Archive for the ‘The Nation’ Category

« Older Entries

Media Priorities

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

Today we began what we believe will be an interesting experiment in observing media priorities. We started by looking at what different newspapers found to be worthy of front page coverage and also the topics of each paper’s editorials. The results might surprise you…but probably not.

Yesterday, Pakistan suffered a serious attack in which at least 33 people have been killed and hundreds more wounded. The attacks targeted a Shi’a procession in Lahore. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claimed responsibility for the attack almost immediately.

With this recent tragedy still fresh in the nation’s consciousness, we wanted to know what the media companies thought was important today? First, let’s take a look at the front pages of several newspapers:

Dawn Front Page 2 Sept 2010 The News Front Page, 2 September 2010 The Nation Front Page, 2 Sept 2010
Judging by column space, the most important story seems to be what a good deal you will get from the media companies’ advertisers. Okay, yes, newspapers do require advertising to keep subscription fees low. But it is worth noting still that The Nation has more advertising than actual reporting on the front page, though Dawn and The News are not far behind.

What’s more interesting, though, is what each newspaper thinks is most important to report on the front page. The Nation has a few stories about the attacks in Lahore, but devotes at least as much space to stories about Supreme Court’s hearings on the 18th Amendment, US-Pakistan strategic talks, NAB, and inflation.

Dawn devotes the majority of its print space to coverage of the terror attack in Lahore, with the next biggest stories being flooding and the Sialkot lynching.

The News devotes about equal space to the Lahore attacks as they do advertising, but the majority of column space is for stories about floods and politics.

Editorial Pages

Editorial pages are where the official position of a publication is printed. The following topics appeared today.

The News

  • Sialkot Murders
  • 18th Amendment and appointment of judges
  • School reading curriculums

Dawn

  • Taxes
  • Criticism of US treatment of military officers
  • Objectives resolution

The Nation

  • Criticism of US treatment of military officers
  • Oil prices
  • Criticism of government handling floods

It’s interesting, I think, that none of these three major newspapers had any editorial condemning the Lahore attacks. Surely they will make some statement at some point, but why was it not a priority? That’s not to say that school reading curriculum and oil prices are not important, but why did the news organizations decide those were more important than making a statement on the killings?

American intellectual Noam Chomsky has spoken for decades about what he calls “manufacturing consent”. He describes the way that major media organizations decide what is worthy of discussion, and that this has an influence on the way that society evolves.

It’s basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We’re talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs.

Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.

And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

Mr Chomsky was, of course, writing about the media in his own country, but the same theory pertains to our media as well. This is not a judgment against the media, but it is something to be aware of. Not only does the content of reporting shape the way people perceive certain issues, but the decision about what is newsworthy is a very powerful part of media. Thus, you should ask yourself – are the media’s priorities my priorities? Or are they different?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, The Nation, The News | 2 Comments »

Media Double Game Against Bilawal?

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Last night Bilawal Bhutto Zardari released a statement about his immediate future. In short, he says, “I am currently looking into the possibility of studying law” and will not be jumping into politics as widely reported. According to his statement, Bilawal felt compelled to act out, “to counter some inaccurate information that has recently been reported”. While there was certainly much media attention to the alleged speech planned for Saturday, what is more telling is the way Bilawal’s future and his more immediate decision to open a donation center for flood victims has been treated in the news media.

On Thursday, Dawn reported that “Speech by Bilawal fuels talk of political career”.

But now he has finished his history degree at Christ Church, seen as one of the most aristocratic of Oxford’s colleges, speculation is growing about what steps he will now take towards his political destiny.

Bhutto, who is already chairman of the PPP, is expected to speak before several thousand of its supporters at an event in Birmingham, central England, alongside his father who is visiting Britain.

It was not so far fetched for media to report that Bilawal would be at the rally scheduled for Saturday since Waheed Rasab, the PPP’s coordinator in Britain, told reporters as much. But the truth is, this was mostly speculation.

As a result, Dawn reported today about Bilawal’s statment.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Thursday spoke for the first time in many months, only to categorically deny the prevalent impression created by a section of the media that he was to launch his political career over the weekend by attending a public meeting in Birmingham.

One has to wonder, with all the speculation about whether Bilawal will make a speech and enter politics, all the party coordinators and “anonymous sources” who were telling what was going to happen – why did no journalist actually bother to ask Bilawal what he thinks?

More disturbing, though, is that even Bilawal’s statement has not stopped certain media companies from continuing political attacks in their reporting.

The Nation’s report on the statement includes the following conclusion:

The sources said that PPP took decision not to launch political career of Bilawal Bhutto Zaradri due to severe criticism launched by the media and politicians that in tough circumstance, President Zardari has left for UK to launch political career of his son.

