Veena Malik full Story Indian and Malik's propaganda

Veena Malik who posed in the nude for an Indian magazine with the initials of Pakistan's  intelligence agency on her arm has triggered fury across the nation.

Veena Malik's photo on the website of FHM India, in advance of its publication in the magazine's December issue, has been lighting up social network website Facebook and Twitter since earlier this week.
Malik has broken Pakistani religious and national taboos in the past. She is a target for conservative and a heroine to some Pakistani liberals.

Maulana Abdul Qawi declared on Aaj TV on Saturday that her latest venture into controversy was a "shame for all Muslims." Farzana Naz, interviewed by the same channel on the streets of Lahore, said that the actress had "bowed all us women in shame."

Twitter commentator Umair Javed however called on Pakistanis to "make copies of the picture and bury it in your backyard. This way, our grandkids will know there were some amongst us who lived free!"

Asked by reporters whether Pakistan would "pursue the matter" legally, the country's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said Saturday, "First, let us see whether it is real or fake."

Malik for her part says that the photo at the root of the current uproar was published in violation of her agreement with FHM India. In an interview with Pakistani Geo television broadcast Saturday, Malik acknowledged having been photographed for a "bold but not nude shot." She said the editor of the magazine had promised that he would cover most of the photo with the ISI initials.

Malik said that the photo was intended to poke fun at the Indian fear of Pakistani spies: "Whatever happens (in India), people say ISI is behind that."

Malik said she would "probably" take a legal action against the magazine for violating terms and condition.

Magazine editor Kabeer Sharma said Malik did all with her full consent.

"We have all the record(s)," he told the Pakistani television station. "Veena was very excited about that ISI idea."

Read More

Wrong information of US

Pakistan on Friday said U.S. officials preparing to launch an attack near its border with Afghanistan had given the wrong information to Pakistani officials about where they intended to conduct an airstrike, leading to a hit on two border posts that killed 24 members of the Pakistani military.

U.S. officials in Washington on Thursday said that Pakistani officials at a border control center had given an all-clear. U.S. officials believe the correct coordinates were given to the Pakistanis, but said it's one of the issues investigators are looking at in the aftermath of the attack. Military officials in Washington also said Friday that Pakistan had decided for now not to participate in the U.S. investigation of the episode, which has further inflamed tensions between the sides over the 10-year Afghanistan conflict's worst friendly-fire incident. U.S. officials have called the Pakistani deaths a tragedy.

Pakistan, in protest of the attacks, halted the flow of NATO supplies across its border with Afghanistan.

The U.S. and its NATO allies could start running low on supplies for troops in Afghanistan in as little as 60 days if Pakistan keeps the border closed, according to officials briefed on the Pentagon's contingency planning. A monthslong border closure potentially could force NATO to slow the pace of military operations to conserve supplies, the officials said, though the Pentagon voiced confidence Friday that alternative ways would be found to bring in what troops need.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said border closures have yet to have an "appreciable" impact on NATO operations in Afghanistan but that any shutdown "magnifies over time."

He said Marine Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has started making an assessment of available supplies to figure out what he needs.

According to officials, the Pentagon sharply expanded stocks of ammunition and other military supplies inside Afghanistan after a 2010 cross-border raid prompted Pakistan to close the border for 10 days.

U.S. officials said they were concerned that border closures this time could last several weeks, if not longer.

"This is going to be a really painful one," said a senior defense official. "I wouldn't count on them opening the border anytime soon. The Pakistanis are really, really mad."

"The strategic effects of this are going to be long term," the official added.

NATO's main alternative to shipping through Pakistan is the so-called Northern Distribution Network, a system of rail, sea and truck routes that begin at Baltic and Black Sea ports and extend to Afghanistan through Central Asia. Officials said the military is drawing up contingency plans to temporarily expand the amount of cargo entering Afghanistan through that network to meet up to 75% of NATO's immediate resupply needs. The network, however, has its limits, since it was set up to only carry nonlethal supplies.

Officials said the biggest concern for NATO was a potential shortage of fuel if the border stays closed for long. NATO relies heavily on land routes through Pakistan to bring in much of the fuel Western forces use. "If two months go by we are talking megacrisis," said one official.

If Pakistan keeps the border closed for more than two months, officials said, the military might need to start reducing the pace of military operations in order to stretch out the supplies that it has, officials briefed on Pentagon planning said.

The official predicted that the Obama administration will not wait more than a month to begin to step up pressure on the Pakistani to open the border. The U.S. could threaten to withhold aid or exert other pressure on the government to begin to allow at least some critical supplies through.

