gym in Bolton to get youths off the streets.[40][41]
He has shown support for the White Ribbon Campaign, which encourages men to play a role in ending violence against women. (WRC)
[edit] Media
Khan was involved in a TV programme for Channel 4, Amir Khan's Angry Young Men, which consisted of three 50-minute episodes. The programme centred around troubled angry men and aimed to use the disciplines of boxing, coupled with faith and family values, to help re-focus their lives and steer them away from trouble in the future. It was screened in August/September 2007.
He has also been on a show called Proud Parents with his parents.
In April 2008, Khan appeared on TV game show Beat the Star, and in January 2009 he guested on a celebrity version of ITV1's Family Fortunes, pitted against Jennie Bond.
Amir appeared at the MOBO Awards 2009 where he presented the award for Best Video.
Amir has also appeared in Aik Din Geo Ke Saath, a show broadcast by the Pakistani television channel, Geo.
In April 2010, Khan featured as one of the guest stars (alongside comedian Jack Whitehall) in Sky One's sports-themed topical comedy show, A League of Their Own.
Recently, Amir also shot a music video for his entrance song, alongside Mr. Capone-E.
[edit] Motoring offences and incidents
On 23 October 2007, Khan was convicted of careless driving at Bolton Crown Court and given a six-month driving ban and a £1000 fine. The conviction related to an incident that occurred on 2 March 2006 in the centre of Bolton, when Khan's car hit and broke the leg of a pedestrian who was running on a pelican crossing trying to avoid cars. Immediately prior to the accident Khan had swerved around a line of stopped cars and went through a traffic light that had just turned red. He was cleared of dangerous driving[42] and the pedestrian received an interim payment of £40,000.[43] Khan was also summoned to appear in court in Rochdale on 26 October 2007, accused of travelling in excess of 140 mph on the M62 motorway on 31 December 2006. He failed to appear and the case was adjourned to 2 November 2007, with the District Judge warning that he would issue an arrest warrant if the accused did not appear by then. He was also charged with not producing his driving licence and insurance certificate.[44] On 7 January 2008 Khan was fined £1000 and banned for 42 days for the speeding offence.[45]
On 12 July 2009, Khan was once again involved in a motoring incident, this time a collision with a young cyclist. However, no action will be taken against Khan after police concluded that he was not to blame for the incident in Moor Lane following interviews with a number of witnesses.[46]
Light welterweight (2009–present)
Light welterweight (2009–present)
Khan vs. Kotelnik
On 18 July 2009, Khan moved up to the light welterweight to fight Andreas Kotelnik at the MEN Arena in Manchester for the WBA World light welterweight title. Khan won by a unanimous decision, 120–108, 118–111, 118–111, and became the third-youngest Briton to win a world title, at the age of 22.[21]
Khan vs. Salita
On 6 October 2009, Frank Warren confirmed that Khan would defend his WBA World light welterweight title against undefeated Ukrainian American boxer Dmitry Salita, the mandatory challenger, on 5 December, at the Metro Radio Arena in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.[22] Due to Khan being a practising Muslim and Salita being an Orthodox Jew, the fight was hyped as a religious clash by the media, referring to it as a "battle of faiths" or "holy war", though Khan and Salita have both denied such claims.[23][24] On 5 December 2009, Khan defeated mandatory challenger Salita in 76 seconds, winning by technical knockout in the first round. Salita was knocked down three times, the first time after just 10 seconds into the fight.[25] It was the first ever loss of Salita's career.[26]
On 17 January 2010, Khan announced he had split with British promoter Frank Warren and signed a deal with Oscar De La Hoya and Golden Boy Promotions, with Khan's fights moving back to ITV.[27]
Khan vs. Malignaggi
Khan (left) and Malignaggi at the press conference on March 17, 2010.On 9 March 2010, Golden Boy Promotions confirmed that WBA light welterweight champion Amir Khan and former light welterweight world champion Paulie Malignaggi will hold a press conference in London to announce their world title bout set for 15 May at The Theater at Madison Square Garden in New York. This was Khan's first bout in the United States of America. The fight was for the WBA light welterweight title, which Khan won in the 11th round.[28] Immediately after the fight, Khan stated he wanted to fight Marcos Maidana next, and that he would not be leaving the light welterweight division until he had unified the various belts, suggesting that the way to do this would be for him to fight Maidana, and then go on to face the winner of a Devon Alexander vs. Timothy Bradley match.[29]
Khan vs. Maidana
Main article: Amir Khan vs. Marcos Maidana
Khan successfully defended his title for the third time against WBA Interim Champion and mandatory challenger, Marcos Maidana on 11 December 2010 in Las Vegas.[30] Khan dominated the fight early and knocked down Maidana in the 1st round with multiple body shots, but had to withstand a furious barrage by Maidana in the later rounds to win by a narrow and controversial unanimous decision. There is much speculation about the role referee Joe Cortez may have played in Khan's victory.[31][32][33]
Khan vs. Kotelnik
On 18 July 2009, Khan moved up to the light welterweight to fight Andreas Kotelnik at the MEN Arena in Manchester for the WBA World light welterweight title. Khan won by a unanimous decision, 120–108, 118–111, 118–111, and became the third-youngest Briton to win a world title, at the age of 22.[21]
Khan vs. Salita
On 6 October 2009, Frank Warren confirmed that Khan would defend his WBA World light welterweight title against undefeated Ukrainian American boxer Dmitry Salita, the mandatory challenger, on 5 December, at the Metro Radio Arena in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.[22] Due to Khan being a practising Muslim and Salita being an Orthodox Jew, the fight was hyped as a religious clash by the media, referring to it as a "battle of faiths" or "holy war", though Khan and Salita have both denied such claims.[23][24] On 5 December 2009, Khan defeated mandatory challenger Salita in 76 seconds, winning by technical knockout in the first round. Salita was knocked down three times, the first time after just 10 seconds into the fight.[25] It was the first ever loss of Salita's career.[26]
On 17 January 2010, Khan announced he had split with British promoter Frank Warren and signed a deal with Oscar De La Hoya and Golden Boy Promotions, with Khan's fights moving back to ITV.[27]
Khan vs. Malignaggi
Khan (left) and Malignaggi at the press conference on March 17, 2010.On 9 March 2010, Golden Boy Promotions confirmed that WBA light welterweight champion Amir Khan and former light welterweight world champion Paulie Malignaggi will hold a press conference in London to announce their world title bout set for 15 May at The Theater at Madison Square Garden in New York. This was Khan's first bout in the United States of America. The fight was for the WBA light welterweight title, which Khan won in the 11th round.[28] Immediately after the fight, Khan stated he wanted to fight Marcos Maidana next, and that he would not be leaving the light welterweight division until he had unified the various belts, suggesting that the way to do this would be for him to fight Maidana, and then go on to face the winner of a Devon Alexander vs. Timothy Bradley match.[29]
Khan vs. Maidana
Main article: Amir Khan vs. Marcos Maidana
Khan successfully defended his title for the third time against WBA Interim Champion and mandatory challenger, Marcos Maidana on 11 December 2010 in Las Vegas.[30] Khan dominated the fight early and knocked down Maidana in the 1st round with multiple body shots, but had to withstand a furious barrage by Maidana in the later rounds to win by a narrow and controversial unanimous decision. There is much speculation about the role referee Joe Cortez may have played in Khan's victory.[31][32][33]
Lightweight (2008–2009)
Lightweight (2008–2009)
Khan in 2009.On 2 February 2008, Khan was scheduled to fight Martin Kristjansen, but illness forced the Dane to withdraw and instead Khan beat Australian Gary St Clair in a contest for the Commonwealth lightweight title at the ExCel Arena in London. This was his first fight to last all 12 rounds and was won via a unanimous 120–108 scoring from all three ringside judges.
On 5 April 2008, Khan beat Kristjansen in the seventh round of a WBO world lightweight title eliminator. Before the contest, the fighters had been ranked third and fourth respectively by the WBO. After Khan's victory, he was ranked second, behind only Joel Casamayor.
Following the fight, Khan split from his trainer Oliver Harrison, the trainer for all of his previous 17 professional contests. The breakup was blamed on Harrison's concerns that Khan's public engagements were interfering with his fight preparations.[12] Khan's spokesman told reporters there was "nothing personal" between Khan and Harrison.[13] Dean Powell, who has trained former world champions Duke McKenzie and Lloyd Honeyghan, worked with Khan until a decision on a permanent trainer was made. In the same month, Khan had a training session in Las Vegas with Roger Mayweather, trainer and uncle of Floyd Mayweather, Jr..[12]
Khan fought on 21 June 2008, at the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham against Irishman Michael Gomez. Gomez, a super featherweight champion who was reaching the end of his career and had lost the last one of his six fights, was described as a "backward step" in Khan's quest for a world title.[14] Khan stated "I think I'm above this level now" and made it clear that he expected a fast and explosive finish to the fight knocking down Gomez two times in the fight and a great finish. However, after the fight, Khan said he felt he had moved up a level by "fighting a good fighters like Gomez".[15] Khan received criticism for being knocked down in the second round, but proved his resilience by coming back stronger after this. Former boxing champion Barry McGuigan seemed unimpressed after the fight and said Khan needed at least two more fights before he should consider a world title bout he is just too young. Many journalists[who?] echoed McGuigan's opinion of Khan's needs to work on his defence.
A month after the Gomez fight, it was announced that Jorge Rubio would become Khan's new trainer. Rubio was chosen because Khan thought that he had very good chemistry with the Cuban trainer. Khan said, "Rubio was showing me all these new training techniques, and I felt so comfortable because it suited my style. I knew I had the hand speed and the footwork to do it and I knew it was going to make me a much better fighter". Many boxing experts thought that Rubio needed to concentrate on improving Khan's defence and Khan's father agreed that he was showing great defensive skills during his training.
In early August, the lightweight Breidis Prescott was chosen by Rubio as Khan's next opponent. Rubio had trained a fighter who had narrowly lost to Prescott before and thought that Khan would be able to handle the bigger Prescott, who had a prolific knock-out record of 17 KOs in 19 contests. On 6 September 2008, Khan was a huge favourite and was hoping to win a world title by the end of the year. Prescott came out fast in the fight and landed some good shots; Khan was stumbled with a left hook early on before Prescott landed a strong overhand right, flooring his opponent. He managed to get to his feet but following a further four punch barrage, Khan was knocked out and couldn't beat the count. The fight was at the Manchester Evening News Arena on Khans Sky Box Office debut.[16]
Following his defeat to Prescott, Frank Warren sacked Khan's trainer Jorge Rubio and replaced him with Freddie Roach. Khan began training with Roach in the United States, where he sparred with then WBC World lightweight champion and p4p champion Manny Pacquiao, who is also being trained by Roach. On 6 December 2008, Khan recorded a comeback win against Oisin Fagan in a second-round stoppage. With victory, Khan won the vacant WBA International lightweight title. Khan knocked Fagan down twice in the first round and Fagan's corner threw in the towel in the second, after being knocked down again.
[edit] Khan vs. Barrera
In early 2009, it was announced that Khan would fight former seven-time and three-weight world champion Marco Antonio Barrera on 14 March, at the Manchester Evening News Arena.[17] Frank Warren promoted Khan's fight against the veteran Barrera, perhaps Khan's highest-profile opponent to date. Barrera was ranked #1 and Khan #5 in the WBO world lightweight rankings. Previous IBF and WBO world lightweight title holder Nate Campbell was stripped of the belts after moving up to the light welterweight division and Khan's promoter Frank Warren and Barrera's promoter Don King lobbied the WBO to elevate the Khan-Barrera fight to a world lightweight title eliminator.[18] However, the world-title status was instead given to the fight between Juan Manuel Márquez and Juan Diaz, ranked #2 and #3 respectively by the WBO.[19]
On 14 March 2009, at the MEN Arena in Manchester, England, Khan defeated Barrera, by a technical decision. The fight was stopped towards the end of the fifth round due to Barrera suffering a cut in the first round, which resulted from a clash of heads. With Barrera deemed in no position to fight on by the ringside doctor, the fight then went to the scorecards where Khan was ahead on all three (50–44, 50–45, 50–45). With victory, Khan defended his WBA International lightweight title and also won the vacant WBO Inter-Continental lightweight title.
Frank Warren was sufficiently impressed with Khan's performance that he vowed to land a world title fight for him before the end of the year.
"There was a lot on his shoulders, but I always felt he could rise to the big occasion. I'd like to see him get a belt round his waist by the end of this year."[20]
Khan also commented on the fight, saying:
"I felt so completely easy, catching him with jabs. I felt like I was on a better level than him. The jabbing and patience – I felt so strong. You could see the difference. I had to take some shots in that match. I made some mistakes in the past and I'm not going to make them again."[20]
Khan in 2009.On 2 February 2008, Khan was scheduled to fight Martin Kristjansen, but illness forced the Dane to withdraw and instead Khan beat Australian Gary St Clair in a contest for the Commonwealth lightweight title at the ExCel Arena in London. This was his first fight to last all 12 rounds and was won via a unanimous 120–108 scoring from all three ringside judges.
On 5 April 2008, Khan beat Kristjansen in the seventh round of a WBO world lightweight title eliminator. Before the contest, the fighters had been ranked third and fourth respectively by the WBO. After Khan's victory, he was ranked second, behind only Joel Casamayor.
Following the fight, Khan split from his trainer Oliver Harrison, the trainer for all of his previous 17 professional contests. The breakup was blamed on Harrison's concerns that Khan's public engagements were interfering with his fight preparations.[12] Khan's spokesman told reporters there was "nothing personal" between Khan and Harrison.[13] Dean Powell, who has trained former world champions Duke McKenzie and Lloyd Honeyghan, worked with Khan until a decision on a permanent trainer was made. In the same month, Khan had a training session in Las Vegas with Roger Mayweather, trainer and uncle of Floyd Mayweather, Jr..[12]
Khan fought on 21 June 2008, at the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham against Irishman Michael Gomez. Gomez, a super featherweight champion who was reaching the end of his career and had lost the last one of his six fights, was described as a "backward step" in Khan's quest for a world title.[14] Khan stated "I think I'm above this level now" and made it clear that he expected a fast and explosive finish to the fight knocking down Gomez two times in the fight and a great finish. However, after the fight, Khan said he felt he had moved up a level by "fighting a good fighters like Gomez".[15] Khan received criticism for being knocked down in the second round, but proved his resilience by coming back stronger after this. Former boxing champion Barry McGuigan seemed unimpressed after the fight and said Khan needed at least two more fights before he should consider a world title bout he is just too young. Many journalists[who?] echoed McGuigan's opinion of Khan's needs to work on his defence.
A month after the Gomez fight, it was announced that Jorge Rubio would become Khan's new trainer. Rubio was chosen because Khan thought that he had very good chemistry with the Cuban trainer. Khan said, "Rubio was showing me all these new training techniques, and I felt so comfortable because it suited my style. I knew I had the hand speed and the footwork to do it and I knew it was going to make me a much better fighter". Many boxing experts thought that Rubio needed to concentrate on improving Khan's defence and Khan's father agreed that he was showing great defensive skills during his training.
In early August, the lightweight Breidis Prescott was chosen by Rubio as Khan's next opponent. Rubio had trained a fighter who had narrowly lost to Prescott before and thought that Khan would be able to handle the bigger Prescott, who had a prolific knock-out record of 17 KOs in 19 contests. On 6 September 2008, Khan was a huge favourite and was hoping to win a world title by the end of the year. Prescott came out fast in the fight and landed some good shots; Khan was stumbled with a left hook early on before Prescott landed a strong overhand right, flooring his opponent. He managed to get to his feet but following a further four punch barrage, Khan was knocked out and couldn't beat the count. The fight was at the Manchester Evening News Arena on Khans Sky Box Office debut.[16]
Following his defeat to Prescott, Frank Warren sacked Khan's trainer Jorge Rubio and replaced him with Freddie Roach. Khan began training with Roach in the United States, where he sparred with then WBC World lightweight champion and p4p champion Manny Pacquiao, who is also being trained by Roach. On 6 December 2008, Khan recorded a comeback win against Oisin Fagan in a second-round stoppage. With victory, Khan won the vacant WBA International lightweight title. Khan knocked Fagan down twice in the first round and Fagan's corner threw in the towel in the second, after being knocked down again.
