Dear friends & colleagues,
please find the attached brief article on 'Failure of Police Leadership in Pakistan' (http://www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com/Admin/articles/FailureofPoliceLeadershipinPakistan.pdf) available on PSC-website..
with best regards.
--
Fasihuddin 
(Police Service of Pakistan)
President,

Pakistan Society of Criminology,
Editor-in-Chief, Pakistan Journal of Criminology
tel: +92-91-5200806 (Office)
cell:+92-313-5954055.
Email: pscatpeshawar@yahoo.com,   
Website: www.pakistansocietyofcriminology.com,   
  

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Thanks for participating. Kindly suggest improvements. Please let us know:
I.      If you want to receive individual emails
II.      Receive one mail with all activity in it
III.      Do not want to receive any mail at all

Regards,
Tariq Khattak, Group Manager,

GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
  +92-300-9599007 and +92-333-9599007

Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Tariqgulkhattak@hotmail.com

REQUESTS:
1)Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2)Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3)Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4)Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5)Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6)Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7)The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8)Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9)Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.

x==x==x==x==x==x

Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
MARKETPLACE

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___
 

Today, SC dismissed the plea of Geo TV by saying that no violation in its orders
regarding transmission of World Cup Matches is done by PTV and PEMRA; Weldon Mr.
Raza Kazim Weldon. Very nice the false case by Mr. Mir Ibrahim CEO Geo TV was
defended.

There intoxication of so-called independent journalism was found when Mr. Mir
Ibrahim misbehaved with PTV lawyer. Most importantly inside the SC building and
in-front of some renowned lawyers! It was then condemn by the other colleagues
of Mr. Kazim by demanding either SC should take notice of the incident or they
shall file the case against Geo TV Administration. Finally in the evening of the
day after taking it serious SC issued notice to him who later on apologized from
victim on what so ever happened in the jurisdictions of SC.

Geo TV did loose their case on both legal and moral pitch. There frustration may
easily be judged but the persistence among some of their host of the talk shows
and Anchors is observed still. Most of the friends including renowned
journalists from all provinces and from the capital city were happy on defeat of
this group. They were criticizing the monopoly, yellow journalism and
blackmailing of this group in the façade of So-Called independent Journalism.

I assured them that a day is to come when all HARRAMEE decedents of Mir
Khalil-ur-Rehman shall be crushed by their true, honest and patriot colleagues
and contemporaries.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Thanks for participating. Kindly suggest improvements. Please let us know:
I.      If you want to receive individual emails
II.      Receive one mail with all activity in it
III.      Do not want to receive any mail at all

Regards,
Tariq Khattak, Group Manager,

GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
  +92-300-9599007 and +92-333-9599007

Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Tariqgulkhattak@hotmail.com

REQUESTS:
1)Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2)Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3)Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4)Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5)Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6)Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7)The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8)Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9)Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.

x==x==x==x==x==x

Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
.

__,_._,___
 

CIA has a large budget to hire writers to do pieces for or against some thing that supports their point of view. There is a very informative article that I had sent to many friends a while ago, called “CIA Wurlitzer” not sure if any of you have received it. I have it saved and can send if any one is interested. They also pay to radio and TV producers to run shows the spread disinformation in the target region.

 

Javed

 


From: am malik [mailto:nmalik915@gmail.com]
Sent: March 1, 2011 11:35 AM
To: Pakistan-Media@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Meekalahmed2@aol.com; Media-Tribe@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Pak-Media] This is very interesting

 

This article is  border line nonsense. Here the fellows have blood on their hands of three plus one of our people and the article makes it a political jumbo.   If GHQ were out to get more funds then where will that money go to? Our so called corrupt and totally insesitive leadership sitting in Islamabad, who have a very fertile mind to discover novel methods and avenues for corruption. In any case if the action of the ISI was as simple to understand then I am sure that the Americans are fools not to understand this basic idea?   And again if it be so then it is surprising that even Obama had to speak for it?? sounds pretty odd.

In the 90's when we had put a fog around our nuclear programme a friend of mine was paid by the US embassy to write against the nuclear programme.  I wonder if this writer is also not obliged to write on the dotted lines - so to speak?!

am

On 1 March 2011 21:07, <Meekalahmed2@aol.com> wrote:

 

Lovers tiff, impending divorce or trial separation?  - by Omar Ali
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/02/lovers-tiff-impending-divorce-or-trial-separation-by-omar-ali.html#tp

 

On the 27th of January, while driving through Mozang (an extremely crowded section of Lahore city) in a rented Honda Civic, American citizen Raymond Davis shot two men who were riding a motorcycle.  Soon afterwards, another vehicle
that was racing to (presumably) rescue Mr. Davis, ran over a third person and killed him too. These seem to be the only undisputed facts about the event.  Shortly afterwards, Pakistani TV channels showed one of the dead men with a
revolver and an ammunition belt around his waist. It was also claimed that the two men were carrying several mobile phones and possible some other stolen items. But soon after the event, the story began to change. From a robbery attempt gone bad, it morphed into Mr. Davis assassinating two young men without obvious cause. Raymond’s own status was immediately in dispute and within a few days the network of web sites that is thought to represent the views of Pakistan’s deep state were stating that Davis was a CIA agent, he was being tailed by the ISI and he had shot two ISI agents. They also claimed Davis was working with the “bad Taliban” to do bad things in Pakistan, while trying to spy on the “good Taliban” and other virtuous jihadist organizations like the LET.
Since then, the US has itself admitted that he worked for the CIA and relatively sober Pakistani military analysts have hinted that the two victims were ISI agents who had been tailing Raymond for over an hour.
 