Nowhere in the article does it reveal who these “sources” are, or what their evidence is for this claim, of course. This seems like a pretty transparent attempt for the media to take the credit for something that Bilawal is doing. So, when Bilawal does something they don’t like, it is his fault. When he does something they do like, The Nation claims credit.

The News, however, is even worse. On 1 August, the newspaper wrote that Bilawal “would do well by stepping in to cancel the ceremony and instead setting about to prove himself a worthy leader through more solid action rather than flamboyant gestures.”

Upon the release of Bilawal’s statement, however, The News quickly changed its tune. This morning’s newspaper is actually critical of Bilawal’s move.

Chairman of the PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari dramatically declared last night that he would not address the Birmingham rally on Saturday, August 07, putting cold water on the plans that he would be launched as the party chief and adding a new sense of drama to the countrywide campaign against President Zardari.

In a dramatic climbdown, the 21-year-old son of Benazir said that he would continue with his studies and wanted to stay away from the media. The move comes as a humiliation to the party mandarins who were preparing for weeks for his grand entry into politics.

It is worth noting here that The News may have slipped in admitting that there is a “campaign against President Zardari”. Of course, this should not be a surprise to readers of The News, which has a sordid history recently of publishing unsubstantiated political attacks.

But it is especially important to note that the political bias of The News is clearly evident in their inability to give proper recognition to Bilawal even when he does something that the very newspaper says it hopes for! Rather than praising Bilawal for canceling his appearance and setting up a donation point for flood victims, The News calls the move “a humiliation”. This is a double game against Bilawal – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

To their credit, Dawn, Daily Times and Express Tribune reported the development without infusing an opinion into their reporting. This shows that there are some journalists content to simply report the facts, and this should be encouraged.

Still, we must look at this episode as a part of the ongoing problem with media speculation, wishful journalism, substituting opinions for facts, and playing political double games. Bilawal aside, we all deserve better.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, Express Tribune, Jang, The Nation, The News | 14 Comments »

The Nation’s Article About ISI Report Filled With Factual Errors

Friday, June 18th, 2010

The Nation has published an article criticising a recent report published by London School of Economics (LSE) that claims the Taliban is working under direction of ISI. The article, by reporter Sikander Shaheen, is shameful as it is a hysterical conspiracy theory with a complete lack of factual basis. Actually, the only source that The Nation quotes even contradicts its own article.

The article we are examining, “LSE’s ‘research’ sole creation of a Zionist”, claims that the controversial report about ISI is the work of Jewish propaganda by the US government. This is not supported by any facts.

First, the entire premise of The Nation’s article is incorrect and easily proven to be so. What is shocking, in fact, is that The Nation appears to have published accusations about the author of this report without doing basic fact-checking.

The Nation’s reporter Sikander Shaheen accuses the author of the controversial report, Mr Matt Waldman, of being “an American author and a Jew by faith.” In fact, Mr Matt Waldman is neither.

These factual errors were confirmed by simply emailing to the author’s publicly available email address and asking. Below are his responses.

First, I asked, “Would you confirm if your faith is Judaism or not?”

You’re correct – my faith is not Judaism and never has been.

Second, I asked, “I suspect from your biography posted on the Harvard University website as well as your interview with Al Jazeera that you are also an Englishman – not an American – is this correct also?”

Yes that’s correct – I’m English.

Here is the interview with Mr Waldman on Al Jazeera that was the first clue that The Nation’s reporting was factually incorrect. How can anyone see this interview and say that Matt Waldman is ‘an American author and a Jew by faith’? Obviously they have not done even elementary fact-checking to publish this.

If The Nation cannot be bothered to verify such simple facts as the nationality and religion of a public person like Mr Matt Waldman, how can we trust any of their other claims? As it turns out, these basic facts are not the only problems with this article.

Sikander also claims without any evidence that the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University is a well-known ‘US Government propaganda outlet. Even this claim does not stand up using basic research and fact-checking.

In 2006, researchers from the Kennedy School of Government were criticised in the Jerusalem Post for a report that questioned the influence of Israel’s lobbying on US foreign policy.

Prominent Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is taking on the authors of the study, which blasted the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, AIPAC. Dershowitz, one of Israel’s strongest defenders in the American public and academic arena, was mentioned personally in the study as an “apologist” for Israel, claiming he is one of those responsible for endorsing the notion that Israel pursued peace in the Middle East for many years. Dershowitz slammed the authors – Stephan Walt, from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago – and challenged them to a public debate at the Kennedy School. “You have to counter this article”, Dershowitz told The Jerusalem Post, “These are two serious scholars and you need to expose what they have done as ignorant propaganda”.

