d0ct0r
Member
Rent a Joker(Altaf)
http://pkpolitics.com/2011/06/16/rent-a-joker/
MQM Shoots Itself in the Foot
http://pkpolitics.com/2011/09/08/mqm-shoots-itself-in-the-foot/
MQM lie about the address of International Sectt in press conference
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/mqm-lie-about-the-address-of-international-sectt-in-press-conference
MQM letter to Tony Blair is genuine: spymaster
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8543&Cat=13
bsobaid
Member
Good point...
but MQM since then becamse best friends with establishment and Haqqani is loathed by establishment and its Rakhails...
However, please leave MQM alone, mera dil dooba jaaraha hai, pata nahi Altaf Bobby and co. khayreat se hein kay nahi...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2011/11/111121_dehli_fire_eunuch_tk.shtml
outspokenloud
Blocked
USA, India, Hamid Karzai, Zardari & Nawaz $hareer, all of them working hand in hand against Pakistan first line of defence the ISI, they all have same point of view about ISI
khanseena1
Member
MQM denied the existence of this memo, said it was a forgery. Do we have a british govt confirmation that this is a real letter/memo (like Adm Mullen has accepted)
spruce
Member
All over Pakistan, people are asking whether Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari approved a memo asking for Washington's help in reining in the country's powerful military.
The answer could play a role in whether Zardari, already deeply unpopular with both the public and the military, stays in power.
The scandal scorching the airwaves in Pakistani cities and towns now has a name — Memogate — and it is sparking talk of early elections. At the center of it all is Pakistani American businessman Mansoor Ijaz, who says a senior Pakistani diplomat asked him to convey a letter to Washington seeking its help in preventing a military takeover of Zardari's administration.
In return, the letter stated, the Zardari government would eliminate a wing of the Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, or ISI, that maintains links with Afghan insurgent groups, and would give U.S. troops "a green light" to root out Afghan militants hiding out in Pakistan's tribal areas.
Ijaz says Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, asked him to be the intermediary and that Zardari had endorsed the memo. The explosive allegations prompted Haqqani to offer his resignation as a way of defusing the controversy, though he denies either writing the memo or asking Ijaz to pass it on to Washington.
Unless Haqqani can show that the memo was fabricated, he could be ousted from his post. But analysts say the crisis also casts a shadow on Zardari, who has been criticized by many Pakistanis for his closeness to the American government, which they mistrust, as well as his failure to solve the country's myriad economic and infrastructure ills.
"It might be a game-changer in the political arena, with the military concluding there's no way it can trust the Zardari government," said Pakistani columnist and legal expert Babar Sattar. "If the military isn't willing to let this go, it could reduce the term of this government. That might be the only resolution: to hold early elections."
If genuine, the memo sheds a harsh light on the deep rifts between Pakistan's civilian and military leaders. Although Zardari is president, the military, led by army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, holds ultimate power in Pakistan, as it has for most of the country's 64-year history. The military thinks Zardari is too acquiescent to Washington's demands.
The memo purportedly was drafted a week after U.S. commandos killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during a secret nighttime raid on his compound in the Pakistani military city of Abbottabad, about a two-hour drive from the capital. It portrays a civilian government convinced that the country's military leaders were planning a coup against Zardari.
The rationale, Ijaz said in an Oct. 10 op-ed piece in the Financial Times newspaper, was that the military was being heavily criticized by the public and the media for allowing the raid to occur, and needed to make Zardari a scapegoat to deflect blame.
"Request your direct intervention in conveying a strong, urgent and direct message to Gen. Kayani that delivers Washington's demand for him and [ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja] Pasha to end their brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus," stated the memo, which was delivered to the then-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen. The memo was published on the website of Foreign Policy magazine and by the Pakistani newspaper the News.
"If true, it shows that the civilian government really panicked," said security analyst Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general. "It's extraordinary that they would get so nervous that they would write all this. It shows the deep divide between the civilian leadership and the military.
"If it's a phony memo, it would recoil back at the [military]."
If the military was behind such a move, it could be aimed at discrediting or weakening Zardari's government.
"The more likely, but far from certain, scenario? The boys are up to their tricks again," Cyril Almeida, a columnist for Dawn, an English-language Pakistani newspaper, wrote Friday, referring to the military.
To back up his claims, Ijaz gave the News email that he says he and Haqqani exchanged at the time the memo was drafted and later conveyed to Mullen. On May 10, after the memo was delivered to Mullen, Ijaz allegedly emailed Haqqani, saying, "Ball is in play now — make sure you have protected your flanks."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-zardari-20111120,0,2845777.story
quaidkamazaar
Member
very intelligent question khanseena1.
i can make such a letter very easily :)
only fools believe rumors without proof, and certainly there are many on this forum.
spruce
Member
LONDON: US businessman Mansoor Ijaz who broke all hell in the world media by releasing the evidence of his secret Memo to Admiral Mike Mullen said on Friday Mullen insisted on having the ambassador's offers put in writing because the US government had been repeatedly deceived by Pakistan's verbal offers of action in the recent past.