[edit] Khan vs. Barrera
In early 2009, it was announced that Khan would fight former seven-time and three-weight world champion Marco Antonio Barrera on 14 March, at the Manchester Evening News Arena.[17] Frank Warren promoted Khan's fight against the veteran Barrera, perhaps Khan's highest-profile opponent to date. Barrera was ranked #1 and Khan #5 in the WBO world lightweight rankings. Previous IBF and WBO world lightweight title holder Nate Campbell was stripped of the belts after moving up to the light welterweight division and Khan's promoter Frank Warren and Barrera's promoter Don King lobbied the WBO to elevate the Khan-Barrera fight to a world lightweight title eliminator.[18] However, the world-title status was instead given to the fight between Juan Manuel Márquez and Juan Diaz, ranked #2 and #3 respectively by the WBO.[19]
On 14 March 2009, at the MEN Arena in Manchester, England, Khan defeated Barrera, by a technical decision. The fight was stopped towards the end of the fifth round due to Barrera suffering a cut in the first round, which resulted from a clash of heads. With Barrera deemed in no position to fight on by the ringside doctor, the fight then went to the scorecards where Khan was ahead on all three (50–44, 50–45, 50–45). With victory, Khan defended his WBA International lightweight title and also won the vacant WBO Inter-Continental lightweight title.
Frank Warren was sufficiently impressed with Khan's performance that he vowed to land a world title fight for him before the end of the year.
"There was a lot on his shoulders, but I always felt he could rise to the big occasion. I'd like to see him get a belt round his waist by the end of this year."[20]
Khan also commented on the fight, saying:
"I felt so completely easy, catching him with jabs. I felt like I was on a better level than him. The jabbing and patience – I felt so strong. You could see the difference. I had to take some shots in that match. I made some mistakes in the past and I'm not going to make them again."[20]
Professional career
Professional career
[edit] Lightweight (2005–2007)
Despite declaring after the 2004 Olympics that he would pursue a Gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Khan turned professional in 2005, signing with English boxing promoter, Frank Warren. It is speculated by some that this decision was influenced by a row with the English Amateur Boxing Association over the ticketing allocation for his family and friends at the English ABA Finals. Khan won his professional debut against David Bailey via first round technical knockout, on 16 July 2005, at the Bolton Arena in Bolton.
Khan moved from lightweight to light welterweight for a single fight against French fighter Rachid Drilzane on 9 December 2006, winning a 10 round decision in his 10th fight. Khan inexperience in this fight showed a lot of heart for stepping up at a young age.[11] Drilzane had only lost one fight in his 13 fight career. Khan subsequently returned to the lightweight division for future fights. On 7 April 2007, Khan defeated Steffy Bull via third round technical knockout in Cardiff.
On 14 July 2007, Khan faced Willie Limond for the Commonwealth lightweight title. During the fight Khan was knocked down in the sixth round and appeared to be hurt. but however, after another barrage of right hands, Khan weathered the storm and in the seventh round knocked down Limond. Limond's corner threw in the towel at the end of round eight after khan broke Limond's jaw and nose in round eight to win the commonwealth lightweight title.
On 6 October 2007, Khan faced Scott Lawton in his first defence of the Commonwealth lightweight title. Khan fought a mature and clinical fight, boxing with single hard punches for the majority of the first three rounds. Khan increased the pressure at the end of the third, and secured two knockdowns, TKO victory in the fourth. The referee stepped in when Lawton failed to fight back.
The most significant win of Khan's career up until that time came when he celebrated his 21st birthday by successfully defending his Commonwealth lightweight title against Graham Earl on 8 December 2007. Earl, rated the number one British lightweight and a former world title challenger, was considered Khan's toughest test by some way and a tough fight was expected, especially due to some ill-feeling between the pair in the run-up to the fight and Earl did knock down Katsidis in his last fight but. However, it took Khan just 72 seconds and two knockdown to have the fight referee declare Earl in no fit state to continue. After the fight, Khan claimed that he rated this victory as the best of his career.[citation needed]
[edit] Lightweight (2005–2007)
Despite declaring after the 2004 Olympics that he would pursue a Gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Khan turned professional in 2005, signing with English boxing promoter, Frank Warren. It is speculated by some that this decision was influenced by a row with the English Amateur Boxing Association over the ticketing allocation for his family and friends at the English ABA Finals. Khan won his professional debut against David Bailey via first round technical knockout, on 16 July 2005, at the Bolton Arena in Bolton.
Khan moved from lightweight to light welterweight for a single fight against French fighter Rachid Drilzane on 9 December 2006, winning a 10 round decision in his 10th fight. Khan inexperience in this fight showed a lot of heart for stepping up at a young age.[11] Drilzane had only lost one fight in his 13 fight career. Khan subsequently returned to the lightweight division for future fights. On 7 April 2007, Khan defeated Steffy Bull via third round technical knockout in Cardiff.
On 14 July 2007, Khan faced Willie Limond for the Commonwealth lightweight title. During the fight Khan was knocked down in the sixth round and appeared to be hurt. but however, after another barrage of right hands, Khan weathered the storm and in the seventh round knocked down Limond. Limond's corner threw in the towel at the end of round eight after khan broke Limond's jaw and nose in round eight to win the commonwealth lightweight title.
On 6 October 2007, Khan faced Scott Lawton in his first defence of the Commonwealth lightweight title. Khan fought a mature and clinical fight, boxing with single hard punches for the majority of the first three rounds. Khan increased the pressure at the end of the third, and secured two knockdowns, TKO victory in the fourth. The referee stepped in when Lawton failed to fight back.
The most significant win of Khan's career up until that time came when he celebrated his 21st birthday by successfully defending his Commonwealth lightweight title against Graham Earl on 8 December 2007. Earl, rated the number one British lightweight and a former world title challenger, was considered Khan's toughest test by some way and a tough fight was expected, especially due to some ill-feeling between the pair in the run-up to the fight and Earl did knock down Katsidis in his last fight but. However, it took Khan just 72 seconds and two knockdown to have the fight referee declare Earl in no fit state to continue. After the fight, Khan claimed that he rated this victory as the best of his career.[citation needed]
Amateur career
Amateur career
Khan began to box competitively at the age of 11, with early honours including three English school title, three junior ABA titles, and gold at the 2003 Junior Olympics.[9] In early 2004 he won a gold medal at the European Student Championships in Lithuania, and in South Korea several months later he won world junior lightweight title after fighting five times in seven days. One of his notable early amateur fights was against Victor Ortíz, whom he defeated in a second round stoppage.[10]
Khan qualified for the 2004 Summer Olympics by finishing in first place at the 1st AIBA European 2004 Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. He was Britain's sole representative in boxing at the Athens Games, winning a silver medal at the age of 17 in the lightweight boxing category. He was Britain's youngest Olympic boxer since Colin Jones in 1976. He lost in the final to Mario Kindelan, the Cuban who had also beaten him several months earlier in the pre-Olympic match-ups in Greece. In 2005 he avenged the two losses by beating the 34-year-old Kindelan in his last amateur fight.
Khan began to box competitively at the age of 11, with early honours including three English school title, three junior ABA titles, and gold at the 2003 Junior Olympics.[9] In early 2004 he won a gold medal at the European Student Championships in Lithuania, and in South Korea several months later he won world junior lightweight title after fighting five times in seven days. One of his notable early amateur fights was against Victor Ortíz, whom he defeated in a second round stoppage.[10]
Khan qualified for the 2004 Summer Olympics by finishing in first place at the 1st AIBA European 2004 Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. He was Britain's sole representative in boxing at the Athens Games, winning a silver medal at the age of 17 in the lightweight boxing category. He was Britain's youngest Olympic boxer since Colin Jones in 1976. He lost in the final to Mario Kindelan, the Cuban who had also beaten him several months earlier in the pre-Olympic match-ups in Greece. In 2005 he avenged the two losses by beating the 34-year-old Kindelan in his last amateur fight.
Personal Life
Khan, a British Pakistani, was born and raised in Bolton, England. His family originate from Matore,Kahuta in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.[4]
As well as speaking English, Khan also speaks Urdu and Pothohari/Punjabi. He was educated at Smithills School in Bolton,[5] and Bolton Community College. Khan has two sisters and one brother, Haroon Khan, who is an amateur boxer.[6] His first cousin is the English cricketer Sajid Mahmood. As well as boxing, Khan enjoys playing sports such as football, basketball and cricket.[7] He is an avid supporter of his local football club, Bolton Wanderers, and uses the club's training facilities.
Khan is a practicing Muslim.[8]
As well as speaking English, Khan also speaks Urdu and Pothohari/Punjabi. He was educated at Smithills School in Bolton,[5] and Bolton Community College. Khan has two sisters and one brother, Haroon Khan, who is an amateur boxer.[6] His first cousin is the English cricketer Sajid Mahmood. As well as boxing, Khan enjoys playing sports such as football, basketball and cricket.[7] He is an avid supporter of his local football club, Bolton Wanderers, and uses the club's training facilities.
Khan is a practicing Muslim.[8]
Amir Khan
Amir Khan
Statistics
Real name Amir Iqbal Khan
Nickname(s) King Khan
The Pride Of Bolton
Lightning Khan
Rated at 139.5 lb (63.3 kg; 9.96 st)
Height 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m)
Nationality English
Birth date 8 December 1986 (1986-12-08) (age 24)
Birth place Bolton, Greater Manchester, England
Stance Regular
Boxing record
Total fights 25
Wins 24
Wins by KO 17
Losses 1
Draws 0
No contests 0
Olympic medal record
Men's boxing
Silver 2004 Athens Lightweight
Amir Iqbal Khan (Urdu: امیر اقبال خان) (born 8 December 1986 in Bolton, Greater Manchester[1]) is a British boxer of Pakistani origin, and currently the WBA World light welterweight champion. Khan won the belt at the age of 22, making him Britain's third-youngest world champion after Naseem Hamed and Herbie Hide.
He was previously in the lightweight division, where he held the Commonwealth, WBO Inter-Continental and WBA International titles. He also became the youngest British Olympic boxing medallist when he won silver at the 2004 Athens Olympics at the age of 17. He is commonly known by the nickname "King Khan".[2][3]
Contents [hide]
1 Personal life
2 Amateur career
3 Professional career
3.1 Lightweight (2005–2007)
3.2 Lightweight (2008–2009)
3.2.1 Khan vs. Barrera
3.3 Light welterweight (2009–present)
3.3.1 Khan vs. Kotelnik
3.3.2 Khan vs. Salita
3.3.3 Khan vs. Malignaggi
3.3.4 Khan vs. Maidana
4 Outside boxing
4.1 Charitable and community work
4.2 Media
4.3 Motoring offences and incidents
5 Titles
6 Trainers
7 Record
7.1 Amateur
8 Professional boxing record
9 See also
10 References
11 External links
[edit] Personal life
Khan, a British Pakistani, was born and raised in Bolton, England. His family originate from Matore,Kahuta in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.[4]
As well as speaking English, Khan also speaks Urdu and Pothohari/Punjabi. He was educated at Smithills School in Bolton,[5] and Bolton Community College. Khan has two sisters and one brother, Haroon Khan, who is an amateur boxer.[6] His first cousin is the English cricketer Sajid Mahmood. As well as boxing, Khan enjoys playing sports such as football, basketball and cricket.[7] He is an avid supporter of his local football club, Bolton Wanderers, and uses the club's training facilities.
Khan is a practicing Muslim.[8]
Statistics
Real name Amir Iqbal Khan
Nickname(s) King Khan
The Pride Of Bolton
Lightning Khan
Rated at 139.5 lb (63.3 kg; 9.96 st)
Height 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m)
Nationality English
Birth date 8 December 1986 (1986-12-08) (age 24)
Birth place Bolton, Greater Manchester, England
Stance Regular
Boxing record
Total fights 25
Wins 24
Wins by KO 17
Losses 1
Draws 0
No contests 0
Olympic medal record
Men's boxing
Silver 2004 Athens Lightweight
Amir Iqbal Khan (Urdu: امیر اقبال خان) (born 8 December 1986 in Bolton, Greater Manchester[1]) is a British boxer of Pakistani origin, and currently the WBA World light welterweight champion. Khan won the belt at the age of 22, making him Britain's third-youngest world champion after Naseem Hamed and Herbie Hide.
He was previously in the lightweight division, where he held the Commonwealth, WBO Inter-Continental and WBA International titles. He also became the youngest British Olympic boxing medallist when he won silver at the 2004 Athens Olympics at the age of 17. He is commonly known by the nickname "King Khan".[2][3]
Contents [hide]
1 Personal life
2 Amateur career
3 Professional career
3.1 Lightweight (2005–2007)
3.2 Lightweight (2008–2009)
3.2.1 Khan vs. Barrera
3.3 Light welterweight (2009–present)
3.3.1 Khan vs. Kotelnik
3.3.2 Khan vs. Salita
3.3.3 Khan vs. Malignaggi
3.3.4 Khan vs. Maidana
4 Outside boxing
4.1 Charitable and community work
4.2 Media
4.3 Motoring offences and incidents
5 Titles
6 Trainers
7 Record
7.1 Amateur
8 Professional boxing record
9 See also
10 References
11 External links
[edit] Personal life
Khan, a British Pakistani, was born and raised in Bolton, England. His family originate from Matore,Kahuta in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.[4]
As well as speaking English, Khan also speaks Urdu and Pothohari/Punjabi. He was educated at Smithills School in Bolton,[5] and Bolton Community College. Khan has two sisters and one brother, Haroon Khan, who is an amateur boxer.[6] His first cousin is the English cricketer Sajid Mahmood. As well as boxing, Khan enjoys playing sports such as football, basketball and cricket.[7] He is an avid supporter of his local football club, Bolton Wanderers, and uses the club's training facilities.
Khan is a practicing Muslim.[8]
On WikiLeaks, India, Pakistan and a partisan media
Reading through some of the WikiLeaks cables, I have been struck by how easy it might be to take the fragmentary and often outdated information contained in them and make a case to support either side of the India-Pakistan divide. Now it turns out someone did, but without even the support of the underlying cables, according to this version of Pakistani media reports by the Pakistan blog Cafe Pyala of alleged Indian skulduggery, including in Baluchistan.
As Cafe Pyala notes, Pakistan’s The News and various other papers cited the alleged cables as proof of alleged Indian involvement in creating trouble in Baluchistan and Waziristan. These allegations were included amongst others that anyone who follows the subject closely hears being bandied about between India and Pakistan. (Reporting on those allegations is much harder, for reasons I will discuss below.)
But according to Cafe Pyala these cables may not even exist, but are rather the work of intelligence agencies telling the media what is to be found in them. ”Small wonder The News and Jang give the source of the report as ‘Agencies’,” it says. “Question: How stupid do the ‘Agencies’ really think Pakistanis are?”
This is terribly confusing, as it is hard enough to make sense of the WikiLeaks cables on India and Pakistan, without having to filter out what intelligence agencies/media say about what may or may not be in that huge database of leaked U.S. embassy reports.
As it is, we have to keep in mind the idea that the cables are only as accurate (we assume) as the ambassadors who penned them were able to make them, given that they themselves were dependent on sources who might, or might not, have been telling the truth. They are not gospel (and odd that in Pakistan which tends to distrust everything the Americans say, they are being treated as such.)
So two points – one on Baluchistan, and the other on the media in India and Pakistan.
For background, Islamabad accuses India of using its presence in Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan, particularly by funding and arming separatists in Baluchistan. India denies this, and says it is interested only in promoting development in Afghanistan. The Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad particularly trouble Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, which sees them as bases for alleged nefarious activity by its rival, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) spy agency.
As far as I can make out, there is nothing in the WikiLeaks cables on Baluchistan that I haven’t already heard. And if I have heard them, you can be sure that governments have heard them too and tailored their policies accordingly, so we shouldn’t treat them as a game-changer.