In fact, a Kennedy School of Government report from April 2008 praises the Hajj for building religion and tolerance.

We find that participation in the Hajj increases observance of global Islamic practices such as prayer and fasting while decreasing participation in localized practices and beliefs such as the use of amulets and dowry. It increases belief in equality and harmony among ethnic groups and Islamic sects and leads to more favorable attitudes toward women, including greater acceptance of female education and employment. Increased unity within the Islamic world is not accompanied by antipathy toward non-Muslims. Instead, Hajjis show increased belief in peace, and in equality and harmony among adherents of different
religions.

It seems that calling Kennedy School of Government reports ‘propaganda’ is simply an easy accusation for anyone that does not like the contents of the research. Or does Sikander Shaheen and The Nation believe that the US government is making anti-Israel and pro-Hajj propaganda also?

At the end of the article, Sikander quotes another article written by Raven Gale. This does not appear to be an article published in any newspaper, but a blog post from the website www.ZoneAsia-Pk.com. Even here The Nation fails to be honest because it only quotes part of the Raven Gale’s post that it likes. Actually, the conclusion of the post by Raven Gale contradicts The Nation’s article.

The US has spent US $ 300 billion in Afghanistan so far and it is spending US $ 70 billion annually. 1800 foreign troops of which 1100 are Americans have been killed in Afghanistan. Surely the US would not be doing all this if it was not completely sure of the alliance with Pakistan—if the ‘research paper’ seeks to undermine the US-Pakistan relationship then it is subversive for US policy and goals.

If you are to believe Sikander Shaheen and The Nation, you must think the US government is making propaganda to undermine itself.

All of this is hugely disappointing because there are real and pressing questions about Mr Matt Waldman’s report that can and should be asked without resorting to wild accusations and conspiracy theories. For example, The Nation article notices that,

The paper lacks any mention about the number of casualties suffered by Pakistan Army and public in American war against terrorism that caused irreparable setbacks to Pak economy.

This is an important and legitimate point. So why does The Nation only write this one sentence? Why does The Nation not make some actual arguments about Mr Waldman’s points like Al Jazeera does? Instead they are spending almost all of the article making accusations against the author Mr Waldman and hysterical conspiracies of Jews and American propaganda

This shameful act by The Nation is not only a waste of time, it also undermines any legitimate criticism of Mr Waldman’s report by making those who ask legitimate questions – not to mention Pakistan as a whole – look like crazy people.

Pakistan Media Watch calls on The Nation to publish a full apology and correction.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 3 Comments »

The Nation’s Casual Propaganda

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Not all conspiracies or propaganda are obvious. Actually, that is what makes propaganda work. Sometimes, it is a subtle message the reinforces an idea in the subconscious. This is the ultimate form of propaganda, really – producing a message that is not so obvious to the reader so he doesn’t know he’s being influenced. A perfect example of this can be found in an article in The Nation about the Afghanistan war.

The article is very short, two paragraphs only. In fact, it’s hardly an article at all, but really just a quote from the American Defense Minister, Robert Gates. What is interesting is not the article, though, but the image that is posted along with it. Take a look:

The Nation's use of imagery as political propaganda

Do you notice anything curious about the photo? At first glance, you might not. After all, that is the face of Robert Gates, who is quoted in the article. But look closely.  Why they have Photoshopped in an Israeli flag.

What does Israel have to do with this article? Nothing. The point of the image is not related to the contents of the article except that it is meant to reinforce an idea that there is some connection between American military and Israel and Afghanistan. If The Nation has something to report about this, why don’t they report it? Instead, they only write a short article and give you the image to affect your subconscious.

This is a perfect example of political propaganda being pushed in the news media. It more sinister even than a misinformed article because it is intended only to affect the subconscious without his knowing it. You might read about Robert Gates and Afghanistan, but your mind will make a connection between American military and Israel, even though that is nowhere in the article.

The Nation is no stranger to conspiracy theories. Perhaps they should take a look at their own practices, though, if they want to find some really sinister propaganda.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Conspiracy Theories, The Nation | No Comments »

Drone Attacks And Roots of Terror

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Yesterday’s The Nation included an editorial that claimed to explain the root causes of terrorism and called on the goverment to ‘do more’ to solve the problem. The primary cause of terrorism, according to The Nation, is US foreign policy, including drone attacks. I was especially curious about one item that comes up every time terrorism and the Americans are discussed in the media: drone attacks.

Drone attacks are the targeted killings of suspected militants using what are known as Unmanned Arial Vehichles (UAV) or drones. These aircraft are flown remotely and the weapons aboard them are fired remotely are controlled by Americans working with Pakistani military.