"He also insisted that I obtain the ambassador's assurance that President Zardari had approved the offers contained in the memorandum. I did exactly those two things," he told The News.
Speaking after Admiral Mullen confirmed the Memo, Mansoor said at 09:06:16 hours, "I spoke to Amb Haqqani at his London hotel (Park Lane Intercontinental Room 430) in a call lasting 11:16 minutes.
"During this call, he confirmed that the final text of the Memorandum was okay and that he had "the boss' approval" that the memorandum could be sent to Admiral Mullen. The boss was an obvious reference to President Zardari," Mansoor insisted.
He also revealed that at 08:45:43 on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, the final draft of the memorandum was sent to the ambassador's private e-mail address. At 08:47, I sent him a BBM reminder to have a look, and that we needed to have a short call for him to verbally confirm everything was GO. The memorandum's contents had been drawn from calls with the ambassador and instructions given by him to me in drafting it. The content of the memo entirely originated from the ambassador (and perhaps those instructing him elsewhere). At 14:51:33 (about 9am in Washington DC), I called my US interlocutor and informed him we were GO and that the memorandum could be delivered. At 1400 hrs on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, Admiral Mullen received the memorandum from my US interlocutor."
The full transcript of his exchanges with HH are also now available to The News. These were:
05/09/2011 12:31 HH: Are you in London? I am here just for 36 hours. Can we meet for after dinner coffee or s'thing?
05/09/2011 12:32 MI: I'm in Monaco but it's no problem for me to fly up. Takes 90 minutes. What time did you have in mind? Where do you want to meet?
05/09/2011 12:35 HH: Pls call me. I'm at the Park Lane Intercon +442071060900 room 430
05/09/2011 12:35 HH: Waiting for ur call now 05/09/2011 13:37 MI: Could access to the 3 stooges who widow the man be arranged as part of the bigger picture?
05/09/2011 13:39 HH: I am sure that can be arranged upon formal demand
05/09/2011 13:40 MI: That is critical to breaking apart the system outside - and understanding what was going on inside. Would we get candor and truth or some brainwashed jargon?
05/09/2011 13:40 MI: The calls to Isphani's people have been made. Very very receptive reaction so far
05/09/2011 13:44 HH: If my friend and I feel sufficiently empowered in relation to the bad boys, I will ensure we get candor
05/09/2011 13:45 MI: Got it. Let me see if we can't get you a sledge hammer with a golden handle
05/09/2011 13:47 HH: Would be nice
05/09/2011 13:47 MI: I'm sending you a PIN message that others cannot see. Please respond. Thanks
05/09/2011 13:48 HH: Okay. Thx
05/09/2011 13:54 MI: Message by PIN sent
05/09/2011 13:56 HH: Okay
05/09/2011 14:22 MI: Message has been delivered to Isphani. Receptiom positive but I need you to agree to do something. Can I call you?
05/09/2011 15:02 MI: Please PING when you can talk and on what number. Time sensitive
05/09/2011 15:05 HH: Entering No 10. Can speak on cell after an hour
05/09/2011 15:05 MI: Okay. I'll wait for your PING
05/09/2011 16:09 HH: PING!!!
05/09/2011 16:09 HH: PING!!!
05/09/2011 16:09 HH: Pls call on cell now +16179532835
05/09/2011 16:10 HH: PING!!!
05/09/2011 16:19 MI: Sorry. Was stuck on call to DC. Pls ping again when ready
05/09/2011 18:26 HH: PING!!!
05/09/2011 18:27 MI: Tried you. Phone says unavailable
05/09/2011 18:38 MI: The message I sent is what MM will see. It will be given directly to him and no one else
05/09/2011 18:59 MI: My friend in DC simply said too many people have been burned in the past two years on the US side and he wanted to insure that on such a sensitive subject, the data and proposal are clear. This is you to me, me to him. He trusts me enough to know I won't bring it forward unless it has top level approval. He does not need it with any email addresses etc. He will scrub that in any event. If you want names to be mentioned, yours, JK, MD, etc, I will do that in person. So get whatever message you want delivered back to me and I'll insure it gets in MM's hands. Best. M
05/09/2011 19:02 MI: By the way, the interesting thing is that they consider AZ's approval of the message worth more than anyone else in country right now. How do you like that?