Much is being made of these revelations, but to an outsider it seems obvious that his status cannot have been a surprise to the ISI.  You cannot have 5 CIA agents renting houses in Lahore and tailing people without the ISI knowing about
it. Nor would it be a huge surprise to learn that a CIA agent was there under diplomatic cover; all countries get diplomatic status for their spies and if the host country does not like a spy, they can always kick him out by declaring him persona non grata.  The legal question revolves around whether he formally had diplomatic status or not, whether diplomatic status qualifies him for immunity once a truly serious crime has been committed, and what exactly happened in Mozang (was it an attempted robbery and therefore self-defense, or did he shoot
two ISI agents, with or without provocation,  or were they terrorists, or something else?). 

 
But the strategic question is more interesting: why, after the event, did psyops organs of the deep state jump all over the case? Clearly, if he shot two robbers and the ISI did not want a fuss, they could have used their vast media resources to project exactly that story and he would have been out of there in no time. If he shot two of their men then the issue becomes more complicated, but at a strategic level, it remains Pakistan’s choice: whether to make it a huge issue or settle it quietly.

 
Time will tell if the quiet option was dropped because of American ham-handedness and arrogance, or the ISI opting for confrontation. But it was clearly dropped and a very public confrontation was encouraged, with all the usual suspects in action. But to what end? Does the ISI want a divorce or is
this a lover’s quarrel, to be made up after the CIA coughs up flowers and some new concessions? It seems the smart money is on the latter scenario (making up after a tiff, rather than an actual divorce). Pakistani friends whose opinion I respect insist that Pakistan has the US over a barrel right now and will get what it wants, then quietly let Raymond go, or arrange some other face-saving deal for all concerned.  But there is always the chance that carefully calculated operations can go awry. Even if the ISI only planned to push the CIA a little and get them to tone down some overly intrusive operations and get some concessions on India-specific Jihadis and other issues dear to their little
hearts, the change in public and official opinion on both sides may not be turned on and off like a tap. They may have wanted to push to the edge and step back at the last moment (a skill at which they consider themselves great masters) but there is such a thing as “too much success”. One hopes they know what they are doing, but people who are old enough to remember 1971 and Kargil may be excused for feeling a little trepidation; this crowd has been known to overestimate their skills.

 
The irony is, Kiyani sahib is probably the smartest man to ever hold that exalted position at the head of GHQ (and is an amazing genius compared to the last man in that position) and it will be sad to see things go south on his watch. And even if the US has no option but to cooperate, the extremism and
anti-Americanism that has been fanned within Pakistan may one day come back to haunt them.
 
When I wrote about “Pakistan predictions” last month, I got some flak from liberal friends for being insensitive and politically incorrect (too negative about certain third world groups, not enough condemnation of American
imperialism). I promised to say more about this topic in this month’s piece.

 
First of all, it is true that I assume that people in Pakistan have plans and ambitions of their own. I also assumes that the US is not some kind of God-like power. These assumptions run contrary to the kind of Eurocentrism that is commonplace in Western liberal academia and that assigns agency only to White people, while regarding Brown people as almost childlike victims of their superiors in the West (I am obviously being deliberately provocative in my choice of words…these are not the words which the liberals themselves would ever
use about their beliefs, but I do feel that while these words are crude and inflammatory, I think they are still an accurate depiction of a certain mind set). But I think I will stick by those assumptions because I regard the fashionable Western (and Westernized) liberal view as being unconsciously racist
and do not find their exalted opinion of imperialist prowess to be credible.
 
In addition there are also some specific delusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan that I think need to be confronted in this matter and I will try to explain my position about them a little.
 
1. The Imran Khan delusion: this delusion holds that all was well in Afghanistan and Pakistan until America invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and upset the peaceful status quo.  According to this version of events the US and other powers got General Zia to arm and train Jihadist terrorists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan  (no Pakistani interest in this scheme is implied) and then left Afghanistan without building schools and hospitals in 1992. Then things sort of
coasted along more or less peacefully for the next 12 years, until 9-11 (which is frequently believed to be a Mossad-CIA operation) happened. After this event, the US came and said “we want our old friends dead now”. Since then, Pakistan
has been dutifully trying to kill these maniacs and the current Pakistani government in particular is trying its best to kill them and suffering vastly in the process, so it is unfair of the US to ask us to "do more". I think this
version of events misses some crucial points.
 
 First of all, the jihadi project was indeed a CIA project, but it was also our project from the very beginning. America wanted Russia humbled in Afghanistan, but we wanted that humbling to be done by Islamist jihadis under our control.
Our leaders (specifically Zia and Akhtar Abdul Rahman) also had the “vision” to see in this an opportunity to settle scores with India and plant the seeds of a wider area of influence in Central Asia, and so on and so forth. Second, after the CIA finished its dirty business in Afghanistan and left, “we” multiplied the jihadi infrastructure by 10. We redirected it to Kashmir and spread it throughout Pakistan. Of course the Westoxicated middle class had very little
notion of what was going on. These were serious things, handled by serious people in the security establishment, not shared with the rest of the country except on a “need to know basis”.  But it is disingenuous to think the multiplication of jihadi militias throughout the nineties was also America's
fault (though the US did ignore it, perhaps because they thought it improves their leverage over India, perhaps because they were busy with other things).