The Nation, as well as many other media voices, are quite opposed to drone attacks due to their habit of killing not just the one person who was targeted, but some innocent people who might be standing next to the target. Now, some will ask how an innocent person finds themself standing next to someone like Hakimullah Mehsud – but, again, that is for someone else to argue about.

The Nation gives a fairly common argument:

…one of the major causes of post-9/11 terrorism in Pakistan has been the US policies in this region – which are increasingly revealing their anti-Muslim character. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, these policies have been and continue to be directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims – through military actions including the drone attacks.

My curiousity had to do with how bad these drone attacks actually are. So, I did a little bit of research and found this excellent web page that has a map of drone attacks from 2004 to 2010 examines the actual number of casualties.

Our study shows that the 135 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 39 in 2010, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 944 and 1,398 individuals, of whom around 654 to 1,011 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 30 percent.

This is an interesting statistic. In the past six years, 70% of those killed by drone attacks were reliably reported as militants by the press. 

I also did some research to find out how many Pakistanis have been killed by militants. The results were a bit surprising. First, I had a hard time finding anything quite as comprehensive as the map of drone attacks and the research on militants killed by drones. There does not seem to be – at least as far as I can find – anyone who wants to create a map that tracks civilians killed by Taliban.

But I did find some interesting research. According to a report by Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, in one year alone – 2009 – 3,021 innocent Pakistanis were killed and 7,334 were injured by terrorist attacks. According to the South Asia Intelligence Review, there have been over 7,500 civilians and 2,876 Pakistani troops killed by militants.

About 300 deaths by drone attacks have been innocents. In the same time period, over 10,000 innocents have been killed by terrorists.

Headlines from the past week have told that militant attacks killed 90 Ahmadis who were praying, 5-12 hospital workers in Lahore, and 3 or more people when Taliban blew up another girls school and health centre. Was this in response to drone attacks also?

Drone attacks are controversial, and this blog is not here to defend the practise. Not only The Nation, but officials with the UN have called for an end to the programme. But it is important to consider all the facts when discussing an issue as important as root causes of terrorism. The Nation asks a very important question:

“The question, though, for us is why in all instances, Pakistani citizens are vulnerable to being recruited as terrorists?”

This is a vital question, I agree completely. But to find the answer, we will have to look a little bit deeper than only drone attacks and American policies. That these practices are used by terrorist recruiters is no question. But The Nation is telling the same thing as terrorist recruiters – if drone attacks stop and Americans go away, terrorism will stop. I tell you, I wish it was so easy. 

The simple fact is, as bad as drone attacks might be, 300 deaths does not explain the 10,000 and more people who are being killed by terrorists in our nation. Ahmadis are not launching drone attacks. Drones are not being kept in girls schools. 

The Nation is asking the right questions, but it is avoiding the difficult truths.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in The Nation | No Comments »

The Nation Exploits Lahore Massacre

Monday, May 31st, 2010

The Nation exploits the Lahore massacre today by using the dreadful event as an opportunity to perpetuate a political agenda that has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. Its editorial, “Bloodbath at Lahore,” suggests that the root causes of this massacre lie not within our own society, but outside. Of course, the usual culprits are responsible for everything.

There is certainly a time and a place for criticism of the US and its foreign policy. Whatever one’s particular opinion of American policy towards Pakistan, certainly intelligent people can disagree and have an honest debate about particular facts of that issue. But the murder of over 90 innocent people whose only crime was praying in a way the Taliban did not approve of has nothing to with the Americans, RAW, or economics. It has to do with our own problems that we must face and overcome. To try to make it appear otherwise only distracts from the real issues that created such a monster in our society.

And this is exactly what The Nation does – try to distract from the real issues by blaming someone else.

The incident should rouse the nation to seriously reflect upon the causes of such unfortunate events that keep recurring with frightening frequency. The massive inroads of intelligence agencies of enemy powers out to destabilise the country; the worsening economic conditions that make it possible for them to lure away the poor, hopeless youth to work for them and even resort to suicide for meeting the needs of survival of the remaining family members; the high rate of illiteracy that proves a fertile ground for breeding a mindset of militant fanaticism and readily accepts the logic of throwing away the gift of life; and, above all, a weak, inefficient and corrupt government that lets the above ugly scenario build up as a result of its policies, which promote foreign powers’ agendas to the detriment of national interests – these are some of the glaring factors that lie at the root of such bloody happenings.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the The Nation’s disgust at this murderous event, but like their employee Shireen Mazari, they simply cannot be bothered to face the facts. Are we honestly to believe that severing ties with the Americans would make the TTP less murderous? That it would solve the problem of anti-minority prejudice?  That the terrorists would stop recruiting, stop killing, stop their war on Pakistan? That all of the religious extremists would suddenly throw down their weapons and become democrats?