On Baluchistan:
A U.S. embassy cable sent shortly after the 2008 Mumbai attack says the British High Commission in Islamabad feared an Indian response might include, ”at a minimum, increase GOI (government of India) covert activities in Balochistan or even an aerial bombardment of LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) camps in Azad, Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). ”
The Guardian newspaper, which was given advance access to the cables, adds that “The British fears of ‘ramped-up’ Indian aid to militant nationalists in Balochistan highlights an assertion found elsewhere in the cables: that British intelligence strongly believes New Delhi is covertly supporting the insurgency in reaction to alleged Pakistani support for LeT.”
I have not yet found any cables which give an independent U.S. view of the allegations of Indian involvement in Baluchistan. If someone has the links, do please post them.
A separate series of cables, reported by The Guardian with links to copies of the cables, highlights tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan over the fate of fugitive Baluch separatist leader Bramdagh Bugti, whose grandfather was killed in a military operation in Baluchistan in 2006. If you search for Bugti on The Guardian website you can find more of the back-story on this.
I personally thought this was common knowledge, but maybe it is more controversial, and complicated, than I realised.
On the media:
I don’t know what is happening in Baluchistan. I listen to British, Indian and Pakistani analysts and sources to try to form an informed view. Short of going there, hanging around outside/inside the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad, and spending time with Baluch separatists, I can’t possibly know for sure. But I’m still a bit troubled that the media is not asking enough questions - in either country.
A quick trawl of recent stories on Google threw up this story from the Times Now TV channel (I’m using this as a convenient example to explain a point, but it is not untypical):
“Government sources on Saturday (November 27) denied former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s claims that India is responsible for creating unrest in the Balochistan region. Sources told TIMES NOW that India’s conduct on Balochistan was like an open book … ”
Whatever is going on in Baluchistan, it is not “an open book”. You can’t have an open book in a region where journalists can’t travel easily and safely.
And you don’t have ”an open book” when it comes to India and Pakistan. When I first started researching the Siachen war - another battle between India and Pakistan that took place away from the public eye – I had the (with hindsight naive) idea that at the very least I would be able to match Indian and Pakistani versions and where I found them to overlap, discern a kernel of truth. In the end, I discovered I often could not even match accounts by people who fought on the same side on the same day. So let’s none of us assume we know what is happening in remote Baluchistan.
As Cafe Pyala notes, Pakistan’s The News and various other papers cited the alleged cables as proof of alleged Indian involvement in creating trouble in Baluchistan and Waziristan. These allegations were included amongst others that anyone who follows the subject closely hears being bandied about between India and Pakistan. (Reporting on those allegations is much harder, for reasons I will discuss below.)
But according to Cafe Pyala these cables may not even exist, but are rather the work of intelligence agencies telling the media what is to be found in them. ”Small wonder The News and Jang give the source of the report as ‘Agencies’,” it says. “Question: How stupid do the ‘Agencies’ really think Pakistanis are?”
This is terribly confusing, as it is hard enough to make sense of the WikiLeaks cables on India and Pakistan, without having to filter out what intelligence agencies/media say about what may or may not be in that huge database of leaked U.S. embassy reports.
As it is, we have to keep in mind the idea that the cables are only as accurate (we assume) as the ambassadors who penned them were able to make them, given that they themselves were dependent on sources who might, or might not, have been telling the truth. They are not gospel (and odd that in Pakistan which tends to distrust everything the Americans say, they are being treated as such.)
So two points – one on Baluchistan, and the other on the media in India and Pakistan.
For background, Islamabad accuses India of using its presence in Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan, particularly by funding and arming separatists in Baluchistan. India denies this, and says it is interested only in promoting development in Afghanistan. The Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad particularly trouble Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, which sees them as bases for alleged nefarious activity by its rival, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) spy agency.
As far as I can make out, there is nothing in the WikiLeaks cables on Baluchistan that I haven’t already heard. And if I have heard them, you can be sure that governments have heard them too and tailored their policies accordingly, so we shouldn’t treat them as a game-changer.
On Baluchistan:
A U.S. embassy cable sent shortly after the 2008 Mumbai attack says the British High Commission in Islamabad feared an Indian response might include, ”at a minimum, increase GOI (government of India) covert activities in Balochistan or even an aerial bombardment of LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) camps in Azad, Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). ”
The Guardian newspaper, which was given advance access to the cables, adds that “The British fears of ‘ramped-up’ Indian aid to militant nationalists in Balochistan highlights an assertion found elsewhere in the cables: that British intelligence strongly believes New Delhi is covertly supporting the insurgency in reaction to alleged Pakistani support for LeT.”
I have not yet found any cables which give an independent U.S. view of the allegations of Indian involvement in Baluchistan. If someone has the links, do please post them.
A separate series of cables, reported by The Guardian with links to copies of the cables, highlights tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan over the fate of fugitive Baluch separatist leader Bramdagh Bugti, whose grandfather was killed in a military operation in Baluchistan in 2006. If you search for Bugti on The Guardian website you can find more of the back-story on this.
I personally thought this was common knowledge, but maybe it is more controversial, and complicated, than I realised.
On the media:
I don’t know what is happening in Baluchistan. I listen to British, Indian and Pakistani analysts and sources to try to form an informed view. Short of going there, hanging around outside/inside the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad, and spending time with Baluch separatists, I can’t possibly know for sure. But I’m still a bit troubled that the media is not asking enough questions - in either country.
A quick trawl of recent stories on Google threw up this story from the Times Now TV channel (I’m using this as a convenient example to explain a point, but it is not untypical):
“Government sources on Saturday (November 27) denied former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s claims that India is responsible for creating unrest in the Balochistan region. Sources told TIMES NOW that India’s conduct on Balochistan was like an open book … ”
Whatever is going on in Baluchistan, it is not “an open book”. You can’t have an open book in a region where journalists can’t travel easily and safely.
And you don’t have ”an open book” when it comes to India and Pakistan. When I first started researching the Siachen war - another battle between India and Pakistan that took place away from the public eye – I had the (with hindsight naive) idea that at the very least I would be able to match Indian and Pakistani versions and where I found them to overlap, discern a kernel of truth. In the end, I discovered I often could not even match accounts by people who fought on the same side on the same day. So let’s none of us assume we know what is happening in remote Baluchistan.
UNHCR announced that she had donated $100,000
Pakistan is in the midst of one of the greatest humanitarian crises the country has ever faced, and that’s saying something, because Pakistan has a horrible history with humanitarian crises. The latest crisis began with the devastating flooding that left large, populated areas on Pakistan uninhabitable, and destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes. So far, 1,700 people have lost their lives, and hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis have been displaced. Angelina Jolie addressed the Pakistani flooding several weeks ago, when she was on the European promotional tour for Salt, and the UNHCR announced that she had donated $100,000, directed to the UNHCR mission in Pakistan. Jolie also made a PSA last week to encourage others to donate to the UNHCR mission. Yesterday, Angelina flew to Pakistan via Heathrow, and now she’s on the ground trying to bring attention to the refugee camps and the lack of funding:
JALOZAI, Pakistan — American movie star Angelina Jolie met flood victims in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday and appealed to the international community to provide aid needed to help the country recover from its worst natural disaster.
The flow of aid money has stalled in recent days, and officials expressed hope the two-day visit by Jolie – who serves as a “goodwill ambassador” for the U.N.’s refugee agency – will convince foreign countries and individuals to open their wallets.
The 35-year-old actress said she met with many people whose lives have been devastated by the floods, including mothers who lost their children and an elderly Pakistani couple who feared they would never be able to rebuild the home they lost.
“I am very moved by them and I hope that I am able to, today and tomorrow, be able to do something to help bring attention to the situation for all of the people in need in Pakistan,” Jolie told reporters after visiting a refugee camp in the Jalozai area.
She toured the area wearing a long black robe and a black headscarf adorned with a thin red stripe – the kind of conservative clothing worn by many Muslim women in Pakistan.
The floods began in the northwest at the end of July after extremely heavy monsoon rains and slowly surged south along the Indus River, swallowing up hundreds of villages and towns and killing more than 1,700 people. Another 17 million have been affected by the floods, and many will need emergency assistance to survive.
The United Nations issued an appeal for $460 million in emergency funds on Aug. 11, but only $294 million, or 64 percent, has been received so far, and donations have more or less dried up in recent days.
Ajay Chhibber, a U.N. assistant secretary general, said he hopes Jolie’s visit will have “a very big impact” on the inflow of aid money and will keep people focused on the crisis.
“We need more … well-known figures who can keep the spotlight and focus because people tend to forget internationally,” said Chhibber, who is also the U.N. development agency’s regional director for Asia. He spoke to reporters during a visit to Islamabad.
JALOZAI, Pakistan — American movie star Angelina Jolie met flood victims in northwestern Pakistan on Tuesday and appealed to the international community to provide aid needed to help the country recover from its worst natural disaster.
The flow of aid money has stalled in recent days, and officials expressed hope the two-day visit by Jolie – who serves as a “goodwill ambassador” for the U.N.’s refugee agency – will convince foreign countries and individuals to open their wallets.
The 35-year-old actress said she met with many people whose lives have been devastated by the floods, including mothers who lost their children and an elderly Pakistani couple who feared they would never be able to rebuild the home they lost.
“I am very moved by them and I hope that I am able to, today and tomorrow, be able to do something to help bring attention to the situation for all of the people in need in Pakistan,” Jolie told reporters after visiting a refugee camp in the Jalozai area.
She toured the area wearing a long black robe and a black headscarf adorned with a thin red stripe – the kind of conservative clothing worn by many Muslim women in Pakistan.
The floods began in the northwest at the end of July after extremely heavy monsoon rains and slowly surged south along the Indus River, swallowing up hundreds of villages and towns and killing more than 1,700 people. Another 17 million have been affected by the floods, and many will need emergency assistance to survive.
The United Nations issued an appeal for $460 million in emergency funds on Aug. 11, but only $294 million, or 64 percent, has been received so far, and donations have more or less dried up in recent days.
Ajay Chhibber, a U.N. assistant secretary general, said he hopes Jolie’s visit will have “a very big impact” on the inflow of aid money and will keep people focused on the crisis.
“We need more … well-known figures who can keep the spotlight and focus because people tend to forget internationally,” said Chhibber, who is also the U.N. development agency’s regional director for Asia. He spoke to reporters during a visit to Islamabad.
Avoiding a crisis
There’s nothing new about the fact that the response of authorities in Pakistan to emergency situations is habitually delayed . We let the water rise way above our heads before even trying to do something about it. In simple words, every problem is ignored until it becomes chaotic and we have a crisis at hand.
So there is nothing surprising about the fact that the plea of the people of Hunza went unheard for months. On January 4 , an artificial lake emerged as a result of a massive landslide, blocking the Hunza River. The landslide killed 20, and left about 25,000 people stranded. According to a report :
Some local experts are of the opinion that early use of powerful water pumps to ejaculate the water at the blockade site and subsequent start of work to make spill way across the debris could have saved Gojal from turning into a water bomb. As the situation deteriorates, the people are left in psychological trauma as they see their houses, properties, crops and plants getting submerged. Desperately they wonder why the authorities declared the disaster a minor issue in the first place. After outburst of the lake, will the people of Gojal survive along with remnants of their properties or would it be a desperate battle for survival?
The report aptly summarises the Hunza crisis and the authorities’ indifference that has resulted in creating mayhem. The government response is now that of sympathy. But is sympathy enough after months of indifference and exposure to psychological and financial trauma?
For over five months, the people of Hunza have waited for the authorities to respond to the deteriorating situation, to save their property and to rehabilitate them, but to no avail. Now, over 40,000 people are at risk of being displaced as a result of the flood. Adding insult to injury, the Hunza IDPs will now join ranks with the millions of internally displaced people who have had to leave their homes due to militancy in the past year. The striking figures presented in this report suggest that in 2009 over three million Pakistanis were displaced as a result of the ongoing offensive in the country’s tribal belt; the most in the world and three times more than the Democratic Republic of Congo, which falls in second place.
Despite these shocking, painful, and distressing revelations, the authorities remain apathetic to displacement crises. Instead energies and attention have been focused on political games and power tussles. The voice of a common man is too often snubbed or only heard when the damage is irreversible. On Saturday, hundreds of people in Hunza held a 20-hour long protest against the government’s apathy toward the situation. Most of them chanted anti-government slogans after being disappointed by Prime Minister Gilani’s failure to announce relief for the affected people.
The Hunza disaster is yet another failure of the civilian, popularly elected government. Once again, the army and international relief organisations have been requested to step in. This tendency to pass the buck makes one wonder whether there is any sense of crisis management in the country, or if the government even feels remotely responsible or is aware of its role in such a situation.
If we look at the history of crisis management before this, whether the crisis was caused by war or natural disaster, the government’s role lacks transparency. The Hunza crisis is a ticking time bomb both in terms of the unpredictable flood and the bottled up anger of the people. If the government does not take this opportunity to address the pending issues of crisis management now, it is only a matter of time that we witness yet another exodus.
So there is nothing surprising about the fact that the plea of the people of Hunza went unheard for months. On January 4 , an artificial lake emerged as a result of a massive landslide, blocking the Hunza River. The landslide killed 20, and left about 25,000 people stranded. According to a report :
Some local experts are of the opinion that early use of powerful water pumps to ejaculate the water at the blockade site and subsequent start of work to make spill way across the debris could have saved Gojal from turning into a water bomb. As the situation deteriorates, the people are left in psychological trauma as they see their houses, properties, crops and plants getting submerged. Desperately they wonder why the authorities declared the disaster a minor issue in the first place. After outburst of the lake, will the people of Gojal survive along with remnants of their properties or would it be a desperate battle for survival?
The report aptly summarises the Hunza crisis and the authorities’ indifference that has resulted in creating mayhem. The government response is now that of sympathy. But is sympathy enough after months of indifference and exposure to psychological and financial trauma?
For over five months, the people of Hunza have waited for the authorities to respond to the deteriorating situation, to save their property and to rehabilitate them, but to no avail. Now, over 40,000 people are at risk of being displaced as a result of the flood. Adding insult to injury, the Hunza IDPs will now join ranks with the millions of internally displaced people who have had to leave their homes due to militancy in the past year. The striking figures presented in this report suggest that in 2009 over three million Pakistanis were displaced as a result of the ongoing offensive in the country’s tribal belt; the most in the world and three times more than the Democratic Republic of Congo, which falls in second place.
Despite these shocking, painful, and distressing revelations, the authorities remain apathetic to displacement crises. Instead energies and attention have been focused on political games and power tussles. The voice of a common man is too often snubbed or only heard when the damage is irreversible. On Saturday, hundreds of people in Hunza held a 20-hour long protest against the government’s apathy toward the situation. Most of them chanted anti-government slogans after being disappointed by Prime Minister Gilani’s failure to announce relief for the affected people.
The Hunza disaster is yet another failure of the civilian, popularly elected government. Once again, the army and international relief organisations have been requested to step in. This tendency to pass the buck makes one wonder whether there is any sense of crisis management in the country, or if the government even feels remotely responsible or is aware of its role in such a situation.
If we look at the history of crisis management before this, whether the crisis was caused by war or natural disaster, the government’s role lacks transparency. The Hunza crisis is a ticking time bomb both in terms of the unpredictable flood and the bottled up anger of the people. If the government does not take this opportunity to address the pending issues of crisis management now, it is only a matter of time that we witness yet another exodus.
Goodbye International Cricket in Pakistan
As I broke the story of the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, I also mourned the imminent death of international cricket in Pakistan. This deadly attack simply means no international team will be willing to come and play any sport in Pakistan. What is most embarrassing is the fact that the attack was targeted at a team that was trying to help Pakistani cricket and cricket-crazed fans by agreeing to tour in a time of dire crises.
Kumar Sangakkara, Ajhanta Mendis, Thilan Samaraweera and Tharanga Paranavithana are injured and although their lives are out of danger, it was most unfortunate that these most sporting of cricketers had to face this. Only last week, during the Karachi Test, former England fast bowler Dominic Cork and Sri Lankan coach Trevor Bayliss spoke about the fool-proof security arrangements in Pakistan and pleaded international sides to come and play cricket here. What must they be thinking and doing now? Eating their words, and packing their bags to board the next flight home, I suppose.
The least the Pakistan Cricket Board and the Pakistan government can do now is issue a national, government-level apology to the Sri Lankan team and the people of Sri Lanka for this unfortunate incident – a bit more than the PCB chief saying ‘we’re assessing the situation.’