Then, after 9-11 (which was not an inside job in my view, primarily because I see no reason to think that the US secret agencies are capable of such vast and successful deception), “we” (the Pakistani security services) protected good
jihadis and failed to go after their indoctrination and finance pipelines because “we" wanted the infrastructure kept alive for future use against India.
 
Of course, even if the rickety state apparatus has decided to go all out against the jihadis, the process will be neither pretty nor quick. There is no simple way to put the genie back into the bottle. The half million who are already trained (Arif Jamal's figure in Shadow War) will have to be dealt with. Luckily, some have already moved on to other occupations and others have become simple criminals, busy with kidnapping and armed robbery. 

 
But the more committed ones will have to be disarmed and jailed or killed and they are not easy targets. In fact, those with a strong stomach can watch this video to see that even the ex-Godfathers of the Taliban are not safe from their
wrath. These are the Kharijis of today; they are not amenable to reason.  In any case, in order to stop them the state will have to shut down their financing, crack down on their above-ground supporters and win the battle of ideas in the mind of the public (and improve its functioning in general and make it less unjust, deficiencies it shares with India's rickety state). None of that can succeed if the state's own paid propagandists are busy spreading confusion and
propaganda that undermines this effort. It will also not succeed if the army is simultaneously trying to protect assets it hopes to use against India (because the “good jihadis” don't seem to understand the distinction and frequently help
out the “bad jihadis”). It will also not succeed if Saudi and Gulf financing is not being intercepted. In short, it will not stop unless the India-centric, zero-sum national security mind set is changed because that mind set leads to
these people and their mentors being protected. For proof of this, you need to look no further than Musharraf’s moronic interviews with Der Spiegel and the Atlantic council .
 
 In fact  Put those interviews together with Admiral Fasih Bokhari's article and you can see that the overgrown adolescents who are America's great white hope in
Pakistan are perhaps more dangerous and deluded than the ball-scratching, nose-dripping, corrupt gangsters in the civilian political parties. But, military men being military men, no Pentagon general seems to be able to resist the sight of a man in a finely starched uniform, especially if he also likes
whisky (the one sure sign of "enlightened moderation", if the diplomatic reports of the US embassy from the last 50 years are any guide).
 
I am aware that some people think that the primary reason this effort is not being conducted effectively is not because of any real or imagined Indian threat but because the existence of this insurgency is in fact our ticket to more aid
and assistance. I personally think this is too conspiracy-minded, but who knows. Another factor to consider is the role of the Military-Mullah alliance in domestic Pakistani politics. i.e. the fact that the army uses the mullahs as
muscle power against secularists, mainstream politicians and "pro-Indian" elements. And of course, some demented ideologically committed junior officers may find the jihadists useful against heretics like Shias and Ismailis and other
"undesirables". The last category (I hope) is confined to the lower ranks. The senior officers are not so much jihadist, as they are limited in their imagination and hooked on India-hatred and US aid, and not necessarily in that order.  
 
 2. The romantic Left delusion.  This is the belief that Pakistan’s corrupt elite deserves to be overthrown by the lower classes and the Taliban are (an unfortunate but expected) instrument of this necessary revolution. Actually the first part of this delusion is not a delusion. The Pakistani elite is not just corrupt, they have been practically suicidal. Where other corrupt third world
elites have mismanaged the state, provided poor governance, oppressed the poor and failed to evolve a stable political system, Pakistan’s elite (which in this case means the army high command and their supporters) have done something no
other third world elite has managed. They have armed, trained and encouraged their own executioners in the course of a demented scheme of trying to wrest Kashmir from India while laying the foundation for a mini-empire in central
Asia. But the second part of this delusion is the real delusion here.

 
The Pakistani Taliban is not the Bolshevik party; in fact, they are not even the Iranian Mullahs. They were created by the army as an outgrowth of the American-sponsored Afghan jihad. Their leadership is derived from the Madrasahs
and think tanks sponsored by Saudi money and inspired by Syed Qutb and the most virulent Wahhabi and Salafist clerics in the world. They were guided by the jihadist faction of GHQ, men inspired by Maudoodi and his children, not by Marx
or even Ali Shariati. They have absolutely no workable social or economic plan. If they do overthrow the elite, what follows will be a nightmare of historic proportions. If the whole thing does not dissolve into anarchy, it will be stabilized by an army coup. After purging liberals and hanging Veena Malik, the dictatorship of the mullahtariat will degenerate into an Islamic version of Myanmar, not revolutionary Iran or Castro’s Cuba.
 
So, coming back to our original topic: does the Raymond Davis affair reflect a lover’s spat or an impending divorce?  My guess is that its not a divorce. The US has few options and neither does Pakistan. We are probably in for more of the
same, but with a chance that one of these days the ISI will find itself the victim of too much success and will not be able to pull back from the brink of divorce.  Meanwhile, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a
nail. So I expect the state department to pass out more money to GHQ, I expect the CIA to fund some new insane lunatic fringe to counter their last lunatic fringe, I expect the Pentagon to ask for more money for weapons and a good hard
"shock and awe campaign", I expect professors in San Francisco to blame colonialism, and I expect Islamists to blow themselves up with even greater devotion. May Allah protect us from anything worse.