The Nation obviously blames RAW, USA, Zardari – everyone but the actual extremists. This was no drone attack; it was no conspiracy of the fabled Indian-Isreali nexus. It was the result of violent extremist teachings that are widely available across the country, and the brainwashing of our youth. Why does The Nation not speak out about this? Why does The Nation not condemn the people here in Pakistan who mislead our youth by infecting their minds with a virus of hate and violence?

Newspapers play a vital role in our country. They present information to people who are not present at the scene of a major event so that all citizens can better understand what happens in their country and make informed judgments about how to proceed. By exploiting the Lahore massacre to promote their specific political ideology at the expense of actually informing the citizens of the facts, The Nation has failed in its job.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 1 Comment »

How Sad for Shireen Mazari

Saturday, May 29th, 2010

How sad for Shireen Mazari that her sickness – her overwhelming paranoid-obsession with the Americans – so clouds her mind. As we grieve for our brothers who were murdered in cold blood by TTP jihadis, she almost gets it right. Shireen Mazari was so close to writing an excellent column. At the last minute, though, she could not help herself. She was overcome with her Anti-American Tourette Syndrome.

Her column, “Our collective shame and some troubling questions,” actually begins quite well. She sees the slaughter of innocent Ahmadis in the middle of prayer as a wicked act that speaks to the degredation of our society acted out by religious imposters.

Islam which teaches brotherhood and tolerance has all but disappeared in spirit and essence from within us and, instead, we are filled with hatred, intolerance and a desire to simply kill all those who may differ from us. As for the Pakistani nation, how far we have sunk from the ideal of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah should be shamefully visible to every sane Pakistani.

In fact, Shireen Mazari goes on to call on us to stop looking to blame others for our own problems, and to take responsibility for the extremist ideologies that have infected our society.

 There can be no shying away from this horrendous act in Lahore and it is time that the Pakistani nation took stock of itself and its leadership and made a determined effort to restore the spirit of tolerance and accommodation that is the essence of Islam and that must be the essence of our nationhood since Pakistan comprises a rich diversity of people – all of whom are equally dedicated and loyal to this land.

This is all quite good! I must admit, when I read it my heart began to lighten. Shireen Mazari is an excellent writer, though her hatred of America has blinded her too often to the realities under her own roof. It has led her to concoct the most ridiculous conspiriacy theories, so poorly constructed a school child could disprove them quite easily. She has aligned herself with the Ahmed Quraishi and Zaid Hamid school that teaches that facts and reason are to be avoided, leaving her isolated from former colleagues who lament her fall into paranoia. So for Shireen Mazari to finally write a column like this was a breakthrough to be applauded.

Or so I thought.

It wasn’t until I reached the end of the column that that familiar voice began to seep through the page. There had to be some mention of the Americans. There had to be some conspiracy. Nothing could simply be a horrible, wicked act perpetrated by sick minds under the influence of religious imposters. And there it was.

There are also some troubling questions about the Lahore targeting of the two Ahmadi places of worship:

First: The timing comes at the peak of US pressure for the Pakistan Army to begin its operations in North Waziristan Agency. Mere coincidence or not, every time the US has wanted the Pakistan military to commence an operation in FATA, there have been such acts of terror prior to the commencement.

Second: The incidents happened when Pakistanis were celebrating Youm-i-Takbeer, the anniversary of our going overtly nuclear – something that still is not acceptable to the West and Israel.

Third: What is equally relevant is that our Government and our national security managers need to seriously look into how friendly spy agencies from West Asia and the US-UK were allowed to establish direct links to Kashmiri freedom groups based in Pakistan, especially central and south Punjab, during the Bosnia war.

It’s sad, really, to so clearly see the sickness that is a paranoid obsession. Shireen Mazari is not a stupid person, by any means. She knows that the Americans had nothing to do with this. She knows that these murders had nothing to do with nuclear assets. Sometimes an apple is only an apple. But her mind is like a warped glass that reflects a distorted view of the world. It is as if she cannot help herself, no matter how hard she tries.

Shireen Mazari begins with a noble call to shed the hatred and intolerance that can cause some terrible event like we suffered this week. But then she ends overcome by her own hatred and intolerance. Someday, perhaps she will be cured of this sickness and finally know some peace.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 3 Comments »

Grading Shireen Mazari’s Faisal Shahzad Conspiracy

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Shireen Mazari Gets Failing GradeShireen Mazari has written the master piece of conspiracy literature about the Faisal Shahzad case. I am grateful for her putting it all in order so that it can be so easily refuted. Writing for The Nation on Monday, Mazari manages to get everything wrong, right from the beginning. Let’s grade her answers in order and show her mistakes so that maybe she will learn for the future.

1. Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan

Hillary Clinton has once again come into her own true self and issued a direct threat to Pakistan of “severe consequences” if the ‘terror attack’ of Time Square New York City had been successful and found to have definitively originated in Pakistan.

FALSE
As proven yesterday, Hillary Clinton did not issue any threat to Pakistan. This is a lie. Here is what Hillary Clinton actually said:

“I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking. They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country.”

2. US government and media are ignoring facts

Why are the US government and media paying no heed to Shahzad’s alleged connection to the Yemeni cleric and to the Taliban’s clear denial of any link to Shahzad?

FALSE
A simple Google News search shows hundreds of articles about Faisal Shahzad and Anwar al-Awlaki and also hundreds more about Taliban denying a link to Faisal Shahzad. Does Shireen Mazari not have any Internet access? Officials from the US government first said they did not believe there was any link. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano called him a ‘lone wolf.’

3. Ambassador to Washington was silent

Why did our Ambassador to Washington maintain a strange silence in the immediate aftermath instead of seeking access to Faisal Shahzad, given that despite being a US citizen his Pakistani links were being played up?

FALSE
Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani was on CNN News to discuss the incident. Also he was in all of the newspapers with some statements. Does Shireen Mazari not read the news herself?

4. Foreign Minister Qureshi must have known Faisal Shahzad to make a statement about the cause

More important, how did he know the cause unless he had met Shahzad, knew him earlier or had been told by him that this was the reason behind his alleged action?

FALSE
Foreign Minister Qureshi was was speaking to CBS News soon after Faisal Shahzad was captured. His statement about the atttempt being a response to drone attacks was obviously his preliminary evaluation of the situation. Also, why is it so unbelievable that the attack would be a response to drones? Aren’t drone attacks what Shireen Mazari and The Nation have been upset about for years? A government official does not have to know a miscreant in order to have an opinion.

4. Interior Minister Malik assumed Faisal Shahzad was guilty

Interior Minister also made a similar statement as if Shahzad had been found guilty already.

FALSE
Interior Minister Rehman Malik was only repeating the facts as he heard them – as was everyone. Also, Faisal Shahzad admitted his guilt. Why is is that Shireen Mazari believes confessed terrorists to be innocent, but presumes government officials to be guilty?

5. Faisal Shahzad’s father was arrested, showing that this government is as bad as Musharraf.

Why should the father of Shahzad have been arrested? Apparently it was given out that his arrest was to facilitate the FBI team but is it the job of the government to aid and abet the US or to protect its own citizens? It would appear the answer is the former for this government, in which case there is little difference in how this democratic government is treating its citizens and how Musharraf treated Pakistanis.

FALSE
This is just silly. First of all, Faisal Shahzad’s father was not arrested.

The interrogators questioned Bahar Ul Haq in the northwestern Pakistan city of Peshawar. The retired senior Pakistani air force officer is the father of Shahzad.

Ul Haq — who lives in the Peshawar suburb of Hayatabad — was neither detained nor arrested, the source said.

Second, how can Shireen Mazari compare treatment of citizens under the present government to Musharraf? That is so ridiculous that it does not deserve a response.

6. Civil and military leadership are allowing US to threaten Pakistan

What is truly disturbing though is the civil and military leadership’s silence on questioning US intent. Why are we allowing the US to threaten us while we continue to entertain their civil, military and intelligence teams/delegations? Why are we not insisting on out investigation team being in Washington if the US can send an FBI team to Pakistan?

FALSE
This is not only silly, it is offensive. Shireen Mazari may make her money by spreading rumour and conspiracy theories, but civil and military leaders have real jobs and real responsibilities. Also, why would we send a an investigation to Washington? The attack was in New York and Faisal said he was trained in Pakistan. Only Shireen Mazari would want to send investigators to a city where nothing happened.

7. Military is cowardly for not starting war with America

In the aftermath of the Clinton threat, at the very least shouldn’t the Pakistan government suspend cooperation with the US, at least temporarily? Should our ambassador not convey our displeasure at this overt threat? Stoppage of NATO supplies and the downing of a drone will send a clearer message than any apologetic mumblings from the leadership. Finally, is our military prepared to compromise our defence and security, target more Pakistani civilians, simply to do the US bidding and commence a premature and hasty North Waziristan operation?

FALSE
This is not just silly. It is insulting and dangerous. Our soldiers are every day fighting and dying to protect the freedom of Shireen Mazari to go around head uncovered and making all sorts of false conspiracies (see above). Now she has the audacity to call them cowards? Already we have shown that there was no ‘overt threat’ made against Pakistan. It is not my place here to comment on whether drone attacks are wise or not, but certainly it seems that shooting one down would make matters much worse. Why does Shireen Mazari trying to create more violence? Perhaps Shireen Mazari should let Gen. Kayani and the military leadership do their own jobs.