Pakistani fans can pretty much say goodbye to international cricket after this attack and dare I say, even prepare for a total boycott of all sports events in the country for the next few months.
Kumar Sangakkara, Ajhanta Mendis, Thilan Samaraweera and Tharanga Paranavithana are injured and although their lives are out of danger, it was most unfortunate that these most sporting of cricketers had to face this. Only last week, during the Karachi Test, former England fast bowler Dominic Cork and Sri Lankan coach Trevor Bayliss spoke about the fool-proof security arrangements in Pakistan and pleaded international sides to come and play cricket here. What must they be thinking and doing now? Eating their words, and packing their bags to board the next flight home, I suppose.
The least the Pakistan Cricket Board and the Pakistan government can do now is issue a national, government-level apology to the Sri Lankan team and the people of Sri Lanka for this unfortunate incident – a bit more than the PCB chief saying ‘we’re assessing the situation.’
Pakistani fans can pretty much say goodbye to international cricket after this attack and dare I say, even prepare for a total boycott of all sports events in the country for the next few months.
The anti-Islam vote in the Netherlands elections
The enormous success of the right wing anti-Islam party in the recent elections in the Netherlands indicates a widespread schism within the Dutch and wider European societies where the presence of the Muslims as equal participants of society is disputed.
“Stop migration from the Muslim countries! Block the building of mosques or Muslim schools! Stop subsidising the multicultural programs,” were prominent slogans of Geert Wilders, head of Freedom Party (PVV) during the election campaign in the Netherlands. His party obtained 1.5 million votes and increased its number of seats from 9 to 24 in the parliament. It is probable that the PVV may enter into a coalition with the mainstream liberal party VVD to form a government. This can lead to an extremely xenophobic and an anti-Muslim government in western Europe.
The anti-migrant propaganda of Wilders appealed to certain quarters within the Dutch society. The old working-class neighborhoods that traditionally supported the Labor and Socialist parties got disillusioned with the presumed ‘elitist’ attitude of these parties. With increasing unemployment, economic downfall, changing neighborhood demographics – with more migrants, caused a feeling of isolation among these groups (“this is not my street” is a complaint heard often). The migrants are easy targets of such socio-economic isolation. Add to this the fast integration of Europe that increased distance between the people and decision-makers, thus ‘evaporating our national symbols’, as neo-nationalist like Wilders will argue for.
The traditional polarisation of the Dutch political scene further added to the election win of the PVV. Wilders chided the traditional political parties for ignoring the worries of ‘common man’ on burning issues of migration, criminality and security. Afraid of loosing their vote bank the other political parties, the traditional parties did not present a clear opposition to Wilders’ accusations. In the process they lost to Wilders’ sentimental political ploy on such issues.
The success of parties like the PVV is a dangerous development with respect to the future of democratic values in Europe. Wilders’ party does not follow the rules of a traditional political party: it does not have a membership or party hierarchy or hold any party elections. In this sense it is mere a ‘movement’. Wilders successfully avoided any questions about bringing democracy within his own party. For the PVV, Wilders is a party ideologue, he formulated his party’s election program, chose the candidates and acts as the main media person of the party. An acceptance of such one-man demagogy within the Dutch political system shows an approval of certain undemocratic tendencies within a society that projects itself as a tolerant one.
This is even clearer if we look at Wilders’ ideas and his political program. In the past he advocated to “ban the Quran” and he likes to declare “Islam as a fascist ideology.” Such a theme is also reflected in the film ‘fitna‘ that he produced about the negative aspects of Islam. In his election campaign he asked for banning migration from the Muslim countries, and deporting the ‘criminal’ Muslims to the country of their origin. His anti-Islam program is based on the notion that European civilisation is founded on ‘Jewish-Christian tradition’ thus denying any role of the Muslims in the recent history of the country. Moreover he even asked for ‘ethnic registration’ of non-white population thus importing the kind of practices that the Nazi-German applied to its subjects.
Even more worrying is that Wilders’ political agenda was received without a broader outrage within the Dutch public space. It indicates a clear indifference, if not an implicit support, within the broader public space about Wilders’ program. The political win of the PVV nonetheless present a dangerous tendency within the Dutch society where the majority of voters elected a group that tries to usurp the democratic rights of a minority.
The win of Wilders in the Netherlands cannot be seen without taking into account the broader debate about Islam and Muslims in the European countries. Whether it is debate about banning of hijab in public spaces in France and Belgium or the issue of height of minarets in Switzerland, Islam has become a politicised subject in Europe. These reactions to the Muslim presence however indicate non-acceptance of the emerging realities within the Dutch or European societies.
M. Amer Morgahi is an extern researcher at the VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He can be reached at morgahi@yahoo.com
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
“Stop migration from the Muslim countries! Block the building of mosques or Muslim schools! Stop subsidising the multicultural programs,” were prominent slogans of Geert Wilders, head of Freedom Party (PVV) during the election campaign in the Netherlands. His party obtained 1.5 million votes and increased its number of seats from 9 to 24 in the parliament. It is probable that the PVV may enter into a coalition with the mainstream liberal party VVD to form a government. This can lead to an extremely xenophobic and an anti-Muslim government in western Europe.
The anti-migrant propaganda of Wilders appealed to certain quarters within the Dutch society. The old working-class neighborhoods that traditionally supported the Labor and Socialist parties got disillusioned with the presumed ‘elitist’ attitude of these parties. With increasing unemployment, economic downfall, changing neighborhood demographics – with more migrants, caused a feeling of isolation among these groups (“this is not my street” is a complaint heard often). The migrants are easy targets of such socio-economic isolation. Add to this the fast integration of Europe that increased distance between the people and decision-makers, thus ‘evaporating our national symbols’, as neo-nationalist like Wilders will argue for.
The traditional polarisation of the Dutch political scene further added to the election win of the PVV. Wilders chided the traditional political parties for ignoring the worries of ‘common man’ on burning issues of migration, criminality and security. Afraid of loosing their vote bank the other political parties, the traditional parties did not present a clear opposition to Wilders’ accusations. In the process they lost to Wilders’ sentimental political ploy on such issues.
The success of parties like the PVV is a dangerous development with respect to the future of democratic values in Europe. Wilders’ party does not follow the rules of a traditional political party: it does not have a membership or party hierarchy or hold any party elections. In this sense it is mere a ‘movement’. Wilders successfully avoided any questions about bringing democracy within his own party. For the PVV, Wilders is a party ideologue, he formulated his party’s election program, chose the candidates and acts as the main media person of the party. An acceptance of such one-man demagogy within the Dutch political system shows an approval of certain undemocratic tendencies within a society that projects itself as a tolerant one.
This is even clearer if we look at Wilders’ ideas and his political program. In the past he advocated to “ban the Quran” and he likes to declare “Islam as a fascist ideology.” Such a theme is also reflected in the film ‘fitna‘ that he produced about the negative aspects of Islam. In his election campaign he asked for banning migration from the Muslim countries, and deporting the ‘criminal’ Muslims to the country of their origin. His anti-Islam program is based on the notion that European civilisation is founded on ‘Jewish-Christian tradition’ thus denying any role of the Muslims in the recent history of the country. Moreover he even asked for ‘ethnic registration’ of non-white population thus importing the kind of practices that the Nazi-German applied to its subjects.
Even more worrying is that Wilders’ political agenda was received without a broader outrage within the Dutch public space. It indicates a clear indifference, if not an implicit support, within the broader public space about Wilders’ program. The political win of the PVV nonetheless present a dangerous tendency within the Dutch society where the majority of voters elected a group that tries to usurp the democratic rights of a minority.
The win of Wilders in the Netherlands cannot be seen without taking into account the broader debate about Islam and Muslims in the European countries. Whether it is debate about banning of hijab in public spaces in France and Belgium or the issue of height of minarets in Switzerland, Islam has become a politicised subject in Europe. These reactions to the Muslim presence however indicate non-acceptance of the emerging realities within the Dutch or European societies.
M. Amer Morgahi is an extern researcher at the VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He can be reached at morgahi@yahoo.com
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
The World Cup
ABOUT THIS PROGRAMME
BBC Sport Twitter feed - click here
Football Focus will be live from Cape Town, on key match days, previewing all the action, and providing detailed analysis from a panel of experts.
And you can follow all the action online with live text updates from every match and check the progress of your favourite squad with the Team Tracker.
Or send us pictures of you with your footballing heroes and help complete our online World Cup Photo Album.
it's more than just a game as Have You Heard from Johannesburg? chronicles the history of the global anti-apartheid movement that took on South Africa's apartheid regime and its international supporters.
And in new Life on the Edge: How to Become President George Weah’s testing the age-old adage that soccer and politics don't mix. The former Player of the Year has already run unsuccessfully for President of Liberia once.
Now he’s studying in America for another campaign. But in a war-torn country, some critics fear the star could be dangerously out of his depth...
BBC Sport Twitter feed - click here
Football Focus will be live from Cape Town, on key match days, previewing all the action, and providing detailed analysis from a panel of experts.
And you can follow all the action online with live text updates from every match and check the progress of your favourite squad with the Team Tracker.
Or send us pictures of you with your footballing heroes and help complete our online World Cup Photo Album.
it's more than just a game as Have You Heard from Johannesburg? chronicles the history of the global anti-apartheid movement that took on South Africa's apartheid regime and its international supporters.
And in new Life on the Edge: How to Become President George Weah’s testing the age-old adage that soccer and politics don't mix. The former Player of the Year has already run unsuccessfully for President of Liberia once.
Now he’s studying in America for another campaign. But in a war-torn country, some critics fear the star could be dangerously out of his depth...
Israeli attack on aid flotilla
Hundreds marched through Center City on Tuesday, protesting a deadly Israeli attack on a flotilla of aid ships bound for Gaza.
Carrying signs and raising fists in the air, the group started at the Israeli consulate at 19th Street and John F. Kennedy Boulevard and marched to City Hall and then to the Inquirer-Daily News Building at 400 N. Broad St.
"We march for Palestine," said Cherine Morsi, 28, of Philadelphia. "My family's from the Middle East. Stuff like this hits pretty close to home."
Next to her, Khaled Mostafa, 39, of Abington, clutched a sign that read: "Israel, you can stop one boat, but you can't stop a movement."
On Monday, the "Freedom Flotilla" - a convoy of ships with about 600 passengers - was attempting to break Israel's three-year blockade of Gaza and bring supplies to the area when it was attacked in international waters. At least nine people were killed and others wounded in the attack.
The local protest, which swelled to about 300 people at one point, was organized in the middle of the night, said Hannah Schwarzchild, a member of Philadelphia Jews for Just Peace, one of the groups that spearheaded the march.
Several students from Central High School joined the protest. Lucas Koerner wore a T-shirt that read "We will not be silent," in English, Arabic, and Hebrew. He said he and other Central students formed a group called Middle East Justice Alliance to protest Israeli actions in Gaza and U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We want to appeal to the general public to urge the United States to stop Israel, to move them to make a change," said Tahreem Chaudhry, a Central High senior and group vice president.
As the protest ended, people laid dozens of signs at the front door of the newspaper building.
"Innocent people have been killed," said Amnah Ahmad, 23, a native Palestinian living in North Philadelphia. "We want the American people to remember what's going on in Palestine. People shouldn't support the terrorists, as we call them."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20100602_Phila__marchers_protest_Israeli_attack_on_aid_flotilla.html#ixzz0pglvEKez
Play fantasy sports and win cash prizes instantly. Philly.com's Instant Fantasy Sports Games
Carrying signs and raising fists in the air, the group started at the Israeli consulate at 19th Street and John F. Kennedy Boulevard and marched to City Hall and then to the Inquirer-Daily News Building at 400 N. Broad St.
"We march for Palestine," said Cherine Morsi, 28, of Philadelphia. "My family's from the Middle East. Stuff like this hits pretty close to home."
Next to her, Khaled Mostafa, 39, of Abington, clutched a sign that read: "Israel, you can stop one boat, but you can't stop a movement."
On Monday, the "Freedom Flotilla" - a convoy of ships with about 600 passengers - was attempting to break Israel's three-year blockade of Gaza and bring supplies to the area when it was attacked in international waters. At least nine people were killed and others wounded in the attack.
The local protest, which swelled to about 300 people at one point, was organized in the middle of the night, said Hannah Schwarzchild, a member of Philadelphia Jews for Just Peace, one of the groups that spearheaded the march.
Several students from Central High School joined the protest. Lucas Koerner wore a T-shirt that read "We will not be silent," in English, Arabic, and Hebrew. He said he and other Central students formed a group called Middle East Justice Alliance to protest Israeli actions in Gaza and U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We want to appeal to the general public to urge the United States to stop Israel, to move them to make a change," said Tahreem Chaudhry, a Central High senior and group vice president.
As the protest ended, people laid dozens of signs at the front door of the newspaper building.
"Innocent people have been killed," said Amnah Ahmad, 23, a native Palestinian living in North Philadelphia. "We want the American people to remember what's going on in Palestine. People shouldn't support the terrorists, as we call them."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20100602_Phila__marchers_protest_Israeli_attack_on_aid_flotilla.html#ixzz0pglvEKez
Play fantasy sports and win cash prizes instantly. Philly.com's Instant Fantasy Sports Games
Dead Woman Found Alive
May 22, 2010 (Pen Men at Work): A month ago, a mother and father recognized a dead body in a morgue as their daughter’s. She was laid to rest and grieved over, only to be found alive this week.
The 39-year-old Tea Buric was found when the police personnel put in an appearance at an apartment house in the southern city of Split on account of domestic brutality.
Tea Buric was at a complete loss and did not possess the papers of classification. Therefore, the police officers analyzed her fingerprints and unearthed that she had been recognized by her family unit as deceased.
The corpse discovered in a floating state in the Split harbor on April 15 has turned out to be that of a 44-year-old woman, who had vanished earlier that month. This data was mentioned by the Split police officers.
The police spokesperson, Marina Kraljevic-Gudelj, mentioned in a dialogue on Thursday that the police did not employ DNA to classify the well-preserved carcass since four relatives, counting the parents, had recognized it.
Local specialists also divulged that the DNA process, regarded to be costly in Croatia, is normally utilized only if a dead body cannot be acknowledged or seems to have been the casualty of a felony. The parents of Tea Buric and the 44-year-old departed female rejected to talk about the case.
The 39-year-old Tea Buric was found when the police personnel put in an appearance at an apartment house in the southern city of Split on account of domestic brutality.
Tea Buric was at a complete loss and did not possess the papers of classification. Therefore, the police officers analyzed her fingerprints and unearthed that she had been recognized by her family unit as deceased.
The corpse discovered in a floating state in the Split harbor on April 15 has turned out to be that of a 44-year-old woman, who had vanished earlier that month. This data was mentioned by the Split police officers.
The police spokesperson, Marina Kraljevic-Gudelj, mentioned in a dialogue on Thursday that the police did not employ DNA to classify the well-preserved carcass since four relatives, counting the parents, had recognized it.
Local specialists also divulged that the DNA process, regarded to be costly in Croatia, is normally utilized only if a dead body cannot be acknowledged or seems to have been the casualty of a felony. The parents of Tea Buric and the 44-year-old departed female rejected to talk about the case.
Sarah Palin’s New Book Titled “America By Heart: Reflections On Family, Faith And Flag”
New York, May 12, (THAINDIAN NEWS) Sarah Palin is all set to pen down her thoughts for the second time. After her first book “Going Rogue” became a bestseller with a sale of more than two million copies, the former Alaskan governor and GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is planning to write a second book titled reportedly “America By Heart: Reflections On Family, Faith And Flag”. The announcement was made on Tuesday by the famous publisher HarperCollins who said that the book is scheduled to be released in the market on November 23 this year.
As per the announcement made by HarperCollins, readers can expect to find in this book Sarah Palin’s take on family, faith and patriotism. The book is inspired not only by her strong feelings for these but also by the people whom she met last year while promoting her first book “Going Rogue”. According to HarperCollins the new book will accommodate the portraits of “the extraordinary men and women” whom Sarah Palin admires and “who embody her deep love of country” along with her strong “rootedness” in faith and her love for her family.