 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Thanks for participating. Kindly suggest improvements. Please let us know:
I.      If you want to receive individual emails
II.      Receive one mail with all activity in it
III.      Do not want to receive any mail at all

Regards,
Tariq Khattak, Group Manager,

GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
  +92-300-9599007 and +92-333-9599007

Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Tariqgulkhattak@hotmail.com

REQUESTS:
1)Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2)Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3)Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4)Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5)Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6)Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7)The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8)Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9)Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.

x==x==x==x==x==x

Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
.

__,_._,___
 

A decade-long national study has found that nearly 50 per cent of Australians identify themselves as having anti-Muslim attitudes.

Researchers from universities across the country polled thousands of people about their attitudes to different cultures and whether they had experienced racism.

The research found around one in 10 Australians identified themselves as prejudiced against other cultures.

About one-quarter of those surveyed said they had anti-Semitic or anti-Asian attitudes, while a slightly larger number were prejudiced against Aborigines.

Anti-Muslim sentiment was even higher, at 48.6 per cent.

Lead researcher Professor Kevin Dunn from the University of Western Sydney says recent political rhetoric has not helped.

"If you continue to speak about a group as a problem, whether that be asylum seekers or Muslims, that will [be] cast within the public mind," he said.

New South Wales was the state most intolerant of Muslims, with just over 54 per cent of people expressing prejudice.

The president of the Council of International Students, Robert Atcheson, says the survey is another blow to Australia's already-damaged reputation.

"If you're an international student that's looking at coming to Australia, or Canada or UK or the US, that could definitely sway their decision to go somewhere else," he said.

comment:

They are Islamophobe for no reason other than their sheer stupidity. No one goes there, talks to them, or even knows where they are located on the map and they come up being Islamophobes to give themselves some self worth.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Thanks for participating. Kindly suggest improvements. Please let us know:
I.      If you want to receive individual emails
II.      Receive one mail with all activity in it
III.      Do not want to receive any mail at all

Regards,
Tariq Khattak, Group Manager,

GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
  +92-300-9599007 and +92-333-9599007

Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Tariqgulkhattak@hotmail.com

REQUESTS:
1)Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2)Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3)Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4)Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5)Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6)Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7)The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8)Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9)Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.

x==x==x==x==x==x

Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___
 

MR Prime minister in interview a short while ago (8PM-2nd inst) sermonized once
again on respecting constitution.On the anchors query on MR Altaf Husseins'
calling every second day in his billions of dollars live telecast from his
London home, army, generals to mutiny and today changing stance to support
'inqlab';MR Prime minister advised his coalition blackmailing partner to
observe norms of constitution. Nothing could more ridiculous than it.He is
letting every MR Altaf Hussein,his local leadership twenty four hours  spreading mutiny on streets
,studios,destablising specially Punjab and Pakistan, abetted in all sedition by paid,
terrorized TV channels anchors of CNBC,Samaa TV,Dunya TV, ,AAJ,Starasia,ARY,Newsone.Why
does not Prime minister stop this seditious and mutinous acts of MQM and TV
channels spreading mutiny in the name of inqlab.It is only Altaf Hussein who
wants to come back on the back of army to save his criminal cases under NRO,thousands
killed in target killing,trillion of rupees 
bathakhori stashed abroad.Why?Because PPP-Zardari has become prisoner of MQM blackmailing power to overthrow PPP-government.To
save his government,the virtual king President prostrates to every evil act of
MQM,its foot soldiers TV anchors no matter Pakistan is ruined or fragmented.

Dubai

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Thanks for participating. Kindly suggest improvements. Please let us know:
I.      If you want to receive individual emails
II.      Receive one mail with all activity in it
III.      Do not want to receive any mail at all

Regards,
Tariq Khattak, Group Manager,

GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
  +92-300-9599007 and +92-333-9599007

Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Tariqgulkhattak@hotmail.com

REQUESTS:
1)Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2)Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3)Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4)Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5)Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6)Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7)The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8)Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9)Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.

x==x==x==x==x==x

Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
.

__,_._,___
 

Lovers tiff, impending divorce or trial separation?  - by Omar Ali
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/02/lovers-tiff-impending-divorce-or-trial-separation-by-omar-ali.html#tp

 

On the 27th of January, while driving through Mozang (an extremely crowded section of Lahore city) in a rented Honda Civic, American citizen Raymond Davis shot two men who were riding a motorcycle.  Soon afterwards, another vehicle
that was racing to (presumably) rescue Mr. Davis, ran over a third person and killed him too. These seem to be the only undisputed facts about the event.  Shortly afterwards, Pakistani TV channels showed one of the dead men with a
revolver and an ammunition belt around his waist. It was also claimed that the two men were carrying several mobile phones and possible some other stolen items. But soon after the event, the story began to change. From a robbery attempt gone bad, it morphed into Mr. Davis assassinating two young men without obvious cause. Raymond's own status was immediately in dispute and within a few days the network of web sites that is thought to represent the views of Pakistan's deep state were stating that Davis was a CIA agent, he was being tailed by the ISI and he had shot two ISI agents. They also claimed Davis was working with the "bad Taliban" to do bad things in Pakistan, while trying to spy on the "good Taliban" and other virtuous jihadist organizations like the LET.
Since then, the US has itself admitted that he worked for the CIA and relatively sober Pakistani military analysts have hinted that the two victims were ISI agents who had been tailing Raymond for over an hour.
 