Shireen Mazari concludes here column with a ‘hodge-podge’ of conspiracy theories. Apparently we will see US troops invade Pakistan to destabilize the government and steal Paksitan’s nukes while the ‘US/IMF’World Bank’ works to destroy Pakistan. All of this she provides no evidence for, of course. She just says it as if wishing would make it come true. And how sad that someone like Shireen Mazari would only wish the worst for her country.

Debunking Shireen Mazari’s crazy conspiracy theories was not difficult. It only took a few minutes of Google searches and remembering articles that I’ve read in the newspapers or programmes I’ve seen on TV recently.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conspiracy Theories, The Nation | 8 Comments »

What did Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder really say?

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder

Yesterday, The Nation suggested the entire Faisal Shahzad case is a ’set up’ to trap Pakistan, and that we may be facing an ‘imminent attack’ by the Americans. The evidence they present are some statements by American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and American Attorney General Eric Holder. Both statements, which were made during TV interviews, have been used by commentators to suggest that there are threats from the US against Pakistan. The Nation, unsurprisingly, is the most hysterical. But what did these American officials actually say?

Here is what The Nation wrote in its editorial published yesterday, “US attack imminent?”

FIRST it was Hillary Clinton issuing a threat to Pakistan; this has been followed by an even more ominous threat to Pakistan from the US Attorney General Eric Holder. He stated that if Pakistan failed to “take appropriate action” against the Taliban, the US will. If the message is still unclear to anyone in Pakistan, this latest threat should leave absolutely no room for any doubt that the US now intends to target Pakistan far beyond the FATA region and certainly with more than just drones.

This is a serious claim! The Nation is accusing the American Secretary of State and Attorney General of threatening Pakistan with attack. Is this true?

Let’s look first at the entire conversation between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the interviewer on the CBS News programme ‘60 Minutes’:

“With the bomb in Times Square, I wonder what your message is to the Pakistani government?” Pelley asked.

“It’s very clear. This is a threat that we share, we have a common enemy. There is no time to waste in going after that common enemy as hard and fast as we can and we cannot tolerate having people encouraged, directed, trained and sent from Pakistan to attack us,” she replied.

This is important. Hillary Clinton recognized that the TTP is a common enemy of Pakistan and US. She is not saying that there is some tension between the two states, she is saying that we must work together.

Actually, Hillary Clinton gave some praise to Pakistan for its efforts.

“But we’re not getting that cooperation,” Pelley remarked.

“Well, we are,” Clinton replied.

“The question is why is this administration not pressuring Pakistan to give up Osama bin Laden [or] his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri…,” Pelley asked.

“I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking. They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country,” Clinton replied.

This is far different from how the interview is being presented, isn’t it? Hillary Clinton actually seems very full of praise for Pakistan.

But let’s get to the moment of truth and read the full quote about ’severe consequences’:

“Even in light of the Times Square bomber, you are comfortable with the cooperation you are getting from the Pakistani government?” Pelley asked.

“Well, now, I didn’t say that. I’ve said we’ve gotten more cooperation and it’s been a real sea change in the commitment we’ve seen from the Pakistani government. We want more; we expect more. We’ve made it very clear that, if, heaven forbid, that an attack like this, if we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences,” Clinton said.

Asked what she meant exactly, Clinton said, “I think I’ll let that speak for itself.”

This is very different from how the statement has been presented – especially by The Nation. Actually, Hillary Clinton again gives a lot of praise. As for her words that have so upset The Nation, she never says anything about an attack on Pakistan by the Americans. Taking her whole statement in context, surely it seems more likely that the threat is against Taliban and its sympathizers. Perhaps this is what makes The Nation so worried?

As for Mr. Eric Holder’s statement, let us look at his actual words in full context. Asked about Hillary Clinton’s statement, Mr. Holder replied:

Well, in connectino with the Shahzad investigation, they have been, I think, extremely aggressive. They’ve been cooperative with us. And I think we have been satisfied with the work that they have done. We want to make sure that that kind of cooperation continues. To the extent that it does not, we will, as Secretary Clinton indicated, take the appropriate steps. But as of now, with regard to Shahzad, I think we’re satisfied with the level of cooperation we have received.

This should be shocking to anyone who has not read the full statement before. The Nation and any other journalist who is only taking three words from a statement an misrepresenting them is misleading his readers very badly. This is unprofessional and unethical and should be severely reprimanded.