It will include those classics and contemporary books that have touched her and molded her thoughts. However the selection will not be restricted to that only but will also have speeches, letters, biographies, literature and poetry that have been associated with the nation-building process. HarperCollins said that it might include some songs and movie references as well that have been her favorite. Tina Andreadis, the spokeswoman for HarperCollins said that Sarah Palin would most likely go on tour for “America by Heart: Reflections On Family, Faith And Flag” but the details are yet to be arranged.
Zardari issues ‘charge-sheet’ to The deposed Judges!
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari has issued a long charge-sheet against the deposed superior court judges, saying they never came to his rescue and were responsible for his eight years in jail.
In the clearest indication that the PPP may not stand by the Murree Declaration to restore the judges, the PPP leader told his central executive committee in Naudero that he was not interested in the restoration of personalities but wanted a judicial reforms package.
Analysts said things were getting complicated for Zardari, both within the PPP and outside, as he was moving closer to allies of President Musharraf and drifting away from his coalition partner Nawaz Sharif.
As Zardari issued his charge-sheet against the judges, Makhdoom Amin Fahim demanded the disbandment of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians which he heads. Others in the PPP blasted the party leadership's decision to join hands with the MQM.
On the other hand, the PML-N is determined not to compromise on the issue of restoration of the deposed judges through a resolution in the National Assembly. The party says it seeks strict adherence to the Murree Declaration and would not accept any formula or constitutional amendment that restores all the deposed judges minus chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
"After gaining so much because of the political initiative that Zardari has taken in the recent weeks, the PPP co-chairperson is on the verge of losing all," a senior PPP leader told this correspondent from Naudero, revealing the situation in the interior Sindh was extremely tense after Zardari's visit to the MQM headquarters popularly known as Nine Zero.
In a post-dinner gathering of the PPP's central executive committee, the source said, many PPP leaders minced no words in criticising Zardari's decision to woo the MQM. PPP MNA Shugufta Jamani and Sethi Ishaq were among those who expressed strong resentment and wondered how the PPP could join hands with the MQM, which was responsible for the killing of PPP workers.
"The Sindhi people have not given a mandate to Zardari to thrust upon them his personal agenda of humiliation in the name of reconciliation," a PPP leader told The News, adding, "We strongly oppose and condemn the PPP-MQM coalition in Sindh."
The leader asked: "Who caused the May 12th incident? Who was behind the Oct 18 blast? Who killed Murad Baloch and Munawar Suhrawardy? But you still went to the Nine Zero to express solidarity with the MQM against the wishes of the nation. Now it's time for us to rethink our support for you, Mr Zardari," said the source, who sounded quite disturbed.
"There is a wave of anger," a PPP leader said. The likes of Raja Pervez Ashraf, Shah Mehmud Qureshi, Jahangir Badr, however, showered Zardari with praises and called him a great leader. Badr even crossed all limits by saying that the PPP had become more popular under Zardari.
Zardari, however, defended his party's rapprochement with the MQM and termed it a sensible political move having far-reaching impact. He said he wanted to open all political avenues for his son, Bilawal, and never liked to see the doors of Nine Zero closed for him. He said the MQM would be forming a government with the PPP.
Aitzaz Ahsan, who sought the restoration of the deposed judges, told the meeting that it would be in the interest of the party to get the judges restored.
Zardari, according to sources, came hard on the issue of the judges’ restoration. According to one source, Zardari snubbed the widely-respected lawyer leader and said he knew the worth of the judges whose restoration was being sought by the lawyers' community.
Zardari said these were the same judges who had earlier taken oath under the PCO and validated the military rule. Referring to his jail life, a source quoted him as saying that he was let down by these judges, who had even refused to release him on parole to attend the funeral of his nephew. He said he was allowed only a two-hour parole despite Farooq H Naek's pleading before the same judges.
He said the then Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed had also refused him a parole. He termed the same judiciary biased, which he said was responsible for his eight years in jail. Party sources reported that Asif Ali Zardari was quite emotional while speaking on the judges' issue. One source said he talked of the restoration of the judges but linked it to a constitutional package. He said the party was interested in the independence of the judiciary and not in personalities.
A party leader said he was disappointed to hear what he termed the charge-sheet issued by the PPP co-chairperson against the deposed judges. According to him, almost 60 per cent of the co-chairman's speech was on Aitzaz Ahsan and the judges.
While the PPP is clearly seen connecting the judges restoration issue with a constitutional package, the PML-N is determined not to budge from what had been agreed between the two parties in Murree on March 9, 2008.
"We don't accept the 'Minus-One Formula' or any such solution that excludes Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry," PML-N minister Ahsan Iqbal told this correspondent, adding the "Minus-One Formula" would mean accepting March 9, 2007 Gen Musharraf's action of suspending chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as legitimate.
Ahsan said as per the Murree Declaration, the deposed judges would be restored through a resolution. Ahsan categorically said that the question of any constitutional amendment for the judges' restoration did not arise.
Ahsan said the coalition was committed to the Murree Declaration and clarified that the PML-N was not averse to a mutually-agreed constitutional package having no link with the restoration of the judges.
Thanks to Mr. Ansar Abbasi, The NEWS
In the clearest indication that the PPP may not stand by the Murree Declaration to restore the judges, the PPP leader told his central executive committee in Naudero that he was not interested in the restoration of personalities but wanted a judicial reforms package.
Analysts said things were getting complicated for Zardari, both within the PPP and outside, as he was moving closer to allies of President Musharraf and drifting away from his coalition partner Nawaz Sharif.
As Zardari issued his charge-sheet against the judges, Makhdoom Amin Fahim demanded the disbandment of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians which he heads. Others in the PPP blasted the party leadership's decision to join hands with the MQM.
On the other hand, the PML-N is determined not to compromise on the issue of restoration of the deposed judges through a resolution in the National Assembly. The party says it seeks strict adherence to the Murree Declaration and would not accept any formula or constitutional amendment that restores all the deposed judges minus chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
"After gaining so much because of the political initiative that Zardari has taken in the recent weeks, the PPP co-chairperson is on the verge of losing all," a senior PPP leader told this correspondent from Naudero, revealing the situation in the interior Sindh was extremely tense after Zardari's visit to the MQM headquarters popularly known as Nine Zero.
In a post-dinner gathering of the PPP's central executive committee, the source said, many PPP leaders minced no words in criticising Zardari's decision to woo the MQM. PPP MNA Shugufta Jamani and Sethi Ishaq were among those who expressed strong resentment and wondered how the PPP could join hands with the MQM, which was responsible for the killing of PPP workers.
"The Sindhi people have not given a mandate to Zardari to thrust upon them his personal agenda of humiliation in the name of reconciliation," a PPP leader told The News, adding, "We strongly oppose and condemn the PPP-MQM coalition in Sindh."
The leader asked: "Who caused the May 12th incident? Who was behind the Oct 18 blast? Who killed Murad Baloch and Munawar Suhrawardy? But you still went to the Nine Zero to express solidarity with the MQM against the wishes of the nation. Now it's time for us to rethink our support for you, Mr Zardari," said the source, who sounded quite disturbed.
"There is a wave of anger," a PPP leader said. The likes of Raja Pervez Ashraf, Shah Mehmud Qureshi, Jahangir Badr, however, showered Zardari with praises and called him a great leader. Badr even crossed all limits by saying that the PPP had become more popular under Zardari.
Zardari, however, defended his party's rapprochement with the MQM and termed it a sensible political move having far-reaching impact. He said he wanted to open all political avenues for his son, Bilawal, and never liked to see the doors of Nine Zero closed for him. He said the MQM would be forming a government with the PPP.
Aitzaz Ahsan, who sought the restoration of the deposed judges, told the meeting that it would be in the interest of the party to get the judges restored.
Zardari, according to sources, came hard on the issue of the judges’ restoration. According to one source, Zardari snubbed the widely-respected lawyer leader and said he knew the worth of the judges whose restoration was being sought by the lawyers' community.
Zardari said these were the same judges who had earlier taken oath under the PCO and validated the military rule. Referring to his jail life, a source quoted him as saying that he was let down by these judges, who had even refused to release him on parole to attend the funeral of his nephew. He said he was allowed only a two-hour parole despite Farooq H Naek's pleading before the same judges.
He said the then Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed had also refused him a parole. He termed the same judiciary biased, which he said was responsible for his eight years in jail. Party sources reported that Asif Ali Zardari was quite emotional while speaking on the judges' issue. One source said he talked of the restoration of the judges but linked it to a constitutional package. He said the party was interested in the independence of the judiciary and not in personalities.
A party leader said he was disappointed to hear what he termed the charge-sheet issued by the PPP co-chairperson against the deposed judges. According to him, almost 60 per cent of the co-chairman's speech was on Aitzaz Ahsan and the judges.
While the PPP is clearly seen connecting the judges restoration issue with a constitutional package, the PML-N is determined not to budge from what had been agreed between the two parties in Murree on March 9, 2008.
"We don't accept the 'Minus-One Formula' or any such solution that excludes Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry," PML-N minister Ahsan Iqbal told this correspondent, adding the "Minus-One Formula" would mean accepting March 9, 2007 Gen Musharraf's action of suspending chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as legitimate.
Ahsan said as per the Murree Declaration, the deposed judges would be restored through a resolution. Ahsan categorically said that the question of any constitutional amendment for the judges' restoration did not arise.
Ahsan said the coalition was committed to the Murree Declaration and clarified that the PML-N was not averse to a mutually-agreed constitutional package having no link with the restoration of the judges.
Thanks to Mr. Ansar Abbasi, The NEWS
FBI says U.S. violent crime rate dropped in 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) — Violent crime in the U.S. decreased by more than five percent in 2009, compared to a year earlier, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Monday.
The figures were released in the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, which compiled data from 13,237 law enforcement agencies that submitted six to twelve months of data in both 2008 and 2009.
Overall, the rate of violent crime offenses dropped by 5.5 percent while property crime declined by 4.9 percent. Violent crimes include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. All of those declined in 2009.
Robberies had the biggest drop in 2009, which decreased by 8.1 percent. The murder rate dropped by 7.2 percent, aggravated assault by 4.2 percent, and forcible rape by 3.1 percent.
Violent crime declined 4.0 percent in the nation’s metropolitan counties and 3.0 percent in non-metropolitan counties.etropolitan counties reported a 3.7 percent decline in the number of rapes, but the number of rapes reported in non-metropolitan counties rose slightly, by 0.3 percent.
Per regions, violent crime decreased 6.6 percent in the South, 5.6 percent in the West, 4.6 percent in the Midwest, and 3.5 percent in the Northeast.
Further, all property crime offenses decreased. Motor vehicle theft showed the largest drop in volume at 17.2 percent, larceny-thefts declined 4.2 percent, and burglaries decreased 1.7 percent.
Arson offenses, which are tracked separately from other property crimes, declined 10.4 percent nationwide.
(© 2010 BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. This material may not be redistributed without prior permission. Contact sales@bnonews.com for information about wire subscriptions.)
The figures were released in the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, which compiled data from 13,237 law enforcement agencies that submitted six to twelve months of data in both 2008 and 2009.
Overall, the rate of violent crime offenses dropped by 5.5 percent while property crime declined by 4.9 percent. Violent crimes include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. All of those declined in 2009.
Robberies had the biggest drop in 2009, which decreased by 8.1 percent. The murder rate dropped by 7.2 percent, aggravated assault by 4.2 percent, and forcible rape by 3.1 percent.
Violent crime declined 4.0 percent in the nation’s metropolitan counties and 3.0 percent in non-metropolitan counties.etropolitan counties reported a 3.7 percent decline in the number of rapes, but the number of rapes reported in non-metropolitan counties rose slightly, by 0.3 percent.
Per regions, violent crime decreased 6.6 percent in the South, 5.6 percent in the West, 4.6 percent in the Midwest, and 3.5 percent in the Northeast.
Further, all property crime offenses decreased. Motor vehicle theft showed the largest drop in volume at 17.2 percent, larceny-thefts declined 4.2 percent, and burglaries decreased 1.7 percent.
Arson offenses, which are tracked separately from other property crimes, declined 10.4 percent nationwide.
(© 2010 BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. This material may not be redistributed without prior permission. Contact sales@bnonews.com for information about wire subscriptions.)
Lahore High Court issues notice to Zardari over holding two offices
Lahore, May 18 (ANI): The Lahore High Court (LHC) has issued a notice to President Asif Ali Zardari over the legality of holding two offices of interest.
Hearing a petition filed by the Pakistan Lawyers Forum (PLF) challenging the right of Zardari to hold on to the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chief’s post, the high court directed Zardari’s Principal Secretary to explain the legality of President dual posts.
“Since the president could not appear because of security reasons, the court asked his principal secretary to appear in court on May 25,” The Daily Times quoted PLF president A.K. Dogar, as saying.
Dogar said that though there was no constitutional bar on the President holding office in a political party, the Supreme Court had barred a president from holding a party post.”Our Supreme Court judges decided in 1993 that the president should be non-partisan. He should not involve himself in political battles. He should shun politics but here he is a party head, which is illegal,” he said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has come out openly in favour of Zardari over the issue, saying there are no legal bar on holding two offices at a time.
President Zardari can keep two offices at a time and there is no constitutional or legal bar whatsoever, Gilani told media persons during a brief interaction here. (ANI)
Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Taliban in Pakistan had helped the Times Square bomber.
Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.
He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.
The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square case — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.
For months, the administration has defended the criminal justice system as strong enough to handle terrorism cases. Mr. Holder acknowledged the abrupt shift of tone, characterizing the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news” in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”
The conclusion that Mr. Shahzad was involved in an international plot appeared to come from investigations that began after his arrest and interrogation, including inquiries into his links with the Taliban in Pakistan.
“We know that they helped facilitate it,” Mr. Holder said of the Times Square bombing attempt. “We know that they helped direct it. And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot.”
Mr. Holder’s statement, and comments by President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, were the highest-level confirmation yet that the authorities believe the Pakistani branch of the Taliban was directly involved. Investigators were still pursuing leads based on what Mr. Shahzad has told them, and the officials did not describe their evidence in detail.
Mr. Brennan appeared to say even more definitively than Mr. Holder did that the Taliban in Pakistan had provided money as well as training and direction.
“He was trained by them,” Mr. Brennan said. “He received funding from them. He was basically directed here to the United States to carry out this attack.”
He added: “We have good cooperation from our Pakistani partners and from others. We’re learning more about this incident every day. We’re hopeful we’re going to be able to identify any other individuals that were involved.”
Even before the attempted Times Square attack, the administration had been stretching the traditional limits of how long suspects may be questioned without being warned of their rights.
After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.
In both cases, the administration relied on an exception to Miranda for immediate threats to public safety. That exception was established by the Supreme Court in a 1984 case in which a police officer asked a suspect, at the time of his arrest and before reading him his rights, about where he had hidden a gun. The court deemed the defendant’s answer and the gun admissible as evidence against him.
Conservatives have long disliked the Miranda ruling, which is intended to ensure that confessions are not coerced. Its use in terrorism cases has been especially controversial because of concerns that informing a suspect of his rights could interrupt the flow of the interrogation and prompt him to stop disclosing information that might prevent a future attack.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday on “This Week” on ABC that he supported Mr. Holder’s proposal. However, he also suggested that enacting it would not quell conservative criticism, arguing that it would be even better to hold suspects like Mr. Shahzad as military detainees for lengthier interrogation.
“I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant, asked the president to do that, and at the same time, that would have given us the opportunity to question him for a much longer period of time.”
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Taliban in Pakistan had helped the Times Square bomber.
Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.
He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.
The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square case — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.
For months, the administration has defended the criminal justice system as strong enough to handle terrorism cases. Mr. Holder acknowledged the abrupt shift of tone, characterizing the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news” in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”
The conclusion that Mr. Shahzad was involved in an international plot appeared to come from investigations that began after his arrest and interrogation, including inquiries into his links with the Taliban in Pakistan.
“We know that they helped facilitate it,” Mr. Holder said of the Times Square bombing attempt. “We know that they helped direct it. And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot.”
Mr. Holder’s statement, and comments by President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, were the highest-level confirmation yet that the authorities believe the Pakistani branch of the Taliban was directly involved. Investigators were still pursuing leads based on what Mr. Shahzad has told them, and the officials did not describe their evidence in detail.