Much is being made of these revelations, but to an outsider it seems obvious that his status cannot have been a surprise to the ISI.  You cannot have 5 CIA agents renting houses in Lahore and tailing people without the ISI knowing about
it. Nor would it be a huge surprise to learn that a CIA agent was there under diplomatic cover; all countries get diplomatic status for their spies and if the host country does not like a spy, they can always kick him out by declaring him persona non grata.  The legal question revolves around whether he formally had diplomatic status or not, whether diplomatic status qualifies him for immunity once a truly serious crime has been committed, and what exactly happened in Mozang (was it an attempted robbery and therefore self-defense, or did he shoot
two ISI agents, with or without provocation,  or were they terrorists, or something else?). 

 
But the strategic question is more interesting: why, after the event, did psyops organs of the deep state jump all over the case? Clearly, if he shot two robbers and the ISI did not want a fuss, they could have used their vast media resources to project exactly that story and he would have been out of there in no time. If he shot two of their men then the issue becomes more complicated, but at a strategic level, it remains Pakistan's choice: whether to make it a huge issue or settle it quietly.

 
Time will tell if the quiet option was dropped because of American ham-handedness and arrogance, or the ISI opting for confrontation. But it was clearly dropped and a very public confrontation was encouraged, with all the usual suspects in action. But to what end? Does the ISI want a divorce or is
this a lover's quarrel, to be made up after the CIA coughs up flowers and some new concessions? It seems the smart money is on the latter scenario (making up after a tiff, rather than an actual divorce). Pakistani friends whose opinion I respect insist that Pakistan has the US over a barrel right now and will get what it wants, then quietly let Raymond go, or arrange some other face-saving deal for all concerned.  But there is always the chance that carefully calculated operations can go awry. Even if the ISI only planned to push the CIA a little and get them to tone down some overly intrusive operations and get some concessions on India-specific Jihadis and other issues dear to their little
hearts, the change in public and official opinion on both sides may not be turned on and off like a tap. They may have wanted to push to the edge and step back at the last moment (a skill at which they consider themselves great masters) but there is such a thing as "too much success". One hopes they know what they are doing, but people who are old enough to remember 1971 and Kargil may be excused for feeling a little trepidation; this crowd has been known to overestimate their skills.

 
The irony is, Kiyani sahib is probably the smartest man to ever hold that exalted position at the head of GHQ (and is an amazing genius compared to the last man in that position) and it will be sad to see things go south on his watch. And even if the US has no option but to cooperate, the extremism and
anti-Americanism that has been fanned within Pakistan may one day come back to haunt them.
 
When I wrote about "Pakistan predictions" last month, I got some flak from liberal friends for being insensitive and politically incorrect (too negative about certain third world groups, not enough condemnation of American
imperialism). I promised to say more about this topic in this month's piece.

 
First of all, it is true that I assume that people in Pakistan have plans and ambitions of their own. I also assumes that the US is not some kind of God-like power. These assumptions run contrary to the kind of Eurocentrism that is commonplace in Western liberal academia and that assigns agency only to White people, while regarding Brown people as almost childlike victims of their superiors in the West (I am obviously being deliberately provocative in my choice of words…these are not the words which the liberals themselves would ever
use about their beliefs, but I do feel that while these words are crude and inflammatory, I think they are still an accurate depiction of a certain mind set). But I think I will stick by those assumptions because I regard the fashionable Western (and Westernized) liberal view as being unconsciously racist
and do not find their exalted opinion of imperialist prowess to be credible.
 
In addition there are also some specific delusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan that I think need to be confronted in this matter and I will try to explain my position about them a little.
 
1. The Imran Khan delusion: this delusion holds that all was well in Afghanistan and Pakistan until America invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and upset the peaceful status quo.  According to this version of events the US and other powers got General Zia to arm and train Jihadist terrorists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan  (no Pakistani interest in this scheme is implied) and then left Afghanistan without building schools and hospitals in 1992. Then things sort of
coasted along more or less peacefully for the next 12 years, until 9-11 (which is frequently believed to be a Mossad-CIA operation) happened. After this event, the US came and said "we want our old friends dead now". Since then, Pakistan
has been dutifully trying to kill these maniacs and the current Pakistani government in particular is trying its best to kill them and suffering vastly in the process, so it is unfair of the US to ask us to "do more". I think this
version of events misses some crucial points.
 
 First of all, the jihadi project was indeed a CIA project, but it was also our project from the very beginning. America wanted Russia humbled in Afghanistan, but we wanted that humbling to be done by Islamist jihadis under our control.
Our leaders (specifically Zia and Akhtar Abdul Rahman) also had the "vision" to see in this an opportunity to settle scores with India and plant the seeds of a wider area of influence in Central Asia, and so on and so forth. Second, after the CIA finished its dirty business in Afghanistan and left, "we" multiplied the jihadi infrastructure by 10. We redirected it to Kashmir and spread it throughout Pakistan. Of course the Westoxicated middle class had very little
notion of what was going on. These were serious things, handled by serious people in the security establishment, not shared with the rest of the country except on a "need to know basis".  But it is disingenuous to think the multiplication of jihadi militias throughout the nineties was also America's
fault (though the US did ignore it, perhaps because they thought it improves their leverage over India, perhaps because they were busy with other things).
Then, after 9-11 (which was not an inside job in my view, primarily because I see no reason to think that the US secret agencies are capable of such vast and successful deception), "we" (the Pakistani security services) protected good
jihadis and failed to go after their indoctrination and finance pipelines because "we" wanted the infrastructure kept alive for future use against India.
 