Contrary to the claims of these journalists, Mr. Eric Holder actually praised Pakistan’s efforts. Actually, if you watch the remainder of the interview, he says

The vast majority of people who go to Pakistan and come from Pakistan to the United States are well-intentioned; they have relatives; they have cultural ties to both countries.

Let’s also look at what other American officials are saying. Richard Holbrooke – who is a close confidant of Hillary Clinton – assured that there will be no move to block economic or military aid

The assurance came from Mrs Clinton’s close confidant, US Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. Her remarks in no way indicated any impact on the flow of US economic or military aid to Pakistan, he told a briefing in Washington.

“As for Secretary Clinton’s interview on (CBS channel’s) 60 Minutes (programme), I think that perhaps it was not fully understood for what she was saying by some people who didn’t see the full text or didn’t appreciate what she was saying,” he said.

American Defense Secretary Robert Gates has praised our military and said that “Pakistanis are in the driver’s seat.”

Obviously, there are some media personalities who are sympathetic to the Taliban and are trying to make some problems between Pakistan and the US by the devious practice of misquoting and misrepresenting the words of officials. The Nation in particular has been absolutely irresponsible and unprofessional by mischaracterizing statements in attempt to scare the people and make some false claims of threats.

Far from putting pressure or making any threats against Pakistan, both Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder praised both the Pakistani military also and also the Pakistani government and also the Pakistani people! The way that The Nation presents their statements is dishonest. The editors should be ashamed of themselves.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 1 Comment »

The Nation Misrepresents UN Report, Government’s Response

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

The Nation’s editorial from Monday severely misrepresents findings of the UN Report, raising serious questions about whether the editorial’s authors actually read the report. Actually, The Nation’s editorial even contradicts itself as to the government’s response.

The editorial, “The Benazir murder,” accuses the government of ignoring the reports findings in order to protect the guilty. A quick review of the UN report and recent news reports about the government’s response – including statements from within the same editorial – directly contradict The Nation’s assertion.

The Nation’s editorial says that the UN Report “has pointed the finger at the murdered leaders’ own party.” This is misleading to the point of being intentionally so. of the UN report says,

The “Main Findings” on Page 60, paragraph 259.iii say,

Responsibility for Ms Bhutto’s security on the day of her assassination rested with the federal Government, the government of Punjab and the Rawalpindi District Police. None of these entities took necessary measures to respond to the extraordinary, fresh and urgent security risks that they knew she faced.

While the UN report on does acknowledge that PPP attempted to provide some security for Benazir Bhutto, page 19, paragraph 63 absolves PPP of any responsibility for her assassination.

The PPP is a political party, not a security agency. The responsibility for Ms Bhutto’s security rested with the government.

Even the headlines from The Nation read “UN probe finds Musharraf govt responsible“. The Nation’s attempt to pin the blame for Benazir Bhutto’s murder on the PPP may be wishful thinking, but it is not supported either by the UN report or even The Nation’s own headlines!

After falsely asserting that the UN report holds the PPP responsible for Benazir’s murder, The Nation goes on to accuse the present government of failing to act on the reports findings. This is also not supported by recent events, including those reported in The Nation.

The editorial makes a potentially libelous accusation that “The PPP may have developed a culture of protecting the guilty…”, and then goes on to say that “…the government must not treat the murder as an internal party matter, as it seems to be doing, but as the national matter that it is.”

But the first paragraph of the same editorial says that the government has acted on the report and is not treating it as an internal party matter.

THE PPP has been apprised of the UN report into the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and its report has been the subject of a high-level PPP meeting on Saturday at the Presidency, chaired by her widower, the President, and the Prime Minister as well as some members of his Cabinet. The meeting decided to take action against those responsible, including former President Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. The meeting decided that those mentioned in the report would be placed on the Exit Control List. Also, they would be made part of the investigations.

The Nation says this is “inadequate”, despite the fact that this is exactly what The Nation says the government should do.

“…it must ensure that those pinpointed as having some complicity in the murder, should be brought to justice.”

Actually, PPP has publicly vowed to go after anyone complicit in the murder.

Babar added that the report will be examined by legal experts of the Party to recommend to the Co-Chairman necessary steps to be taken in its light. Persons named in the report for negligence or complicity in the conspiracy will be investigated and cases also brought against them in the light of the legal opinion, he said.

News reports from today confirm that the police have registered a case against Musharraf, who actually is fingered as complicit in the murder.

The editorial writers at The Nation were surely surprised and disappointed to read the conclusions of the UN’s investigation. That they continue to publish wishful journalism instead of actual facts is disappointing. If The Nation honestly wanted to see the perpetrators and facilitators of Benazir Bhutto’s murder brought to justice, they would report the facts. Instead, they seem to be more interested in using their newspaper to publish misleading political propaganda. Shame on them.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | No Comments »

« Older Entries