Mr. Brennan appeared to say even more definitively than Mr. Holder did that the Taliban in Pakistan had provided money as well as training and direction.
“He was trained by them,” Mr. Brennan said. “He received funding from them. He was basically directed here to the United States to carry out this attack.”
He added: “We have good cooperation from our Pakistani partners and from others. We’re learning more about this incident every day. We’re hopeful we’re going to be able to identify any other individuals that were involved.”
Even before the attempted Times Square attack, the administration had been stretching the traditional limits of how long suspects may be questioned without being warned of their rights.
After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.
In both cases, the administration relied on an exception to Miranda for immediate threats to public safety. That exception was established by the Supreme Court in a 1984 case in which a police officer asked a suspect, at the time of his arrest and before reading him his rights, about where he had hidden a gun. The court deemed the defendant’s answer and the gun admissible as evidence against him.
Conservatives have long disliked the Miranda ruling, which is intended to ensure that confessions are not coerced. Its use in terrorism cases has been especially controversial because of concerns that informing a suspect of his rights could interrupt the flow of the interrogation and prompt him to stop disclosing information that might prevent a future attack.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday on “This Week” on ABC that he supported Mr. Holder’s proposal. However, he also suggested that enacting it would not quell conservative criticism, arguing that it would be even better to hold suspects like Mr. Shahzad as military detainees for lengthier interrogation.
“I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant, asked the president to do that, and at the same time, that would have given us the opportunity to question him for a much longer period of time.”
U.S. Urges Action in Pakistan After Failed Bombing
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Obama administration has delivered new and stiff warnings to Pakistan after the failed Times Square car bombing that it must urgently move against the nexus of Islamic militancy in the country’s lawless tribal regions, American and Pakistani officials said.
The American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, met with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, at his headquarters here on Friday and urged Pakistan to move more quickly in beginning a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in North Waziristan, Americans and Pakistanis familiar with the visit said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of continuing diplomatic efforts here.
The Pakistani-American man who admitted to the Times Square attack, Faisal Shahzad, 30, told American investigators that he had received training in North Waziristan, the main base for the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.
The new pressure from Washington was characterized by both the Pakistani and American officials as a sharp turnaround from the relatively polite encouragement adopted by the Obama administration in recent months. And it comes amid increasing debate within the administration about how to expand the American military’s influence — and even a boots-on-the-ground presence — on Pakistani soil.
Though the bombing in Times Square failed, Mr. Shahzad’s ability to move back and forth between the United States and Pakistan has heightened fears in the Obama administration that another attempt at a terrorist attack could succeed.
“We are saying, ‘Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act’ ” within Pakistan, one of the American officials said.
That issue has been a source of growing tension between the countries. Pakistani officials, already alarmed by the increase in American drone aircraft attacks against militants in northwestern Pakistan, have been extremely sensitive about any hint that American ground troops could become involved in the fight. And attempts by the United States to increase the presence of Special Operations forces there even in an advisory or training role have been met with great resistance by the Pakistanis.
The Pakistani military has stepped up its campaigns against militants in the past year, including an offensive in South Waziristan that has been praised by American officials. It has said that it is preparing to take up the fight against militants in North Waziristan. But Pakistani officials have insisted that the expanded campaign will happen completely on their own terms, and they have warned the Obama administration not to push so hard that it uses up the good will it has tried to foster here.
But the Americans’ urgency has been increasing on multiple fronts. With an intensified American military campaign raging against the Taliban next door in Afghanistan, and now with the renewed evidence of Pakistani sources for plots to attack on American soil, it was clear the Pakistani government had to do more, and more urgently, a senior American official said Saturday.
General Kayani, with whom General McChrystal has forged a positive relationship, was essentially told, “ ‘You can’t pretend any longer that this is not going on,’ ” another American official said. “ ‘We are saying you have got to go into North Waziristan.’ ”
The American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, met Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, after the failed bombing and used “forceful” language to convey the American point that the Pakistanis had to move more assertively against the militants threaded through the society, a Pakistani official said.
“The element of threat is definitely different from the last few months,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador who also served in the United States. .
The Obama administration was planning to use the failed terrorist attack to impress on the Pakistanis of the urgency of getting American development aid in place in the tribal areas where militancy thrives, and into Karachi, the biggest city, where radical religious schools, known as madrasas, are popular.
“Last week’s incident makes it more urgent and more true” of the need to bring stability and security to these areas where the militants have multiplied, an American official said.
About $150 million was appropriated by Congress for assistance to the tribal areas in the coming period for reconstruction and other projects. But a host of problems, including American insistence on being able to monitor the money being spent, has made it a slow process.
Since Mr. Shahzad’s arrest in the Times Square attack, each country has, to some extent, blamed the other. Many Pakistanis insist that Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen who was radicalized in the United States by the difficulties he found living there as a Muslim. The Americans stress that Mr. Shahzad has traveled more than a dozen times back to Pakistan from the United States since 1999, and appeared to have received his military training in the epicenter of militancy, North Waziristan.
Mr. Shahzad’s background as the son of a senior Pakistani military officer has embarrassed the Pakistani Army, the most powerful institution in the country, and which receives generous financing from the United States. Mr. Shahzad’s father was a vice marshal in the Pakistani Air Force, and it appears that Mr. Shahzad grew up around senior military officers.
After Mr. Shahzad told American investigators that he was trained in bomb making in North Waziristan, the Pakistani Army tried to play down that claim, portraying it as unlikely.
The Pakistani Taliban took initial responsibility for the bombing attempt. Days later, though, their spokesman denied any involvement, a statement that may have been prompted by fears that their early claim of ownership of Mr. Shahzad might result in a direct attack on the North Waziristan enclave by the Americans, or the Pakistanis.
The American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, met with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, at his headquarters here on Friday and urged Pakistan to move more quickly in beginning a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in North Waziristan, Americans and Pakistanis familiar with the visit said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of continuing diplomatic efforts here.
The Pakistani-American man who admitted to the Times Square attack, Faisal Shahzad, 30, told American investigators that he had received training in North Waziristan, the main base for the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.
The new pressure from Washington was characterized by both the Pakistani and American officials as a sharp turnaround from the relatively polite encouragement adopted by the Obama administration in recent months. And it comes amid increasing debate within the administration about how to expand the American military’s influence — and even a boots-on-the-ground presence — on Pakistani soil.
Though the bombing in Times Square failed, Mr. Shahzad’s ability to move back and forth between the United States and Pakistan has heightened fears in the Obama administration that another attempt at a terrorist attack could succeed.
“We are saying, ‘Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act’ ” within Pakistan, one of the American officials said.
That issue has been a source of growing tension between the countries. Pakistani officials, already alarmed by the increase in American drone aircraft attacks against militants in northwestern Pakistan, have been extremely sensitive about any hint that American ground troops could become involved in the fight. And attempts by the United States to increase the presence of Special Operations forces there even in an advisory or training role have been met with great resistance by the Pakistanis.
The Pakistani military has stepped up its campaigns against militants in the past year, including an offensive in South Waziristan that has been praised by American officials. It has said that it is preparing to take up the fight against militants in North Waziristan. But Pakistani officials have insisted that the expanded campaign will happen completely on their own terms, and they have warned the Obama administration not to push so hard that it uses up the good will it has tried to foster here.
But the Americans’ urgency has been increasing on multiple fronts. With an intensified American military campaign raging against the Taliban next door in Afghanistan, and now with the renewed evidence of Pakistani sources for plots to attack on American soil, it was clear the Pakistani government had to do more, and more urgently, a senior American official said Saturday.
General Kayani, with whom General McChrystal has forged a positive relationship, was essentially told, “ ‘You can’t pretend any longer that this is not going on,’ ” another American official said. “ ‘We are saying you have got to go into North Waziristan.’ ”
The American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, met Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, after the failed bombing and used “forceful” language to convey the American point that the Pakistanis had to move more assertively against the militants threaded through the society, a Pakistani official said.
“The element of threat is definitely different from the last few months,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador who also served in the United States. .
The Obama administration was planning to use the failed terrorist attack to impress on the Pakistanis of the urgency of getting American development aid in place in the tribal areas where militancy thrives, and into Karachi, the biggest city, where radical religious schools, known as madrasas, are popular.
“Last week’s incident makes it more urgent and more true” of the need to bring stability and security to these areas where the militants have multiplied, an American official said.
About $150 million was appropriated by Congress for assistance to the tribal areas in the coming period for reconstruction and other projects. But a host of problems, including American insistence on being able to monitor the money being spent, has made it a slow process.
Since Mr. Shahzad’s arrest in the Times Square attack, each country has, to some extent, blamed the other. Many Pakistanis insist that Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen who was radicalized in the United States by the difficulties he found living there as a Muslim. The Americans stress that Mr. Shahzad has traveled more than a dozen times back to Pakistan from the United States since 1999, and appeared to have received his military training in the epicenter of militancy, North Waziristan.
Mr. Shahzad’s background as the son of a senior Pakistani military officer has embarrassed the Pakistani Army, the most powerful institution in the country, and which receives generous financing from the United States. Mr. Shahzad’s father was a vice marshal in the Pakistani Air Force, and it appears that Mr. Shahzad grew up around senior military officers.
After Mr. Shahzad told American investigators that he was trained in bomb making in North Waziristan, the Pakistani Army tried to play down that claim, portraying it as unlikely.
The Pakistani Taliban took initial responsibility for the bombing attempt. Days later, though, their spokesman denied any involvement, a statement that may have been prompted by fears that their early claim of ownership of Mr. Shahzad might result in a direct attack on the North Waziristan enclave by the Americans, or the Pakistanis.
A small victory
At least three major Taliban groups emerged. The first was the group headed by Mullah Omar who had led the government the Taliban had formed in Kabul in the mid-1990s. It is widely believed that this group was led by leaders of the ‘Quetta shura’ whose main goal is said to be to bring Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban. That could happen only if the Americans were made to leave Afghanistan. The bulk of support for this group came from the many local commanders involved in various insurgencies in Afghanistan.
The second group was led initially by Jalaluddin Haqqani and is now under the control of his son Sirajuddin. The older Haqqani had been helped by the Americans, the Saudis and the Pakistanis to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Having achieved that objective they were unable to work together to govern the liberated country, paving the way for the Taliban regime.
When the Americans moved into Afghanistan in late 2001 and pushed the Taliban out of Kabul, the Haqqani group shifted to Pakistan’s North Waziristan. It has remained there, supporting the insurgents in the areas adjoining their sanctuary in Pakistan. Since the senior Haqqani had served in Mullah Omar’s government his Taliban movement retained some contacts with the Quetta shura. But the linkages are believed not to be strong.
The third group had little to do with the insurgency in Afghanistan but wanted to bring about change in Pakistan. It was formed out of several small tribal groups and was given the name of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Initially led by Baitullah Mehsud who was killed last year in a drone attack, the TTP quickly expanded its reach.
Last summer its affiliate in Swat took over the district and advanced into Buner. They were only a short distance away from Islamabad. It was then that the army moved to reclaim the areas, carrying out a successful operation. It followed it up with an equally successful operation in South Waziristan. Recently, newspapers carried the story that Hakimullah Mehsud, Baitullah’s successor, had died of injuries sustained in a drone attack sometime earlier.
While Pakistan drew a sharp distinction between these three groups, the Americans were of the view that all of them had to be treated the same way. They were pleased with Pakistan’s move against the TTP in Swat, Buner and South Waziristan but were unhappy that Islamabad was not anxious to go into North Waziristan against the Haqqani group or to hit the Quetta shura.
Neither of the two groups had launched attacks against Pakistan while the TTP was involved in many terrorist activities that had killed hundreds of people in various parts of Pakistan. Also, Islamabad, worried about the political vacuum that might occur once the Americans and Nato forces began the promised withdrawal from Afghanistan. It wanted a situation where it could depend on these two groups of Taliban to help establish a regime in Kabul that would be friendlier towards it than the one headed by President Hamid Karzai. What motivated the Afghan president to dispense with his enduring antipathy towards the Taliban movement to hold out an olive branch to some of them in London?
In fact, Karzai and his associates went to London to get the support of the countries assembled there to help him win over those in the Taliban movement who were its foot soldiers for economic reasons and not out of ideological compulsions. His finance minister asked for assistance amounting to $1.2bn, with $200m dispersed immediately so that employment opportunities could be created for these people. The regime held out the assurance that this money would not be used to bribe the Taliban but for promoting development. This, in fact, is a recognition by Karzai that an important reason for his mounting troubles was of the poor governance of Pakhtun areas, most of which border Pakistan. The president was also thinking of the time when the Americans would not be present in large numbers to prop up his administration. The time had come for him to bring under his tent those Pakhtuns who were prepared to work with him.
While the outcome of the London conference vindicates Pakistan’s long-held position, it also points to the importance of focusing on economic development as a way of countering insurgency. It is important for Pakistan to launch a massive programme for the development initially of Malakand division and South Waziristan — two areas where the army has scored impressive successes — in order to ensure that the people there remain loyal to the Pakistani state.
A well-articulated programme of economic development will have the support of the West and should not impose a heavy financial burden on Islamabad. This is a good time to start work on it.
Judicial reform in Swat
In the launch of the drive to reform Swat’s legal system, it is apparent that the state is aware of the sort of steps needed to alter some of the realities that had formerly led the people of the area to extend support to the Taliban before disowning them. For nearly four decades, the area’s judicial system had been notoriously slow-moving and corrupt, leading to the erosion of the residents’ faith in the state. Little wonder then that the Taliban’s promise of a ‘quick, Sharia-based’ justice system resonated with Swat’s people. To the consternation of many, it became clear after the ‘peace deal’ brokered between the government and the militants by the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi that the Taliban’s version of the Sharia consisted of beheadings, floggings, the repression of women and other gross violations of fundamental human and constitutional rights. It appears that Swat’s rejection of the Taliban has finally been seen as an opportunity by the state to win over the population by installing a judicial system that will hopefully be quick, inexpensive and unbiased.
Judicial officials have launched a drive to speed up and reform the area’s legal system. Sixteen new judges have been hired and new courts have been created with the laudable aim of processing new criminal cases within four months and civil ones in six. The backlog of cases has reportedly been reduced from 18,000 to 2,300. The significance of this reduction ought not be underestimated given that each resolved case means a large number of people with newfound confidence in the state and government, which is crucial to the project of preventing the Taliban or other anarchist elements from regaining influence in the area. Legal and judicial systems in other parts of the country must make similar efforts. According to a statistical report released recently by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 1.52 million cases were pending in the superior and lower courts at the end of 2009. Each of these represents a miscarriage of justice, since justice delayed is justice denied. The project to build Pakistanis’ faith in the state and government must include an overhaul of the judicial process.
Judicial officials have launched a drive to speed up and reform the area’s legal system. Sixteen new judges have been hired and new courts have been created with the laudable aim of processing new criminal cases within four months and civil ones in six. The backlog of cases has reportedly been reduced from 18,000 to 2,300. The significance of this reduction ought not be underestimated given that each resolved case means a large number of people with newfound confidence in the state and government, which is crucial to the project of preventing the Taliban or other anarchist elements from regaining influence in the area. Legal and judicial systems in other parts of the country must make similar efforts. According to a statistical report released recently by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 1.52 million cases were pending in the superior and lower courts at the end of 2009. Each of these represents a miscarriage of justice, since justice delayed is justice denied. The project to build Pakistanis’ faith in the state and government must include an overhaul of the judicial process.
Encouraging signs
Are consumers no longer suffering power cuts as claimed by a Pepco official? No. But the severe crisis in April has eased, partly because of the measures announced at the energy conference held in Islamabad last month and partly because of more tolerable weather in some parts of the country and more water becoming available for hydel power generation.
It is relatively clear that a large portion of the blame for the acute crisis last month can be laid at the door of the circular debt issue. During peak summer there is certainly an issue of power generation capacity, but that was not the case last month. Unfortunately, dealing with the problem of circular debt appears to have been put off, perhaps with an eye towards containing the fiscal deficit for the financial year ending in June. The government has been kept on a tight leash by the IMF, and adding to borrowings can compound the crisis. The problem for consumers, though, is that delaying the resolution of the circular debt issue may aggravate the situation in the months ahead, leading to a double whammy of sorts as the gap between supply and demand will keep growing in the summer months.
