Protests on Anniversary of Embassy Hostage-Taking; Khamenei Complains about Obama's Negotiating Style

The Khamenei regime in Iran commemorated the taking of US embassy personnel hostage on Wednesday, with thousands of its supporters taking to the streets. But according tot he BBC, dissidents who dispute the legitimacy of last June's presidential election staged counter-rallies. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards stepped in to disperse these protests, using tear gas. Some reports say that the authorities even fired on the protesters and eyewitnesses report seeing people covered with blood..

I received this message on Facebook re: Nov. 3: "9:20Am Tehran time --huge crowds of people in TEHRAN- SHIRAZ-ISFAHAN ......coming out on the streets ---BREAKING NEWS---ANTI ISLAMIC REP. DEMONSTRATION-------martial LAW-rev. guards on streets now"

The reports are that the protests are not limited to Tehran, then, but broke out in other cities-- Shiraz, Isfahan, Rasht, etc.

AP is saying that 2,000 students confronted security forces outside Tehran University.

The protesters are being very clever, in tying their rallies to the anti-US hostage-taking of 1980-81. That break with the international world system, led by the US, is the foundation of the Khomeinist republic, which rejects American hegemony. The dissidents are rallying in honor of the same moment, but are resisting neo-authoritarianism, implicitly likening the government of Khamenei to that of the shah. While Khamenei may have bragging rights on his anti-imperial record, his regime is not less internally repressive than that of the shah. The dissidents are cleverly refocusing the debate on the domestic sphere rather than the international, where the regime has more popularity.

The Guardian has an hour-by-hour account of the events, with video and twitter maps.

This is a video of students protesting in the northern city of Rasht



Meanwhile, here are some excerpts from the USG Open Source Center translation of Khamenei's remarks on the anniversary of the hostage-taking (a move he supported at the time).

Iranian Supreme Leader Speaks on Eve of Anniversary of US Embassy Siege
Address by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i at a meeting with students and pupils ahead of Iran's Pupil's Day, marking the anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 -- recorded
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Document Type: OSC Translated Text


(Khamene'i) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

I would like to welcome all you young ones, students, pupils and families of martyrs. The day of 13 Aban (4 November) has been officially named as the day to fight Global Arrogance. . .


The first issue to be addressed by your sense of discernment is what is this issue of Global Arrogance that one needs to combat? Global Arrogance means that there is a certain power in the world, or there are powers in this world, which look at themselves and find that they have financial and armed capabilities and propaganda means. In this way, they permit themselves to interfere in a proprietorial way in the domestic affairs of other countries and nations. This is what Arrogance means; the spirit of hegemony.

This, in our country and before the Revolution, manifested itself in quite an obvious way. In other words, in this vast country America had sunk its claws into the body of this nation which has such a rich history and a great past and had done so in a most (Globally) Arrogant fashion. It interfered in the fundamental affairs of the country at that time.
The reason for this was that the rulers of the country were corrupt. They had no popular base and they wanted a base of support, so they looked to America to provide them with that support.

America, of course, does not give anything for free to anyone. Providing support to the rulers carried with it the cost that the Americans would interfere in our affairs.

In the concluding years of the Pahlavi Dynasty things were even uglier than that. It was no longer a question of going to America (to receive instructions); the ambassadors of Great Britain or America used to go to the Shah's palace. Act in this way (they used to say) on the issue of oil, act in that way in international relations, act in such and such a way with your nation, act in this way with the combatants. This is the way they used to issue commands to the Shah.

And the Shah accepted this. Of course, when the head of a nation is so weak and hopeless and so subservient to the will of others, then you can rest assured what that situation really means. This was the situation of our country and this is what Arrogance means.

America is a Globally Arrogant power in the real sense of the word. this is not something that just concerns us, rather it is something that pertains to the whole world.

It is a matter that relates to the world of Islam. The Americans have an Arrogant approach towards everyone in the world. . .

The Japanese have not been able to dismantle US bases on their soil despite their technological advances. They have military bases there and they tyrannize the people. The newspapers have reported, as have news agencies, that rape and other violations occur there. In South Korea there are still (American) military bases. In Iraq the American objective is to build bases there and to settle there for 50 or 100 years.

In Afghanistan, a country from where if they manage to install their bases, they can have control over countries of South West Asia as well as Russia and China and India and Iran -- there they are making concerted efforts to build bases. Such is the meaning of Arrogance.

Through uprooting the puppet regime of Pahlavi, the nation of Iran expelled America from this country. Of course, the Americans could, after the Revolution, have come to their senses and accepted that this nation is such a powerful one. . .