Read More

Pakistan Air Force Exercise and UAV

The Inter-Services Public Relations stated on Friday the flight operations in the 70-nautical mile radius Multan air corridor were suspended for two hours in the wake of an exercise held by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). This led to diversion and rescheduling of flights.

The PK 682 from Lahore to Multan had taken off for its destination at 5:10pm, but was told to go back to Lahore and landed at the Allama Iqbal International Airport (AIIA). However, the flight was given a go ahead after about two hours and it finally departed for Multan at 6:58pm.

The PK652 from Hyderabad to Lahore had to land at Sukkur. It resumed its journey later and landed at the AIIA at 8:45pm. According to sources, the flights were re-directed in the air corridor after the armed forces radar spotted an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) east of the city, The News has learnt.

According to sources in armed forces, PAF fighters were scrambled to the area where the UAV was spotted to counter the probable threat. All flights to, from and through the air corridor were diverted or rescheduled.

Sources revealed that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was directed by the armed forces to shut down the Multan air corridor over a radius of 70 nautical miles as the forces radar had picked up a UAV east of Multan. However, no further details could be acquired vis-a-vis any encounter between the detected UAV and PAF fighters.

The UAV was spotted east of Multan, which indicates a high probability of its flying in from the eastern borders of the country. However, the probability of it flying in from the west and being spotted once it had reached the east-side cannot be completely ruled out. Armed forces, however, denied the presence of the UAV and attributed the air corridor’s closure to the PAF exercise.

When contacted, ISPR Director General Athar Abbas said that he did not have any information about the UAV or scrambling of the PAF jets. However, sources within the CAA said that PAF carried out similar exercises at the Rafiqui Airbase, Shorkot, Sargodha and Jacobabad, yet complete suspension of all air operations was not practiced there.

Read More

MPAs leave the PPP in Punjab

As Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani is chairing an important meeting of PPP’s Punjab Parliamentary Party on Saturday (today) at Governor’s House, a group of 10 party MPAs has decided to boycott the meeting and say good bye to their parent party for good.
The ‘rebel’ legislators, led by Malik Abbas Raan, gathered here Friday night and decided against attending the meeting, thus virtually parting ways with the PPP. One of the disgruntled MPAs, Dr, Akhtar Malik told  that there was little chance of their remaining part of their mother party after this decision. He said current PPP leadership had brought the country on the verge of disaster and it would not be wise to go along with this party.
Malik Abbas Raan, the ‘ring’ leader of the group, told this scribe that a group of 10 legislators from across Punjab had decided to boycott Saturday’s meeting to be chaired by Mr Gilani. He, however, said they wanted to be part of the PPP till completion of constitutional tenure of the present assemblies while maintaining safe distance from the party.
Today’s meeting is taking place against the backdrop of some party legislators’ announcement that they were going to form a forward bloc in Punjab Assembly under the umbrella of Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who has now joined PTI. The event is crucial as it would be at this meeting that PPP would come to know of its real strength in Punjab Assembly. Besides, those party MPAs who have made up their mind to join Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s camp, would also get exposed if they don’t turn up at Governor’s House today.
It may be noted here that only two PPP legislators from Multan, Dr Akhtar Malik and Malik Ghulam Abbas Raan have so far come out in the open against the party leadership. They also attended Shah Mahmood’s public rally at Ghotki last month when their leader announced to join the PTI.
The PPP has 108 members in Punjab Assembly and all have been sent invitations to attend the meeting. According to a PPP source, six party legislators, out of which two are females, could not be contacted when a legislator phoned them to inform about Saturday’s meeting.
When contacted, PPP’s Deputy Parliamentary Leader Shaukat Mahmood Basra expressed his confidence that around 100 MPAs would be attending the meeting. He said some legislators were out of country and a few others might not come due to illness. Basra said that only two party lawmakers who had announced to form forward bloc might not attend.
Meanwhile, ahead of Saturday’s party show, Governor Sardar Latif Khosa hosted a dinner in honour of the PPP legislators. Around 60 members arrived to dine with the governor, mostly belonging from far off districts, while those from adjoining districts of Lahore are expected to show up in the morning.
It has been learnt that the PM would announce Rs 50 million development package for each MPA in today’s meeting in a bid to keep the party intact.