Of course, even if the rickety state apparatus has decided to go all out against the jihadis, the process will be neither pretty nor quick. There is no simple way to put the genie back into the bottle. The half million who are already trained (Arif Jamal's figure in Shadow War) will have to be dealt with. Luckily, some have already moved on to other occupations and others have become simple criminals, busy with kidnapping and armed robbery. 

 
But the more committed ones will have to be disarmed and jailed or killed and they are not easy targets. In fact, those with a strong stomach can watch this video to see that even the ex-Godfathers of the Taliban are not safe from their
wrath. These are the Kharijis of today; they are not amenable to reason.  In any case, in order to stop them the state will have to shut down their financing, crack down on their above-ground supporters and win the battle of ideas in the mind of the public (and improve its functioning in general and make it less unjust, deficiencies it shares with India's rickety state). None of that can succeed if the state's own paid propagandists are busy spreading confusion and
propaganda that undermines this effort. It will also not succeed if the army is simultaneously trying to protect assets it hopes to use against India (because the "good jihadis" don't seem to understand the distinction and frequently help
out the "bad jihadis"). It will also not succeed if Saudi and Gulf financing is not being intercepted. In short, it will not stop unless the India-centric, zero-sum national security mind set is changed because that mind set leads to
these people and their mentors being protected. For proof of this, you need to look no further than Musharraf's moronic interviews with Der Spiegel and the Atlantic council .
 
 In fact  Put those interviews together with Admiral Fasih Bokhari's article and you can see that the overgrown adolescents who are America's great white hope in
Pakistan are perhaps more dangerous and deluded than the ball-scratching, nose-dripping, corrupt gangsters in the civilian political parties. But, military men being military men, no Pentagon general seems to be able to resist the sight of a man in a finely starched uniform, especially if he also likes
whisky (the one sure sign of "enlightened moderation", if the diplomatic reports of the US embassy from the last 50 years are any guide).
 
I am aware that some people think that the primary reason this effort is not being conducted effectively is not because of any real or imagined Indian threat but because the existence of this insurgency is in fact our ticket to more aid
and assistance. I personally think this is too conspiracy-minded, but who knows. Another factor to consider is the role of the Military-Mullah alliance in domestic Pakistani politics. i.e. the fact that the army uses the mullahs as
muscle power against secularists, mainstream politicians and "pro-Indian" elements. And of course, some demented ideologically committed junior officers may find the jihadists useful against heretics like Shias and Ismailis and other
"undesirables". The last category (I hope) is confined to the lower ranks. The senior officers are not so much jihadist, as they are limited in their imagination and hooked on India-hatred and US aid, and not necessarily in that order.  
 
 2. The romantic Left delusion.  This is the belief that Pakistan's corrupt elite deserves to be overthrown by the lower classes and the Taliban are (an unfortunate but expected) instrument of this necessary revolution. Actually the first part of this delusion is not a delusion. The Pakistani elite is not just corrupt, they have been practically suicidal. Where other corrupt third world
elites have mismanaged the state, provided poor governance, oppressed the poor and failed to evolve a stable political system, Pakistan's elite (which in this case means the army high command and their supporters) have done something no
other third world elite has managed. They have armed, trained and encouraged their own executioners in the course of a demented scheme of trying to wrest Kashmir from India while laying the foundation for a mini-empire in central
Asia. But the second part of this delusion is the real delusion here.

 
The Pakistani Taliban is not the Bolshevik party; in fact, they are not even the Iranian Mullahs. They were created by the army as an outgrowth of the American-sponsored Afghan jihad. Their leadership is derived from the Madrasahs
and think tanks sponsored by Saudi money and inspired by Syed Qutb and the most virulent Wahhabi and Salafist clerics in the world. They were guided by the jihadist faction of GHQ, men inspired by Maudoodi and his children, not by Marx
or even Ali Shariati. They have absolutely no workable social or economic plan. If they do overthrow the elite, what follows will be a nightmare of historic proportions. If the whole thing does not dissolve into anarchy, it will be stabilized by an army coup. After purging liberals and hanging Veena Malik, the dictatorship of the mullahtariat will degenerate into an Islamic version of Myanmar, not revolutionary Iran or Castro's Cuba.
 
So, coming back to our original topic: does the Raymond Davis affair reflect a lover's spat or an impending divorce?  My guess is that its not a divorce. The US has few options and neither does Pakistan. We are probably in for more of the
same, but with a chance that one of these days the ISI will find itself the victim of too much success and will not be able to pull back from the brink of divorce.  Meanwhile, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a
nail. So I expect the state department to pass out more money to GHQ, I expect the CIA to fund some new insane lunatic fringe to counter their last lunatic fringe, I expect the Pentagon to ask for more money for weapons and a good hard
"shock and awe campaign", I expect professors in San Francisco to blame colonialism, and I expect Islamists to blow themselves up with even greater devotion. May Allah protect us from anything worse.