Their embassy became a center of conspiracy. It became a nest of spies. It became a center for suspicious contacts aimed at compromising this person or that in order to bring down the Islamic Republic.

A US [Secretary of Defence] once said what has always been in the heart of the Americans; he said we must eradicate the Iranian nation. Do you see now; eradicating the Iranian nation.

They said they want to eradicate the nation of Iran, not the government of Iran and not the Islamic Republic. It understood quite well that the Islamic Republic means the nation the whole nation of Iran; this was their method. Whatever they could do to advance this policy they did so. . .

Well, the very new US president has said nice thing. He has given us many verbal and written messages, and said: "Let's turn the page and create a new situation. Let's cooperate with each other in resolving world problems." Well, we said that we do not want to prejudge. We said that we will wait and see how they act. They have said that they want to create a change. Let us wait and see this change. On 1 Farvardin (21 March 09) in Mashhad I said that if they extend to us an iron fist covered with a velvet glove, we will not shake it. I gave this warning there.

Eight months have passed since then. During this time, what we have witnessed is completely the opposite of what they have been saying and claiming. On the face of things they say let us negotiate. But alongside this they threaten us and say that if these negotiations do not reach a desirable result, they will do this and that. Do you call this negotiation? This is like the relationship between a wolf and a lamb which as the late Imam (Khomeyni) said we do not want such relations. (They say) Let us discuss around the negotiating table on such and such issue, for example the nuclear issue; however the precondition is that the negotiation should lead to such and such results. For example, the country should stop its nuclear activities. If it does not reach that result then they threaten that they will do such and such.

. . . When they speak Arrogantly to a nation and use threats to force issues -- saying, if you do not do such and such a thing, this or will would happen -- then this results in our nation responding, and saying we shall resist.

What the Islamic Republic wants is not beyond its logical rights. The Islamic Republic seeks its independence, freedom, national interests and advancement in science and technology. These are the rights of this nation. If anyone assaults these rights, the Iranian nation will confront them wholeheartedly and will bring them to their knees.
(Chants of: "God is great", "Khamene'i is the leader" and other indistinct slogans)

The day that America abandons its arrogant policies, the day that it stops its irrational interference in the affairs of other nations and behaves like any other government, then it will be a government similar to others. However, as long as the Americans have a covetous approach, intending to get back to Iran, renewing the past, changing history and turning the time back in order to dominate our country, they will not be able to force our nation to retreat. Let them know this.

They should not pin their hopes on agitation and what happened after the (12-June presidential) election. The Islamic Republic is more powerful and much more deep-rooted than those (incidents).

The Islamic Republic has seen much more difficult incidents and has managed to overcome them all. . .

(Description of Source: Tehran Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1 in Persian -- state-run radio)

End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Mueller on the Zazi Case: "This is It?"

John Mueller, Author of Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda, writes a guest op-ed for IC:

"Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," notes the New York Times with considerable understatement, "senior government officials have announced dozens of terrorism cases that on close examination seemed to diminish as legitimate threats."

Terrorism analysts and officials triumphantly claimed that the case of Najibullah Zazi, arrested last September, is different. They call it the "most serious" terrorism plot uncovered in the United States since 2001 and one that elevates the domestic terrorism threat to a "new magnitude." Bruce Riedel, an Obama terrorism adviser, proclaimed on the Lehrer NewsHour on October 16 that the plot was evidence that "al-Qaeda was trying to carry out another mass-casualty attack in the United States" like 9/11 and that the group continues to pose a threat to the country that is "existential."

This, then, was the big one.

However, assuming all the information put out by the government about the Zazi plot is accurate, our existence is unlikely to be expunged anytime soon.

Recalls his step-uncle affectionately, Zazi is "a dumb kid, believe me." A high school dropout, Zazi mostly worked as doughnut peddler in Lower Manhattan, barely making a living. Somewhere along the line, it is alleged, he took it into his head to set off a bomb and traveled to Pakistan where he received explosives training from al-Qaeda and copied nine pages of chemical bombmaking instructions onto his laptop. FBI Director Robert Mueller asserted in testimony on September 30 that this training gave Zazi the "capability" to set off a bomb.

That, however, seems to be a substantial overstatement--not unlike the Director's 2003 testimony assuring us that, although his agency had yet to identify an al-Qaeda cell in the U.S., such unidentified entities nonetheless presented "the greatest threat," had "developed a support infrastructure" in the country, and were able and intended to inflict "significant casualties in the US with little warning."