Read More

Robert L. Grenier views on NATO attacks and Pakistan US relationship

It is hard to judge such things from a distance, but the Pakistani reaction this time feels qualitatively different from the crises preceding it over the past few months, from January's Raymond Davis affair, to May's Abbottabad raid on bin Laden, to September's public accusations of Pakistani perfidy from the outgoing US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One has the sense that a political and psychological barrier has been broken, and that even if the outward forms of cooperation and civility are restored, and the border crossings for NATO supplies into Afghanistan are reopened, things will not be the same for a very long time.

Observers far closer to the action than me say there is little chance of an outright break in relations. They are probably right. But while the situation may not become so obviously dramatic, the inner reality of US-Pakistan relations is likely to be so insidiously bitter and caustic as to preclude any real co-operation on anything touching regional security and stability.

We have seen this picture before. During the 1990s, finding itself heavily sanctioned by the Americans for pursuing what it felt were core national security interests in countering a nuclear-capable India, Pakistan came un-tethered from the international security and non-proliferation regime which the US was trying to promote. Denied other means, and believing that the US-led international framework was working against its interests, Pakistan was willing to deal with rogue states to acquire what it felt it needed.

Should Pakistan again feel that it has no core stake in co-operative relations with the US and the West, if it should conclude, in fact, that the US is undermining Pakistan's national security interests, there is no end of mischief which could arise, both in the immediate South Asian region, and much further afield. Difficulties in Afghanistan would only be the beginning. The notion of Pakistan as a nuclear-weapons state seeking other sources of aid and countervailing strategic alliances to oppose a perceived Washington-Kabul-New Delhi axis is one that should give the US considerable pause.

It is time for the US to get serious. The unintended consequences of its grossly disproportionate engagement in Afghanistan are simply becoming unbearable. With a much smaller presence and a sustainable policy, the United States can protect its core counter-terrorism interests in Afghanistan, and do so without further contributing to the international alienation and domestic unravelling of its far more important neighbour to the east.

The United States has some fundamental choices to make in South Asia, and they will not be easy. The US may be on a glide path to a proportionate and sustainable presence in Afghanistan, but the two years between now and 2014 is longer than anyone can afford to wait. The US is hoping that during those two years it can achieve through a political settlement something close to the maximal goals that force of arms could not, and it expects Pakistan to help deliver it. These are not only vain hopes, but ones whose stubborn pursuit threatens disastrous consequences.

Pakistan is, at best, a maddening and frustrating ally. Its combination of poor leadership and social and political weakness make it far more capable of harming US interests than of constructively contributing to them. But the current course is leading to disaster. In the end, by any objective measure, the US has far more at stake in Pakistan than it does in Afghanistan. This is the central, organising policy principle which Washington must grasp, before it is too late.
Robert L. Grenier -chairman of ERG Partners

Read More

is Pakistan and US link still vital?

THE DEPTH of Pakistan’s fury over a NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at a remote border post last week was on full display yesterday, as Pakistan shut off foreign news channels, including CNN, and refused to attend Monday’s international conference on Afghanistan’s future. This comes on top of Pakistan’s expulsion earlier this week of US personnel from an airbase that launched drones and its halting of trucks supplying the US military in Afghanistan.

It’s clear that the long-troubled US-Pakistan relationship is at a crossroads. But it should be equally clear that the United States and Pakistan still need each other, and that the Obama administration should do all it can to forestall a permanent rupture. While American frustration with Pakistan is understandable - whether over Pakistan’s ties to militants or its failure to arrest Osama bin Laden - an outright break would be far more costly than maintaining the current fragile and sometimes disingenuous friendship.

The core of the alliance is the exchange of American aid for Pakistani help in the fight against Islamic extremists. As imperfect as this relationship is - and as duplicitous as Pakistan’s military can be - a rupture in the alliance would damage counterterrorism operations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, undermining a string of successes against Al Qaeda. A rupture would also be a victory for extremists in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state. Given the stakes involved, the administration’s response has been surprisingly muted. The US military central command launched an investigation into the airstrike, which US officials said took place only after US soldiers came under fire. But a US military investigation is unlikely to sway anyone in Pakistan, where the attack has been described as deliberate and unprovoked. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed regret over Pakistan’s decision to boycott talks over Afghanistan’s future and over the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers. But her statements hardly seem to reflect the importance that the Obama administration placed on Pakistan just two years ago.

Meanwhile, Pakistanis are understandably shocked by images of their soldiers in coffins, killed by Americans. “We are already virtually at war,’’ Zafar Hilaly, a former Pakistani ambassador, wrote in a popular newspaper, The News.