Nevertheless, it is encouraging that at long last the national and provincial leadership appears to have awakened to the need to deal with the power crisis. A second energy conference has been convened by the prime minister and once again all the provincial chief ministers have been invited. The measures taken at the last round of meetings have somewhat eased the consumers’ torment in many places. Yes, there have been problems, as evidenced by the flouting in Karachi of the ban on supplying CNG to motor vehicles one day a week. Punjab is feeling aggrieved that the other provinces have not acted with as much alacrity to implement the energy-saving measures. However, it is encouraging that there appears to be at least some commitment by all sides to continue with a national response to the energy crisis as opposed to Islamabad issuing orders that the provinces ignore.
It is relatively clear that a large portion of the blame for the acute crisis last month can be laid at the door of the circular debt issue. During peak summer there is certainly an issue of power generation capacity, but that was not the case last month. Unfortunately, dealing with the problem of circular debt appears to have been put off, perhaps with an eye towards containing the fiscal deficit for the financial year ending in June. The government has been kept on a tight leash by the IMF, and adding to borrowings can compound the crisis. The problem for consumers, though, is that delaying the resolution of the circular debt issue may aggravate the situation in the months ahead, leading to a double whammy of sorts as the gap between supply and demand will keep growing in the summer months.
Nevertheless, it is encouraging that at long last the national and provincial leadership appears to have awakened to the need to deal with the power crisis. A second energy conference has been convened by the prime minister and once again all the provincial chief ministers have been invited. The measures taken at the last round of meetings have somewhat eased the consumers’ torment in many places. Yes, there have been problems, as evidenced by the flouting in Karachi of the ban on supplying CNG to motor vehicles one day a week. Punjab is feeling aggrieved that the other provinces have not acted with as much alacrity to implement the energy-saving measures. However, it is encouraging that there appears to be at least some commitment by all sides to continue with a national response to the energy crisis as opposed to Islamabad issuing orders that the provinces ignore.
US Pressure
In the immediate aftermath of Faisal Shahzad’s arrest in the US, the Obama administration acted to reassure Pakistan that the event was not automatically going to strain ties between the two countries. However, there appears to have been some change in the tone and tenor of comments by American officials over the past couple of days.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that there will be “severe consequences” for Pakistan if a successful terrorist attack in the US is traced to this country. Meanwhile, unnamed officials have voiced fresh concerns about militancy in Pakistan to The New York Times and The Washington Post. What are we to make of this? First of all, Ms Clinton’s comments are unfortunate and will rekindle suspicions here that America is no real friend of Pakistan. The Shahzad case is cause for serious concern and the possible nexus between American citizenship holders and Pakistan-based militants needs to be investigated thoroughly. But why is America’s top diplomat venturing into hypotheticals and suggesting an intention to visit harm on Pakistan as some sort of possible retribution? It is odd, to say the least. Perhaps Ms Clinton was speaking more to the domestic American audience, some members of which have been critical of the Obama administration’s being ‘soft’ on Pakistan. But her words were heard in Pakistan too and they would not have gone down well.
Curiously, in more or less the same time frame, Gen Petraeus, the head of the US military in this region, spoke to the Council of Foreign Relations after returning from a trip to Pakistan and struck a far more conciliatory tone. When asked if the timing of the Shahzad plot would adversely impact military-to-military cooperation between the US and Pakistan, Gen Petraeus replied: “The attempted New York attack in Times Square, if anything, may strengthen the relationship. In fact, the Pakistani intelligence services, or its police, quite quickly carried out some operations related to this.” So is this a case of the good-cop, bad-cop routine once again being rolled out to get Pakistan to ‘do more’ in the fight against militancy?
If so, it is a bad idea. The Pakistani state is unlikely to respond to threats or inducements on this count. Assistance in relation to the Shahzad case is, both sides appear to agree, being extended by Pakistan. There appears to be some friction, but disagreements are very likely in the course of such investigations. Everything is not a conspiracy; the American side, after all, almost let Shahzad fly out of America. However, the Times Square plot must not be used as a stick to beat Pakistan with. It is the common enemy — the militants — that need to be fought.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that there will be “severe consequences” for Pakistan if a successful terrorist attack in the US is traced to this country. Meanwhile, unnamed officials have voiced fresh concerns about militancy in Pakistan to The New York Times and The Washington Post. What are we to make of this? First of all, Ms Clinton’s comments are unfortunate and will rekindle suspicions here that America is no real friend of Pakistan. The Shahzad case is cause for serious concern and the possible nexus between American citizenship holders and Pakistan-based militants needs to be investigated thoroughly. But why is America’s top diplomat venturing into hypotheticals and suggesting an intention to visit harm on Pakistan as some sort of possible retribution? It is odd, to say the least. Perhaps Ms Clinton was speaking more to the domestic American audience, some members of which have been critical of the Obama administration’s being ‘soft’ on Pakistan. But her words were heard in Pakistan too and they would not have gone down well.
Curiously, in more or less the same time frame, Gen Petraeus, the head of the US military in this region, spoke to the Council of Foreign Relations after returning from a trip to Pakistan and struck a far more conciliatory tone. When asked if the timing of the Shahzad plot would adversely impact military-to-military cooperation between the US and Pakistan, Gen Petraeus replied: “The attempted New York attack in Times Square, if anything, may strengthen the relationship. In fact, the Pakistani intelligence services, or its police, quite quickly carried out some operations related to this.” So is this a case of the good-cop, bad-cop routine once again being rolled out to get Pakistan to ‘do more’ in the fight against militancy?
If so, it is a bad idea. The Pakistani state is unlikely to respond to threats or inducements on this count. Assistance in relation to the Shahzad case is, both sides appear to agree, being extended by Pakistan. There appears to be some friction, but disagreements are very likely in the course of such investigations. Everything is not a conspiracy; the American side, after all, almost let Shahzad fly out of America. However, the Times Square plot must not be used as a stick to beat Pakistan with. It is the common enemy — the militants — that need to be fought.
Paths of terrorism lead but to Pakistan
The adoption of terrorism tactics can no longer be merely attributed to ignorance, poverty, deprivation or hardship.
Many of our neo-terrorists are schooled and brainwashed beings, with a grudge, or several grudges, imbued with bravado, intent on disrupting what is left of civilised life, with nary a care as to how many complete strangers they either blow to smithereens or maim, or how much they destroy.
Pakistan of course has its daily dose of terrorism, in one form or another. Schools are blown up with regularity in the newly-named K-P province, bodies of men executed by the local Taliban are found, men have their hands chopped off, women are ‘dishonoured’ and our main cities are under siege, bunkered and concreted, awaiting the suicide bomber from up north or from down south in Punjab where they are said to be heavily congregated (for one, Ajmal Kasab).
Unless one of those strange and much despised creatures known as VIPs or often VVIPs are targeted, suicide and other bombings no longer earn headlines in the media. They are now taken as a matter of course.
But apart from terrorism connections within Pakistan, we have those outside Pakistan, the paths of which lead straight into our heartland. The latest New York Times Square failed car bomber is but one of a string of notable Pakistanis who have garnered academic degrees and are not materially down and out in any way. What is it about Pakistan that it manages to produce so many young men who are violence prone, caring neither for their own or other people’s lives? We seriously need to ask ourselves this question.
It was asked and partially answered in the Wall Street Journal of May 3 by Sadanand Dhume under the heading ‘Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists’. He firstly asks: “Why do Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora churn out such a high proportion of the world’s terrorists?” He cites Mir Aimal Kasi, the CIA shooter, Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Centre bomber, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of 9/11 fame, Omar Saeed Sheikh, the Daniel Pearl kidnapper, and three of the four July 2005 London train bombers as being ‘made in Pakistan’.
He goes on to list a few “whose passage to jihadism passes through” Pakistan — Osama bin Laden himself, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and his shoe, and John Walker Lindh of the so-called American Taliban. These are not lists to be proud of. Something is radically wrong and heaven alone knows how long it will take to even start to put it right. With the governments and leadership we have suffered and still suffer it is not likely that in the foreseeable future our production line will decrease, let alone cease.
Dhume puts much of it down to the distant past, to the formation of the country when he claims it “was touched by the messianic zeal of pan-Islamism”, with men such as Muhammad Asad (an early ambassador to the UN), Said Ramadan who collaborated with Abul Ala Maududi and with the 1949 establishment by Pakistan of the world’s first transnational Islamic organisation, the World Muslim Congress.
All this possibly may have set the trend — with massive help from Liaquat Ali Khan’s 1949 Objectives Resolution — but it was not until Ziaul Haq, army general and devout worshipper at the altar of his own dangerous brand of Islam, that bigotry and the inevitable violence that must accompany it truly set in. Even the mighty army was tainted, to a certain extent brainwashed by the joys of jihad.
The seal on the full conversion of the Pakistani mind towards militancy was stamped by the support given by Zia to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and then by the adoption of the Taliban by Benazir Bhutto’s second government.
No one, not even the most nationalistic Pakistani, can deny that the country is used as a training ground for terrorists or jihadists or whatever.
It is open knowledge that both the ignorant poor and deprived and the university-educated youth, and even adult men, can come to Pakistan and learn how to make bombs to blow up themselves, if they so wish, and as many others that they can either take with them or leave dead and maimed while they flee.
Can some bright psychologist work out why Faisal Shahzad, a college graduate, son of a Pakistani air force officer, married with two children, was prompted to do what he did on May Day?
Friend I.A. Rehman has written an excellent column, finely tuned and finely balanced, published in this newspaper on May 6 on the subject of anarchy in Pakistan. It sets out many of the acts of government in recent days which come under the heading of anarchy. It should be widely disseminated so that people realise just what their lives are all about under this present dispensation which is at as much a loss with itself as it is with the governance of this unruly country. It is a sad commentary on the seemingly deliberate acts of commission and omission which so relentlessly beset us.
Strangely, the sole anarchic activity he has missed out on is the terrorism and jihad factor. Perhaps he, like so many, is hardened to the fact that it exists, that it has become a way of life and that it seemingly cannot be dealt with by the civilian government we have lurking on the ground, or will not be dealt with, for reasons we can but guess at, by the army that is the de facto ruler of this country for which the world at large has no love lost.
Many of our neo-terrorists are schooled and brainwashed beings, with a grudge, or several grudges, imbued with bravado, intent on disrupting what is left of civilised life, with nary a care as to how many complete strangers they either blow to smithereens or maim, or how much they destroy.
Pakistan of course has its daily dose of terrorism, in one form or another. Schools are blown up with regularity in the newly-named K-P province, bodies of men executed by the local Taliban are found, men have their hands chopped off, women are ‘dishonoured’ and our main cities are under siege, bunkered and concreted, awaiting the suicide bomber from up north or from down south in Punjab where they are said to be heavily congregated (for one, Ajmal Kasab).
Unless one of those strange and much despised creatures known as VIPs or often VVIPs are targeted, suicide and other bombings no longer earn headlines in the media. They are now taken as a matter of course.
But apart from terrorism connections within Pakistan, we have those outside Pakistan, the paths of which lead straight into our heartland. The latest New York Times Square failed car bomber is but one of a string of notable Pakistanis who have garnered academic degrees and are not materially down and out in any way. What is it about Pakistan that it manages to produce so many young men who are violence prone, caring neither for their own or other people’s lives? We seriously need to ask ourselves this question.
It was asked and partially answered in the Wall Street Journal of May 3 by Sadanand Dhume under the heading ‘Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists’. He firstly asks: “Why do Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora churn out such a high proportion of the world’s terrorists?” He cites Mir Aimal Kasi, the CIA shooter, Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Centre bomber, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of 9/11 fame, Omar Saeed Sheikh, the Daniel Pearl kidnapper, and three of the four July 2005 London train bombers as being ‘made in Pakistan’.
He goes on to list a few “whose passage to jihadism passes through” Pakistan — Osama bin Laden himself, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and his shoe, and John Walker Lindh of the so-called American Taliban. These are not lists to be proud of. Something is radically wrong and heaven alone knows how long it will take to even start to put it right. With the governments and leadership we have suffered and still suffer it is not likely that in the foreseeable future our production line will decrease, let alone cease.
Dhume puts much of it down to the distant past, to the formation of the country when he claims it “was touched by the messianic zeal of pan-Islamism”, with men such as Muhammad Asad (an early ambassador to the UN), Said Ramadan who collaborated with Abul Ala Maududi and with the 1949 establishment by Pakistan of the world’s first transnational Islamic organisation, the World Muslim Congress.
All this possibly may have set the trend — with massive help from Liaquat Ali Khan’s 1949 Objectives Resolution — but it was not until Ziaul Haq, army general and devout worshipper at the altar of his own dangerous brand of Islam, that bigotry and the inevitable violence that must accompany it truly set in. Even the mighty army was tainted, to a certain extent brainwashed by the joys of jihad.
The seal on the full conversion of the Pakistani mind towards militancy was stamped by the support given by Zia to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and then by the adoption of the Taliban by Benazir Bhutto’s second government.
No one, not even the most nationalistic Pakistani, can deny that the country is used as a training ground for terrorists or jihadists or whatever.
It is open knowledge that both the ignorant poor and deprived and the university-educated youth, and even adult men, can come to Pakistan and learn how to make bombs to blow up themselves, if they so wish, and as many others that they can either take with them or leave dead and maimed while they flee.
Can some bright psychologist work out why Faisal Shahzad, a college graduate, son of a Pakistani air force officer, married with two children, was prompted to do what he did on May Day?
Friend I.A. Rehman has written an excellent column, finely tuned and finely balanced, published in this newspaper on May 6 on the subject of anarchy in Pakistan. It sets out many of the acts of government in recent days which come under the heading of anarchy. It should be widely disseminated so that people realise just what their lives are all about under this present dispensation which is at as much a loss with itself as it is with the governance of this unruly country. It is a sad commentary on the seemingly deliberate acts of commission and omission which so relentlessly beset us.
Strangely, the sole anarchic activity he has missed out on is the terrorism and jihad factor. Perhaps he, like so many, is hardened to the fact that it exists, that it has become a way of life and that it seemingly cannot be dealt with by the civilian government we have lurking on the ground, or will not be dealt with, for reasons we can but guess at, by the army that is the de facto ruler of this country for which the world at large has no love lost.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s husband breaks his silence after six years
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Claims most reports in the local media are false, suspects his two ‘missing’ children are in Karachi
KARACHI: After six years of silence, Dr Muhammad Amjad Khan, ex-husband of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, has finally spoken up and says that most of the press reports that relate to his former wife as well as his children are false. In an exclusive talk with The News, he said that most claims are being propagated to garner public support and sympathy for Dr Aafia but are one-sided and in most instances untrue.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, suspected of having links to terrorist organizations, has been charged in a criminal complaint filed in a court of New York on account of attempting to kill US personnel during interrogation and on a charge of assaulting US officers and employees in Kabul, Afghanistan, on July 17, 2008. Subsequently Dr Aafia was imprisoned in Bagram for 18 days before being taken to the US for a trial.
Due to pressure from Aafia Siddiqui’s family, the Pakistan government has been trying to secure her release from the US claiming her to be innocent. Although the US government has guaranteed Aafia the best legal assistance and a fair trial, her family is adamant that she be sent back on grounds that the US authorities have been consistently torturing her for years.
“Aafia’s release cannot be secured by propagating stories based on falsehood and deception,” commented Dr Amjad Khan, in an interview with The News. Dr Amjad, who was married to Dr Aafia for seven years until their divorce in October 2002, said Aafia’s family and supporters should not believe that truth will not be revealed and mere lies will help in securing Aafia’s repatriation.
He added that he is disappointed with the government’s disregard for the law when officials handed over his eldest son, Ahmad, to his aunt Dr Fowzia Siddiqui on his return from Afghanistan last year instead of his legal guardian, his father. “The government made no effort to locate me despite the fact that I am Ahmad’s real and legal guardian. My address in Karachi has not changed for the past 30 years. Ever since I returned from the US after our divorce, I have been living with my family,” he said adding: “Both the Minister for Interior Rehman Malik and Dr Fowzia have been taking credit for obtaining Ahmad’s release even though there was not a stone I left unturned to locate my missing children and obtain their custody according to law.”