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Thanks for participating. Kindly suggest improvements. Please let us know:
I.      If you want to receive individual emails
II.      Receive one mail with all activity in it
III.      Do not want to receive any mail at all

Regards,
Tariq Khattak, Group Manager,

GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
  +92-300-9599007 and +92-333-9599007

Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Tariqgulkhattak@hotmail.com

REQUESTS:
1)Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2)Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3)Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4)Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5)Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6)Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7)The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8)Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9)Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.

x==x==x==x==x==x

Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
.

__,_._,___
 


Worth reading article
am


 

 

This Is How Our Scholars Should Respond!

 


This Is How Our Scholars Should Respond!

Posted: 15 Feb 2011 12:59 PM PST

As-salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

Less than 2 weeks ago, David Cameron the Prime Minister, made some highly unacceptable, hasty and offensively judgemental statements about Muslims in the UK (under the guise of "Islamic Extremism") in his speech delivered in Munich. Not only was his speech offensive, it was also very ill-timed – delivered on the same day as an EDL march (an Islamophobic, racist group who wish to see Islam removed from this country). Now, these statements are not something entirely new or surprising as this is a topic the government is always heating up in society (yes, scaremongering is a favourite tactic of theirs), but what I was particularly pleased to see was a certain response from a certain shaykh.
When a people's principles and set of beliefs are attacked, the last thing they ought to do is react with passiveness and indifference. It would be even worse for them to fall in agreement with the foul remarks made about those principles or morals which they hold dear. This is the tarbiyah we need to develop within ourselves such that we enjoin the good whatever it may be and that we also go against any type of evil, whatever it may be – especially if it is one directed at our noble religion, belief and way of life. Every smoke signals a fire and so when scathing statements are made, you can be sure that actions will soon follow unless you stand up and make it clear that those statements are unacceptable.
And so this was the response of Shaykh Haitham al-Haddad in his open letter to the Prime Minister, David Cameron. Indeed, this is how our scholars should respond. Not by remaining silent, not by making speeches and writing articles on "Radicalism", but rather by challenging those in authority – with respect and firmness – and making it clear that we will not tolerate this type of hounding and humiliation.
__________________________________________________

Open Letter to Mr Cameron

To

The Rt. Hon. David Cameron

Prime Minister

10 Downing Street

 

Dear Mr Cameron

 

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

"For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah."  

( The saying of Abraham, Quran 6:79) 

 

We are deeply dismayed by your statements made in the Munich Security Conference on the 5th February 2011. Your speech was misleading, ill-timed, counter-productive. You have insulted the Muslims you are meant to serve and have demonstrated a  failure to understand the Muslims and their faith.

 

A Muslim, literally, means one who has submitted his will to God. We bow our head in prayer to Allah, five times a day, in submission to Him and Him alone. We only have one Master, and we are Muslims first. Our beliefs in our values, and in what we hold to be right and wrong is dictated not from an elected parliament, but from Allah (God) as revealed in the Quran and the teaching of last Messenger, Muhammed (Peace be upon him) and consensus of the Muslims. Furthermore, we believe that this life is a test, that after our death we are accountable before Allah on a Day of Judgement, and we will  all be given recompense according to our deeds. This, above all, is what motivates us: 

3:185 Every human being is bound to taste death: but only on the Day of Resurrection will you be requited in full [for whatever you have done] – whereupon he that shall be drawn away from the fire and brought into paradise will indeed have gained a triumph: for the life of this world is nothing but an enjoyment of self-delusion.

We readily accept and work to strengthen the meritorious institutions of  British society, especially those that exist because of the common origin of the Muslim and Judaeo-Christian tradition that British values were derived from: of honesty and moral integrity; of altruism and neighbourliness;  of social, political, and economic justice. We  encourage Muslims to  do whatever they can, even while being a minority, to assist in increasing the general good and minimising harm in society, even if it be by an act as small as removing something harmful from a walker's path. We seek to work towards a peaceful society in Britain.
 
We encourage Muslims to work for the benefit of the people of Britain, for no one's sake but Allah's. We will go further to say that we endeavour to work with greater sincerity for the betterment of Britain and its people than any Prime Minister or an elected parliament does, for we seek no worldly gain. We would be insincere citizens if we failed to share with Britons what we believe will bring them peace and tranquility in this life and in the hereafter. Our  role models are the Prophets of God, among them Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed (peace be upon them all). As one Prophet  said:

"I wish not, in opposition to you, to do that which I forbid you to do. I only desire your betterment to the best of my power; and my success can only come from Allah. In Him I trust, and unto Him I look."

But Muslims will not be bullied by 'muscular liberalism' into compromising on their teachings and the principles of their  faith as Christiandom and others may have done, nor will we be forced to embrace values that oppose the faith of millions of Muslims in Britain, Europe and the world over. Interpretations of British values change as governments do, and what may be in keeping with liberal values may be completely unacceptable to our belief, whether it be mocking God and His Prophets, the alcohol culture with all its ills, and any cohabiting out of wedlock between man and woman, this being the only relationship Islam recognises. Are we still to be forced to embrace such liberal values and promote them? What values allow the fighting of illegal wars that kills thousands to spread democracy by the gun, or of staunchly supporting nations that deprive a people of a land their rights and oppresses them? Are these British values?  