An overstatement because, upon returning to the United States, Zazi allegedly spent the better part of a year trying to concoct the bomb he had supposedly learned how to make. In the process, he, or some confederates, purchased bomb materials using stolen credit cards, a bone-headed maneuver guaranteeing that red flags would go up about the sale and that surveillance videos in the stores would be maintained rather than routinely erased.

However, even with the material at hand, Zazi still apparently couldn't figure it out, and he frantically contacted an unidentified person for help several times. Each of these communications was "more urgent in tone than the last," according to court documents.

Clearly, if Zazi was able eventually to bring his alleged aspirations to fruition, he could have done some damage, though, given his capacities, the person most in existential danger was surely the lapsed doughnut peddler himself.

But if this is as "serious" as terrorism is likely to get in the United States, one might be led to wondering if our anxieties about terrorism--the key, or even sole, reason for extending the war in Afghanistan according to President Obama and his special envoy to the area, Richard Holbrooke--are not a bit overwrought.

In testimony in 2007, Director Mueller, who, despite his earlier bravado, has yet to uncover a true al-Qaeda sleeper cell, suggested that "We believe al-Qaeda is still seeking to infiltrate operatives into the U.S. from overseas." But even that may not be true. Since 9/11, well over a billion foreigners have been admitted to the United States legally even as many others have entered illegally. Even if border security was so good that 90 percent of al-Qaeda's operatives were turned away or deterred from trying to enter, some should have made it in--and some of those, it seems reasonable to suggest, would have been picked up by law enforcement by now.

It follows that any terrorism problem within the United States principally derives from homegrown people like Zazi, often isolated from each other, who fantasize about performing dire deeds. Penn State’s Michael Kenney has interviewed dozens of officials and intelligence agents and analyzed court documents, and finds homegrown Islamic militants to be operationally unsophisticated, short on know-how, prone to make mistakes, poor at planning, and severely hampered by a limited capacity to learn. Another study documents the difficulties of network coordination that continually threaten operational unity, trust, cohesion, and the ability to act collectively. And the popular notion these characters have the capacity to steal or put together an atomic bomb seems, to put it mildly, as fanciful as some of the terrorists' schemes.

By contrast, the image projected by the Department of Homeland Security continues to be of an enemy that is "relentless, patient, opportunistic, and flexible," shows "an understanding of the potential consequence of carefully planned attacks on economic transportation, and symbolic targets," seriously threatens "national security," and could inflict "mass casualties, weaken the economy, and damage public morale and confidence." That description may fit some terrorists--the 9/11 hijackers among them. But not the vast majority, including the hapless Zazi.


Author Bio

John Mueller, author of Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda, which has just been published by Oxford University Press, is professor of political science at Ohio State University. His previous books include Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We Believe Them, The Remnants of War, Retreat from Doomsday, Astaire Dancing, and War, Presidents and Public Opinion.


End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Karzai Declared President; Questions about Afghan Police Recruits; Bad Translations Land Innocents in Jail

Hamid Karzai has been declared the winner of the Afghanistan presidential contest by the misnamed Independent Electoral Commission, the local Afghan commission appointed by . . . Hamid Karzai. The commission ruled that since the only other candidate had withdrawn, there was no point in holding a run-off election, and that Karzai had won by default. His rival, Abdullah Abdullah appears to still be seeking cabinet posts for members of his party, though he himself is not willing to join the government. Karzai says he wishes to reach out to the civil political opposition in forming his government.

President Obama responded to the announcement by asking Karzai to do more to stop corruption in the country.

Aljazeera English has video of the pressure Karzai's reelection puts on President Obama:




Russia Today interviews Abdullah Abdullah for his reaction to the announcement of Karzai's win:



Meanwhile, it turns out that Canadian and probably US military interpreters of Pashto sometimes mistranslate statements of detainees, causing them to be branded Taliban and sent to prison! The CBC says that Thomas Hammes, a retired US Marine colonel who also was in Afghanistan told it: "We're willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure ice cream and steak is there . . . And I would trade all of that for my entire tour if I could have one decent translator . . . Many times I'd trade body armour for a translator."