Some US officials think it’s only a matter of time before Washington and Islamabad part ways. The CIA quietly shifted its drones to Afghanistan back in April, and the US military has been rerouting increasing amounts of supplies through Uzbekistan. Many American politicians are calling for an end to US aid to Pakistan. That would be a mistake. The Obama administration should do more to explain how costly a break with Pakistan would be, especially as the United States seeks to scale back the war in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is causing trouble in Afghanistan now, as an American ally, imagine what it would do as an enemy.

Source: Boston Globe

Read More

US covertly contacts anti-Pakistan Taliban

Following Islamabad’s refusal to attend the Bonn conference to be held in Germany on December 5th to protest against NATO attack, Washington is covertly trying to take anti-Pakistan Taliban on board, it was reliably learnt here on Wednesday.
Diplomatic sources revealed that senior US military officers met Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah, presently based in Afghanistan, after NATO’s unprovoked raid on Pak Army checkpoints that killed 24 officers and wounded many others.
The unprovoked NATO attack comes after General Kayani had clearly stated that Pakistan has no intention of launching an armed action in North Waziristan and there is no question of a compromise on national honour in developing relations with the US.
The US and NATO military command convinced Fazlullah and other anti-Pakistan elements, who were present in the meeting, to participate in peace talks with Pentagon and assured him full support for carrying out terror activities inside Pakistan, a source familiar with the development told this report on the condition of anonymity. The abrupt deployment of US forces near Pak-Afghan border has escalated tension in the region especially the militancy-plagued North Waziristan.
It is important to mention here that Pak Army has repeatedly asked ISAF to act against militants, like Fazlullah, but US has failed to respond positively.
When US have certain expectations from Pakistan, it should reciprocate in the same spirit, sources said, adding, the US is playing a double game in Afghanistan, blaming Pakistan for allegedly providing sanctuaries to Taliban while feeding anti-Pakistan Taliban with dollars and ammunition to undertake terrorist activities inside Pakistan.
Though in Pakistan, the security forces have completely left it to the political leadership to decide whether to hold talks with the Taliban or not, the US-led NATO forces are providing safe havens to terrorists involved in terror attacks against Pakistan.
The Bonn meeting, wherein Foreign Ministers from around 90 countries are expected to discuss ways and means to stabilise the war-torn country before a final withdrawal takes place in 2014, is aimed at bringing together Western and regional leaders to map out a strategy. Defence experts stated that without Pakistan’s participation, Bonn meeting would a complete failure as regional players like Russia, China and Iran have already expressed their serious reservations about the dubious US exit-plan.
For this second Bonn Conference, there is still an ambiguity on participation of major Taliban representatives. Kabul insists that there will be a single Afghan delegation for the conference wherein, the European diplomats say, Taliban representatives can be part.
President Karzai who will chair the conference is all set to take along a hand picked delegation to Bonn that may not have even the true representatives of Afghan society.
But that looks illusionary as Mullah Omar; the Taliban commander has indicated his aversion to attend the conference in an Eid message.
As the manifestation of endgame in Afghanistan appears to be somewhat within perceivable range, the US pressure and demands on Pakistan escalate with impulsive and reckless propaganda against Pak Army and ISI using media.
The aim is to twist Pakistan’s arm, forcing the leadership to bow before US agenda and change direction, ignoring Pakistan’s national interests and strategic goals. Independent observers sat that for any decisive victory; US must take stock of ground realities and bring all stakeholders on board, not the anti-Pakistan elements alone. Infact, US has seriously destabilised Pakistan in the process and it seems that Pakistan would have to face more grave problems once US exits from Afghanistan.
Stability in Afghanistan will remain a far possibility till all the stakeholders including Pashtuns and Taliban are brought on the same page. At the same time concerns of regional states like Pakistan, Iran and China also need to be addressed through a cool thought-out process rather than using sizzling arrogance of power. The recently held ‘Istanbul Conference’ could not agree to any major proposals on Afghanistan. Iran, Pakistan as China and Russia remained non-committal to the idea of US military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
Security experts say that commitments and more commitments will be the result of the second Bonn Conference as a decade-old history of such conferences on Afghanistan has proved. It is a fact that majority of the US-led coalition countries want their troops out of Afghanistan sooner than later with or without a declared victory ignoring the Afghan woes.
They believe that exit of the US-led forces from Afghanistan will automatically prepare a ground for mutual ending of the hostilities and violence by various factions in Afghanistan.

Read More