What we believe to be wrong and unjust, we will exercise our right to speak out against. You cannot speak of a belief in the freedom of speech and religion while in the same breath denying the Muslims the right to proclaim and preach their belief. You thus make 'freedom of speech' an empty slogan. You either accept that people – British Muslims included – have a right to believe in the values that their religion teaches, or that the state regulates our beliefs and our values as in a 'thought police' that incriminates and sanctions citizens for what they may believe even if they break no law. This, in essence, is what you propose. If so, then how different is that from communist dictatorships that repress those voices that oppose the state's 'values'? You are travelling down a road that will end with sanctions being placed on Muslims for simply believing in Islam and the Quran.

 

The Islamic faith does not teach extremism. But the Prime Minister, MPs and non-representative think-tanks with their own prejudices will not dictate to Muslims what constitutes a correct Islamic understanding and what does not. You would be ill-advised to be directed by any biased coterie of individuals with neo-conservative leanings or those who seek to undermine Muslims to forward the cause of other interest groups. The government has already, on the basis of such misinformation, branded mainstream Muslim individuals, events and organisations as extremist, reinforcing the perception that your government is unable to make an impartial judgement about its Muslim citizens. This reality makes your speech a cause for even greater concern among British Muslims.

 

In your speech you stated regarding terrorism that the "threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam".  This is not true. The 2008 TE-SAT report of European terrorism confirmed that in 2007, only 4 out of 583 (0.007%) attacks were 'Islamist' in nature. In 2006 it was 1 in 498. The main threat comes from separatists and left-wing groups. Why do you seek to exaggerate the threat from Islamists when the facts state otherwise? It is irresponsible for you to further sour the relationship between a minority and the community at large, where there is already evidence of much anti-Muslim feeling. Statistics demonstrate that by sheer numbers alone there are more non-Muslims who feel hostility to Muslims (more than 20% in UK) or than vice versa. While singling out Muslims in the attack on multiculturalism, you made no mention of some Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs who have been united for a common cause of hatred against Muslims in various guises under the banner of the EDL who were marching on the same day that you spoke.  Rather than countering this unhealthy Islamophobia that is sweeping across Europe, you contributed to it. That you were on German soil should have reminded you of the consequences of contributing to hatred against minorities.  

 

The most insulting and disdainful of your remarks directed to the Muslims was the threats of withholding funding from whom you think are extreme. Do you think that the strength of our conviction in our values is measured against paltry handouts or opportunities for photoshoots with MPs? Muslims do not need such money nor do they have any need to share platform with such ministers, and certainly not if these are meant to bribe them away from their principles. Reliance and trust upon Allah are the bedrock of our faith.  What is the entitlement of any citizen – regardless of religion –should be granted to them. If the government decides to wrongfully withhold this from a Muslim individual or group because of  ill-informed reservations about their beliefs, then it is the government that should be held accountable.

 

It is time for Britain comes to terms with the reality of Muslims as part of Britain with the differences that we have between us. If this is what you want to confront, and this is how you want to browbeat Muslims with 'muscular liberalism' then do, for we will, with God's help, will be even harder-nosed in standing up for our faith, for we are responsible for this before God. We will always turn to Him and His guidance and we will, Insha'Allah (God willing) have the mettle to remain patiently steadfast on our faith and speak what we believe to be right:

 

6:135 Say: "O my people! Do whatever ye can: I will do (my part): soon will ye know who it is whose end will be (best) in the Hereafter: certain it is that the oppressors will not prosper."

 

Your speech has lead to much upset in the Muslim community. While you may win over many right-wing and possibly racist voters, you will lose Muslim voters who will not forget your remarks in four years time. But it is not votes, but a sense of justice and perspective that should guide you. We hope you reconsider your statements and reassess the direction this government is taking with regards the rights of Muslim citizens of Britain, and not join Europe's growing far-right.

 


Notes: 

 

 

 


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Thanks for participating. Kindly suggest improvements. Please let us know:
I.      If you want to receive individual emails
II.      Receive one mail with all activity in it
III.      Do not want to receive any mail at all

Regards,
Tariq Khattak, Group Manager,

GSM = 0300-9599007 and 0333-9599007
  +92-300-9599007 and +92-333-9599007

Tariqgulkhattak@gmail.com
Tariqgulkhattak@hotmail.com

REQUESTS:
1)Please directly contact sender for personal/individual correspondence.
2)Try to discuss issues that will catch attention of many readers.
3)Please avoid sending messages in any language other than English
4)Avoid sending messages addressed to many recipients.
5)Do not send messages aimed at personal publicity.
6)Please do not send personal/other links unless necessary.
7)The Group is not obliged to publish printed news,
very short/long comments and objectionable material.
8)Every mail cannot be published; it will overload Mailboxes
of our valued members.
9)Try to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable, Unsympathetic and/or Unpleasant.

x==x==x==x==x==x

Please note that,
It is a common platform for journalists and all others who are interested in knowing about the issues that are sometimes not reported. This group favours philosophy of progress, reform and the protection of civil liberties. Please share and educate others. The owners and managers of this site do not necessarily agree with any of the information. It is an open forum; everyone is allowed to share anything. Mails sent by members and non-members are subject to approval. However, we are not responsible in any way for the contents of mails / opinion sent by members. We do not guarantee that the information will be completely accurate. (Nor can print and electronic media). If you find content on this site which you feel is inappropriate or inaccurate, incomplete, or useless you are most welcome to report it or contradict it.
Thanks a lot.
.

__,_._,___