Washington's plans for Afghanistan are premised on an ability to train up 200,000 police, and another 200,000 regular army troops, to provide security for the country. This plan does not reckon with social realities, such as the ethnic composition of the army and police, and such as the fact that 90% of the present army troops are illiterate. A US police chief who helped train Afghan policemen reports, according to Mark Brunswick of the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

' Ball spent 15 months in Afghanistan, overseeing a $340 million annual contract to recruit and train the country's nearly nonexistent national police force for DynCorp International with the U.S. State Department. Many of the recruits he was provided -- some under threat of imprisonment if they did not show up -- did not know right from left. Some had never seen their reflection in a mirror. Opium drug lords, more than the Taliban, run provinces like plantation owners in the Old South. Government officials at the highest levels not only tolerate corruption but expect it.'

Noah Coburn and Ana Larsen explain why [pdf] the presidential election, which coincided with provincial elections, was and was not a disaster. They maintain that legitimacy in Afghanistan lies on a spectrum rather than being a black and white matter, and point to Karzai's Hazara constituency beyond his Pashtun one.

In Afghanistan, US troops fight and die, and a Chinese firm is awarded a $3 bn. copper mining contract.



IC Postings by Email

End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Over 30 Dead in Rawalpindi Blast

A car bomb in the parking lot of the Shalimar Hotel in Rawalpindi was detonated on Monday morning. Aljazeera is reporting over 30 dead. 'Pindi, as locals abbreviate it, is a twin city of the capital, Islamabad, and is security-sensitive because army headquarters is located there.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani military's campaign against Pakistani Taliban militants in South Waziristan continued. A cell of expatriate Uzbek fighters is now being encountered.

Even though development aid holds out the best hope for resolving the problems of the Pashtun tribes with the central government, in times of war relief work becomes dangerous. The United Nations is now pulling its development workers out of the Pashtun areas of Pakistan, given that the current military operations are putting their lives in danger from the militants.


End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Speculation on Whether Abdullah will Join National Unity Government; MPs call for US withdrawal

Matthew Green of the FT, reporting from Kabul, suggests that Abdullah Abdullah may still be open to a post in Hamid Karzai's cabinet. That outcome is not impossible given Afghanistan's mercurial politics. But it seems to me unlikely, since Abdullah is accusing his rival in the country's presidential contest, Hamid Karzai, of having attempted to steal the Aug. 20 election, and of running interference for corrupt members of the electoral commission. The reason Abdullah gave for pulling out of the race, that the elections were not going to be conducted transparently, is more of a thunderous condemnation than a coy offering of himself as a cabinet member. Still, Euronews also notes that Abdullah has not ruled out playing a role in a national unity government.

Aljazeera English reports on Abdullah's withdrawal from the presidential race.



Abdullah's withdrawal is not good news for the Obama administration, as I said yesterday, if they are planning a long-term, nation-building, counter-insurgency campaign. But for a targeted, small counter-terrorism campaign, the shape of the indigenous government is less important.

The fact is that Karzai was likely to win all along. That his government's legitimacy has been wounded is bad for Washington. But Karzai never built the kind of power base that Nuri al-Maliki assembled in Iraq. Karzai only controls 30% of the country, while the Taliban and other anti-government guerrillas have altogether about 10-15%. Most of the country is under regional tribal leaders and warlords, who have not actively taken up arms against either Kabul or the foreign troops, but who do not want to be dominated by either.

Aljazeera English reports that the Afghan government wants to go forward with the election on Nov. 7, while the international community feels it would be dangerous and irresponsible to hold the elections when their outcome is a foregone conclusion.



The discussions about US troop force levels in Afghanistan takes place in the White House, the Pentagon, and the US Congress. But shouldn't the elected Afghanistan parliament have a say? It was after all the Iraqi parliament that asserted itself in insisting that the Status of Forces Agreement contain a timetable for US withdrawal.

And what would the Afghan parliament say if it was given a say? It would be hard to know from reading the American press. But Azadi Radio in Dari Persian has an article on some of the debate among Afghan parliamentarians. Senator [Mahmood] Rashid [the article mistakenly gives his name as Ahmad] says that more US troops will actually make things in the country worse. He points out that many of the Taliban say that what motivates them to fight is the task of pushing foreign troops out of their country. Sending in a lot more US troops would therefore just stiffen the resistance.

Pir Sayyid Ibrahim Gailani said much the same thing. But he added that the next president of Afghanistan must take parliament's views into account, and should call a conference of parliamentarians with Taliban and the Hizb-i Islami (of Gulbadin Hikmatyar) to settle the outstanding issues by negotiation instead of by sending in foreign troops.