Providing documentary proof of the legal agreement between him and Dr Aafia following their divorce, Dr Amjad said that he had been financially supporting his three children Ahmed, Marium and Suleiman until the family stopped accepting the cheques he had been mailing. “After the agreement they accepted my cheques till March 2003. After that my cheques were being returned from Aafia’s home and that got me worried. Soon after I learnt that in April 2003, Aafia and our children had been ‘picked up’ by agencies.” Meanwhile, he received disturbing reports from the family that Aafia chose to leave Karachi with her children as she feared an attack from him.
Curious to locate the whereabouts of his children, Dr Amjad sought the help of the police and government officials to find them. “I was aware of Aafia’s violent personality and extremist views and suspected her involvement in Jihadi activities. My fear later proved to be true when during Uzair Paracha’s trial in the US in 2004, the real purpose of Aafia’s trip to the US (between December 23, 2002 and January 3, 2003) was revealed.”
Elaborating, Dr Amjad disclosed that he later learnt from media reports that Aafia’s family claimed she made this trip to the US for job interviews in December at a time when universities were closed for winter holidays. “I also found it very odd that on the one hand Aafia insisted on leaving the US after September 11, 2001, claiming the country was unsafe for us and our children because the US government was abducting Muslim children, and on the other hand took the risk of travelling to that country again without fearing that she may be captured and may never see our children again.”
While Dr Aafia was in the US, the authorities had been closely watching her, added Amjad. They soon issued the first global “wanted for questioning” alert for the couple in March 2003. “At that time, the agencies did not know we were divorced and I was also unaware of Aafia’s involvement with two other terror suspects, Majid Khan and Ammar Al-Baluchi. They wanted me to persuade Aafia to appear for the interview with them and clear the charges leveled against her just as I had done. That is when she went underground and it later became apparent why she chose to ‘disappear’,” disclosed Dr Amjad.
Sharing details of his unsuccessful marriage with Dr Aafia, Dr Amjad told The News that since their marriage was arranged, he was unaware of Aafia’s violent behaviour. “She got hysterical fits when she became angry and would physically attack me, but I put up with it for the sake of our children.”
Although Amjad and Aafia both were inclined towards religion, he found her opinion towards Jihad to be of an extreme nature that sometimes made him uncomfortable. He became particularly suspicious of his wife’s intentions when soon after the 9/11 attacks, she compelled Amjad to leave Boston (where Amjad was completing his residency) and move to Afghanistan where she claimed “he would be more useful”.
The couple, however, chose to come to Pakistan instead for a vacation and discuss the matter with Amjad’s family. It was here that his parents noticed Aafia’s violent behaviour towards their son on several occasions, particularly when she openly asked for khula (divorce) when Amjad declined to go to Afghanistan. Therefore Amjad decided to file for a divorce as Aafia was adamant she wanted to go. “I tried my best to save our marriage, but divorce was inevitable,” he recalls.
However, after mutual consent, the couple signed a legal agreement whereby the custody of the three minors was given to Aafia, while Amjad was required to pay for their education and maintenance. “Although the agreement says I am permitted to meet my children once a week, I was not allowed to do so,” claimed Amjad sharing a copy of the agreement during the interview.
Based on his past experience, Amjad says he had reason to worry about his children. “I feared Aafia might pursue her political ambitions to the detriment of our children’s welfare so I couldn’t help following her case after her family claimed she had been abducted.” Amjad added that he was tempted to use other means to try and rescue his children in these past five years especially since he had evidence that were missing or kidnapped, he claimed. “But I chose to be patient and pursued the case according to the law.” He also filed a case in court against Aafia to obtain the custody of his children.
“When the Court was unsuccessful, I requested the HRCP to include my children’s names in their missing persons petition in the Supreme Court and also appealed to the Chief Justice for Suo Moto action as this was the only case where three minors were involved.”
However, after Ahmad was released and handed over to Dr Fowzia last year, Dr Amjad requested her to allow him to visit his son, but she refused. “At first she said Ahmed was mentally unfit to talk, and then claimed that he was not my son but an orphan adopted by Aafia and US reports that his DNA matched Aafia’s were also ‘cooked’. I refused to accept any of that as I had identified my son as soon as I saw a report on the electronic media of his arrest in Afghanistan.”
When questioned on what basis was Aafia’s family†denying a meeting with his son, Amjad stated that the family is punishing him for divorcing Aafia. “Aafia’s mother and Dr Fowzia had warned me at the time of our divorce that they would take revenge†by not letting me meet the children,” he said adding “But now they are discouraging a meeting with Ahmad because they fear Ahmad will reveal the truth about Aafia’s activities and whereabouts of his siblings over these years.”
He added that Dr Fowzia had similarly threatened him several years ago by taking a picture of Aafia while she was asleep after she injured her upper lip (by a milk bottle)†in an accident. Dr Fowzia warned Amjad that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he revealed.†
Furthermore, Amjad listed the several allegations leveled against him over the years to justify his not meeting his children: First they accused him of kidnapping his three children soon after his divorce with Aafia. To deny this accusation, he lodged a complaint against the family with the Sindh Police and requested officials to help him locate his children, but to no avail.
Later, Aafia’s family accused him of being an abusive husband and father preventing the children from meeting their father. “Aafia’s mother has also accused me in the media of changing the children’s names whereas in reality they had resorted to these tactics to conceal the children.”
He alleged that Dr Fowzia also used the Asian Human Rights Commission, an NGO based in Honk Kong, to mislead the government about his two missing children. “The AHRC received the information about my two missing children being in an orphanage in Afghanistan from Dr Fowzia, who was diverting attention away from the place where the children really are.” claimed Amjad.
Earlier, when Aafia’s father died, the family held Amjad responsible for his death too claiming he suffered a stroke after he saw the divorce document. “That is simply not true because I mailed the document two days after Aafia’s father died and that too because I was unaware of the unfortunate incident. Their family never kept me posted on anything in the six-week period between our verbal and written divorce. I was just as shocked at his death.”
Moreover, the family alleged that Aafia was in trouble and had been kidnapped because her former husband (Dr Amjad) handed over her personal diary to the FBI. “After this, false reports about Aafia’s arrest and Pakistani government’s involvement in handing her over to the US despite repeated denials by the Minister of Interior and other officials, started making headlines” claims the doctor, who has now re-married.
It is the whereabouts of his two children ñ Marium now aged 10, and six-year-old Suleiman ñ that worries him now, said Amjad. Like the coordinates of Dr Aafia Siddiqui remained a mystery after she was allegedly ‘picked up’ in March 2003, Dr Amjad believes Aafia’s family may be using the same tactics in the case of his two children, who are reportedly ‘missing’.
“I am sure they are around Karachi and in contact with their maternal family as both Aafia and the children were seen around their house here and in Islamabad on multiple occasions since their alleged disappearance in 2003. They may be living under an assumed identity just like Aafia and Ahmed had been living [as Saliha and Ali Ahsan] for five years before they got arrested,” believes the father. He said Dr Fowzia’s claim that the children are missing after being removed from the Bagram prison in Afghanistan ‘may be an attempt to attract sympathy of the government and the people and distract its attention from the real location.’
Claims most reports in the local media are false, suspects his two ‘missing’ children are in Karachi
KARACHI: After six years of silence, Dr Muhammad Amjad Khan, ex-husband of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, has finally spoken up and says that most of the press reports that relate to his former wife as well as his children are false. In an exclusive talk with The News, he said that most claims are being propagated to garner public support and sympathy for Dr Aafia but are one-sided and in most instances untrue.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, suspected of having links to terrorist organizations, has been charged in a criminal complaint filed in a court of New York on account of attempting to kill US personnel during interrogation and on a charge of assaulting US officers and employees in Kabul, Afghanistan, on July 17, 2008. Subsequently Dr Aafia was imprisoned in Bagram for 18 days before being taken to the US for a trial.
Due to pressure from Aafia Siddiqui’s family, the Pakistan government has been trying to secure her release from the US claiming her to be innocent. Although the US government has guaranteed Aafia the best legal assistance and a fair trial, her family is adamant that she be sent back on grounds that the US authorities have been consistently torturing her for years.
“Aafia’s release cannot be secured by propagating stories based on falsehood and deception,” commented Dr Amjad Khan, in an interview with The News. Dr Amjad, who was married to Dr Aafia for seven years until their divorce in October 2002, said Aafia’s family and supporters should not believe that truth will not be revealed and mere lies will help in securing Aafia’s repatriation.
He added that he is disappointed with the government’s disregard for the law when officials handed over his eldest son, Ahmad, to his aunt Dr Fowzia Siddiqui on his return from Afghanistan last year instead of his legal guardian, his father. “The government made no effort to locate me despite the fact that I am Ahmad’s real and legal guardian. My address in Karachi has not changed for the past 30 years. Ever since I returned from the US after our divorce, I have been living with my family,” he said adding: “Both the Minister for Interior Rehman Malik and Dr Fowzia have been taking credit for obtaining Ahmad’s release even though there was not a stone I left unturned to locate my missing children and obtain their custody according to law.”
Providing documentary proof of the legal agreement between him and Dr Aafia following their divorce, Dr Amjad said that he had been financially supporting his three children Ahmed, Marium and Suleiman until the family stopped accepting the cheques he had been mailing. “After the agreement they accepted my cheques till March 2003. After that my cheques were being returned from Aafia’s home and that got me worried. Soon after I learnt that in April 2003, Aafia and our children had been ‘picked up’ by agencies.” Meanwhile, he received disturbing reports from the family that Aafia chose to leave Karachi with her children as she feared an attack from him.
Curious to locate the whereabouts of his children, Dr Amjad sought the help of the police and government officials to find them. “I was aware of Aafia’s violent personality and extremist views and suspected her involvement in Jihadi activities. My fear later proved to be true when during Uzair Paracha’s trial in the US in 2004, the real purpose of Aafia’s trip to the US (between December 23, 2002 and January 3, 2003) was revealed.”
Elaborating, Dr Amjad disclosed that he later learnt from media reports that Aafia’s family claimed she made this trip to the US for job interviews in December at a time when universities were closed for winter holidays. “I also found it very odd that on the one hand Aafia insisted on leaving the US after September 11, 2001, claiming the country was unsafe for us and our children because the US government was abducting Muslim children, and on the other hand took the risk of travelling to that country again without fearing that she may be captured and may never see our children again.”
While Dr Aafia was in the US, the authorities had been closely watching her, added Amjad. They soon issued the first global “wanted for questioning” alert for the couple in March 2003. “At that time, the agencies did not know we were divorced and I was also unaware of Aafia’s involvement with two other terror suspects, Majid Khan and Ammar Al-Baluchi. They wanted me to persuade Aafia to appear for the interview with them and clear the charges leveled against her just as I had done. That is when she went underground and it later became apparent why she chose to ‘disappear’,” disclosed Dr Amjad.
Sharing details of his unsuccessful marriage with Dr Aafia, Dr Amjad told The News that since their marriage was arranged, he was unaware of Aafia’s violent behaviour. “She got hysterical fits when she became angry and would physically attack me, but I put up with it for the sake of our children.”
Although Amjad and Aafia both were inclined towards religion, he found her opinion towards Jihad to be of an extreme nature that sometimes made him uncomfortable. He became particularly suspicious of his wife’s intentions when soon after the 9/11 attacks, she compelled Amjad to leave Boston (where Amjad was completing his residency) and move to Afghanistan where she claimed “he would be more useful”.
The couple, however, chose to come to Pakistan instead for a vacation and discuss the matter with Amjad’s family. It was here that his parents noticed Aafia’s violent behaviour towards their son on several occasions, particularly when she openly asked for khula (divorce) when Amjad declined to go to Afghanistan. Therefore Amjad decided to file for a divorce as Aafia was adamant she wanted to go. “I tried my best to save our marriage, but divorce was inevitable,” he recalls.
However, after mutual consent, the couple signed a legal agreement whereby the custody of the three minors was given to Aafia, while Amjad was required to pay for their education and maintenance. “Although the agreement says I am permitted to meet my children once a week, I was not allowed to do so,” claimed Amjad sharing a copy of the agreement during the interview.
Based on his past experience, Amjad says he had reason to worry about his children. “I feared Aafia might pursue her political ambitions to the detriment of our children’s welfare so I couldn’t help following her case after her family claimed she had been abducted.” Amjad added that he was tempted to use other means to try and rescue his children in these past five years especially since he had evidence that were missing or kidnapped, he claimed. “But I chose to be patient and pursued the case according to the law.” He also filed a case in court against Aafia to obtain the custody of his children.
“When the Court was unsuccessful, I requested the HRCP to include my children’s names in their missing persons petition in the Supreme Court and also appealed to the Chief Justice for Suo Moto action as this was the only case where three minors were involved.”
However, after Ahmad was released and handed over to Dr Fowzia last year, Dr Amjad requested her to allow him to visit his son, but she refused. “At first she said Ahmed was mentally unfit to talk, and then claimed that he was not my son but an orphan adopted by Aafia and US reports that his DNA matched Aafia’s were also ‘cooked’. I refused to accept any of that as I had identified my son as soon as I saw a report on the electronic media of his arrest in Afghanistan.”
When questioned on what basis was Aafia’s family†denying a meeting with his son, Amjad stated that the family is punishing him for divorcing Aafia. “Aafia’s mother and Dr Fowzia had warned me at the time of our divorce that they would take revenge†by not letting me meet the children,” he said adding “But now they are discouraging a meeting with Ahmad because they fear Ahmad will reveal the truth about Aafia’s activities and whereabouts of his siblings over these years.”
He added that Dr Fowzia had similarly threatened him several years ago by taking a picture of Aafia while she was asleep after she injured her upper lip (by a milk bottle)†in an accident. Dr Fowzia warned Amjad that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he revealed.†
Furthermore, Amjad listed the several allegations leveled against him over the years to justify his not meeting his children: First they accused him of kidnapping his three children soon after his divorce with Aafia. To deny this accusation, he lodged a complaint against the family with the Sindh Police and requested officials to help him locate his children, but to no avail.
Later, Aafia’s family accused him of being an abusive husband and father preventing the children from meeting their father. “Aafia’s mother has also accused me in the media of changing the children’s names whereas in reality they had resorted to these tactics to conceal the children.”
He alleged that Dr Fowzia also used the Asian Human Rights Commission, an NGO based in Honk Kong, to mislead the government about his two missing children. “The AHRC received the information about my two missing children being in an orphanage in Afghanistan from Dr Fowzia, who was diverting attention away from the place where the children really are.” claimed Amjad.
Earlier, when Aafia’s father died, the family held Amjad responsible for his death too claiming he suffered a stroke after he saw the divorce document. “That is simply not true because I mailed the document two days after Aafia’s father died and that too because I was unaware of the unfortunate incident. Their family never kept me posted on anything in the six-week period between our verbal and written divorce. I was just as shocked at his death.”
Moreover, the family alleged that Aafia was in trouble and had been kidnapped because her former husband (Dr Amjad) handed over her personal diary to the FBI. “After this, false reports about Aafia’s arrest and Pakistani government’s involvement in handing her over to the US despite repeated denials by the Minister of Interior and other officials, started making headlines” claims the doctor, who has now re-married.
It is the whereabouts of his two children ñ Marium now aged 10, and six-year-old Suleiman ñ that worries him now, said Amjad. Like the coordinates of Dr Aafia Siddiqui remained a mystery after she was allegedly ‘picked up’ in March 2003, Dr Amjad believes Aafia’s family may be using the same tactics in the case of his two children, who are reportedly ‘missing’.
“I am sure they are around Karachi and in contact with their maternal family as both Aafia and the children were seen around their house here and in Islamabad on multiple occasions since their alleged disappearance in 2003. They may be living under an assumed identity just like Aafia and Ahmed had been living [as Saliha and Ali Ahsan] for five years before they got arrested,” believes the father. He said Dr Fowzia’s claim that the children are missing after being removed from the Bagram prison in Afghanistan ‘may be an attempt to attract sympathy of the government and the people and distract its attention from the real location.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)