The biographies of Rashid and Gailani can be found here. Both Rashid and Gailani had been associated with the Mujahidin or anti-Soviet guerrilla fighters, in fact Gailani had been a commander in Paktia in the 1980s. Both senators, in other words, know a great deal about the dynamics of Afghan tribes with foreign troops. Their voices should be heard in this debate. Indeed, Gailani's insistence that parliament be brought into the task of finding a negotiated settlement with some of the guerrilla forces may be crucial.

See also Tom Engelhardt on Afghanistan as a bail-out state.

End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Abdullah withdraws from Afghanistan Presidential Race

Abdullah Abdullah announced Sunday morning that he has withdrawn from the second round of Afghanistan's presidential election on the grounds that the same local officials, appointed by his rival, incumbent Hamid Karzai, will supervise the runoff as winked at massive fraud in the first round. He said that the election cannot be transparent or honest.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implausibly maintained that Abdullah's withdrawal will not affect the legitimacy of the Afghanistan presidential election.

Since President Obama had put off making a decision on his Afghanistan policy until he saw the results of the planned November 7 runoff, Abdullah's decision puts Washington in an awkward position. Abdullah is said to be seeking to postpone the runoff until spring, 2010, which would much extend the period of instability. In contrast, Clinton seems to be crowning Karzai the winner by virtue of Abdullah's withdrawal. But the Karzai presidency has been badly if not unalterably wounded by the ballot fraud practiced in August, and of which the retention of the same electoral commission would guarantee a repetition.

And here is what I take away from all this. The debate in Washington has been over a counter-insurgency campaign versus a limited counter-terrorism campaign. Counter-insurgency implies a certain amount of state-building. Counter-terrorism implies that state-building is impossible or very, very difficult. Clinton backs counter-insurgency, while Vice President Joe Biden supports counter-terrorism.

The reason Clinton is so eager to insist that Karzai's election is legitimate despite its obvious illegitimacy is that Abdullah's withdrawal puts paid to the idea that there is a plausible Afghan government partner for US counter-insurgency. There is not.

Biden may or may not win the argument in Washington. But there is now no doubt that he should win that argument. Sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan to shore up a Karzai government that tried to steal the election and demonstrated so little accountability that the officials who winked at the fraud are still on the electoral commission-- that is an absurd proposition.

Aljazeera English has video:



Eric Garris points out that Afghan woman Member of Parliament Malalai Joya was interrupted on the US CNN when she referred to the US presence in Afghanistan as an occupation, but when she went on CNN International she was treated respectfully and allowed to speak. Actually, that the US and NATO are militarily occupying Afghanistan is recognized by the UN security council and is a simple fact of international law.


End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Abdullah May Withdraw from Second Round

Abdullah Abdullah is threatening to withdraw from the presidential runoff contest in Afghanistan if the head of the Electoral Commission is not replaced. That commission oversaw the fraud-ridden first round. President Obama has put off his decision on Afghanistan policy until the presidential election is concluded, but what if it never really takes place and the US is willy-nilly stuck with Hamid Karzai and his wounded legitimacy?

Over 1,000 US troops have been wounded in Afghanistan in the past 3 months.

Congress is pressing the Pentagon to find more effective ways of combating roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices.



End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Baltzer and Barghouti on Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart this week showed his usual stone cold courage in having on to his show Palestinian activist Moustafa Barghouti and Jewish-American peace worker Ann Baltzer for a frank discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. A hard line Likudnik audience member heckled them and ultimately had to be escorted from the studio. Here is an eye witness account at MondoWeiss.

Part 1 of the interview:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Here is part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

As usual, the Likudnik Dirty Tricks squad has been pressuring Stewart and Comedy Central over this outbreak of frank talk about Israel.

Rawstory has more on the controversy.

Please support Stewart: at http://www.comedycentral.com/
help/questionsCC.jhtml, selecting The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in the menu. If you prefer to call, the number is 212 468 1700. If you liked what you saw, give it support. Numbers matter in these things and actually the Likudniks aren't all that numerous, it is just that so few in the mainstream bother to speak out.

End/ (Not Continued)


For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Pakistan Press: Clinton 'White Goddess'; US should Leave Afghanistan

The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases Urdu editorials on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's controversial visit to Pakistan

Pakistan: Urdu Press Roundup Discusses Hillary Clinton's Visit to Country
The following is a roundup of excerpts from editorials and articles on the visit of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to Pakistan, with particular reference to Washington's policy towards Islamabad, war on terror, and the Taliban, published in the 30 October editions of seven Urdu dailies.
Pakistan -- OSC Summary
Friday, October 30, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary

Ausaf Editorial Sees Shift in USPolicy Regarding Taliban

Maintaining that the United States wants to hold talks with the moderate Taliban for resolving the Afghan imbroglio, the 30 October editorial says: " US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that those who were forced to become Taliban members would have to be separated from the militants.

She said that every gun-wielding individual was not a terrorist,but there were those, who were supporting the extremists out of compulsion.

The policy that the United States is deliberating these days concerning the Talibanis that the Taliban should be divided into two groups, good and bad, then the good members of Taliban should be isolated from the bad ones, and talks should beheld with them."

Jinnah Editorial Holds US Responsible for Talibanization

Recalling that it was the United States that had organized and provided resources to these people (Taliban) in its war against the Soviet Union; the 30 October editorial states: "The United States itself is the motivator for the apprehensions that the US secretary of state hasbeen expressing during her visit to Pakistan.

The United States used to provide weapons and other paraphernalia to the Taliban to fight against the Soviet Union and declared them as jihadists.

It used the shoulder of the Taliban jihadists to shatter the Soviet Union. Later, when the shattered Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, the United States left the Taliban unmonitored."

Mashriq Editorial Claims US Mulling Change in Policies

Referring to the joint press conference of Hillary Clinton with Foreign Minister Qureshi, the 30 October editorial states: "Anyhow, it can be guessed from the news conference of the US secretary of state that her country wants to bring change in its policies.

She has acknowledged to the extent that the United States had not benefited with direct contact with the rulers, rather they have suffered losses. Therefore, it now intends to establish direct contact with people."

Express Article by Tanvir Qaisar Shahid Discusses Impact of Visit

Talking about the statement of the Indian prime minister about holding talks with Pakistan on the eve of Hillary Clinton's Pakistan visit; the 30 October article comments: "The visit of the US secretary of state proved hard for Pakistan.

As soon as she reached Pakistan, a bomb blast occurred in Peshawar. Over 100 hundred people were killed, and 200 otherswere critically injured.

One benefit of her visit was that on the very first day of her visit, the Indian prime minister announced that his country was willing to hold unconditional talks with Pakistan."

Islam Editorial Urges US To Review Policies

Advising the United States to bring about changes in its policy for peace and security in the region, the 30 October editorial says: "Ignoring the international norms and diplomatic demands, the US secretary of state talked about, with full comfort, the appointment of the chief of the most sensitive agency of the Pakistan Army.

If the United States wants to improve its image, it should pull out of the Afghan war.
At the same time, it should also abandon its conspiracy to bog down the Pakistan Army into this war."

Islam Article by Khawar Chaudhry Links Operation With Visit

Emphasizing that stepping up of operation was imperative to pave the way for the visit of the US secretary of state; the 30October article states: "Preparations had been ongoing since the start of October for getting a glimpse of the white goddess (Hillary Clinton).
The series of offering sacrifices was also underway to appease her.

It is obvious that the visit of the goddess was necessary for a glimpse and a particular environment was also required for her arrival."

Khabrain Editorial Criticizes US Approach Toward Pakistan

Highlighting the recent US measures that prove contrary to Pakistan's sovereignty and independence; the 30 October editorial says: "The way in which people have suffered hardships because of Hillary Clinton's visit it says that if the US secretary was facing grave threats, whywas this visit to Pakistan organized?

Talking to the media, the US secretary of state said that her country would always support Pakistan.

However, when asked about the illegal measures of the United States, she evaded to answer. Pakistanis are questioning Pakistan's sovereignty and independence after the US drone attacks and armed patrolling by the US soldiers in Islamabad."

Nawa-e Waqt Editorial Exhorts Leaders To Reject US Aid, Presence of Soldiers

Goading the rulers to show national honor and dignity and rise to the occasion; the 30 October editorial comments: "Keeping in view the national sovereignty the US secretary of state should be asked to withdraw the US aid and troops.

At the same time, she should be told that we cannot sell away our independence and sovereignty for the sake of the US aid, and that weare capable of defending our independence and integrity in our capacity as anuclear power."

Nawa-e Waqt Article by Dr Hussein Ahmed Piracha Questions Double Standards of US

Deploring that the United States has been conniving at the Indian intrusion into Pakistan and its backing of the terrorists, the 30 October article says: "It should have been asked from Hillary Clinton that on one hand you have been praising the Pakistan Government and Army for launching effective operation against the terrorists in Swat and Malakand, and on the other, India has been providing weapons and dollars to the same terrorists by setting up consulates in border areas under the US patronage. India continues to cater to these elements."


End/ (Not Continued)
For "cont'd" postings, click here.