05/09/2011 20:43 MI: I have additional information you need to hear. Ping when I can call you please
05/09/2011 21:10 MI: Would it be safe to say that you don't want to run this up your flagpole because you need to work this deal from the middle out? Tell me if that's the case and I'll use a different approach that does not require something in writing. What would then be helpful is if I could simply have a BBM saying my talking points are correct, or not, and then you set your table, I'll set my table and make sure you are an honored guest at my table when the party begins. If you're good with that, I just need your okay on the talking points. No need to run it up the az-pole, if you get my drift. M
05/10/2011 00:29 HH: Msg recvd. Tweaking. Middile of road option sounds good. Will call morning.
05/10/2011 00:29 HH: PING!!!
05/10/2011 00:37 MI: Will you be sending me your tweaks or am I to use my copy as final? If tweaks are short, I can call you to get them
05/10/2011 08:47 MI: You have mail from two of my mailboxes. Please read, respond and then we have one last short discussion before I put everything in motion. Thanks. M
05/10/2011 12:45 MI: I was just informed by senior US intel that GD-SII Mr P asked for, and received permission, from senior Arab leaders a few days ago to sack Z. For what its worth
05/10/2011 13:08 HH: Thanks. Very useful 05/10/2011 13:09 HH: My friend and I agree with middle option. Go ahead
05/10/2011 14:57 MI: Message delivered with caveat that he has to decide how hard to push - we only set the table. He must decide if he wants one course meal or seven course meal. Ball is in play now - make sure you have protected your flanks
05/11/2011 12:33 MI: I've been asked to find out what time your meeting is today. Response so far indicates they are having a hard look, although they find it nearly impossible to believe anyone could deliver such results... to be expected, I suppose. Hope you got home okay. Did you see Mush while in London?
05/11/2011 14:59 MI: PING!!!
05/12/2011 00:36 HH: Call me on my cell
05/12/2011 00:37 HH: Also, M in ur msgs above referred to the Admiral, right?
05/12/2011 00:37 MI: Yes
05/12/2011 00:54 MI: Clarification. M at the end of a message is Mansoor. M or MM in the text of a message is the admiral. Apologies for any confusion. BBM when free. I'll call you. Whether it is shattering news or not is up to you to decide
05/12/2011 01:47 MI: I just received an email from my link to MM independently confirming what you told me by phone. He says MM was appreciative of our intervention and utilized the data to advise and consent
05/12/2011 02:47 HH: Thanx. On way to Isloo. Will touch base on return
05/12/2011 02:54 MI: Good luck. Let me know at any time if you need any help
Details of chat between MI and HH after his Financial article was published until the first week of November, 2011:
HH: you can keep saying you delivered a message and show bbm convos to prove it
HH: Basically you don't get it
HH: You have given hardliners in Pak Mil reason to argue there was an effort to get US to conspire against Pak Mil
HH: You are a US citizen
HH: You are supposed to look after US interests
MI: I wrote one article. Have not said one word on the record since then to anyone. I think your press is working both sides against the middle, trying to force something out of anyone they can. Period. I don't play in that game
HH: In Pak political situation, getting burned as a US stooge undermines one's effectiveness
HH: I will make sure FO shuts up
HH: Let this die down
HH: We are in the right
HH: We will still make things happen
MI: Okay, well I know my IQ is pretty low so you are probably correct in saying I just don't get it.
HH: The Pak press be damned
HH: I stand by you as a man of integrity werving his country
HH: You don't let ppl back home argue I play for your team, not ours
MI: But from my point of view, if there was a real threat, as you stated at the time, it is clear you were trying to save a democratic structure from those hawks
HH: You get to write the book on how you changed US-Pak dynamic and won the war in A'tan (w/ some help from a **** nerd) :D
MI: I was happy to get the message in the back door because it served American interests to preserve the democratic civilian setup and the offers made, if achieved, were very much congruent with American objectives in the region
HH: True that, friend. But you know premature revelation ain't good
MI: As far as I can see, we did right. Unless there is something I don't see here. But then I'm sorta dumb from down on the farm where them hillbillies live
HH: Hey! Don't run down hillbillies
HH: Even the smartest can miss a piece of the puzzle
HH: You are assuming there are no powerful men in Pak willing to break w/ US. Premature revelation gives those ppl reason to claim 'conspiracy', 'treason'
HH: That is all you missed. Period.
HH: And no one else might tell you this, you're becoming irritable and losing your sense of humor as you grow old
HH: Let this one go. There is much to do. MUCH. And then, there's the beach where I've been waiting to be invited, the slum boy visiting the millionaire
MI: I'm not a millionaire. But I do know a nice piece of beach!
HH: I'm not a slum boy either but I know how to make friends with smart people with a sense of history :P
MI: Jesus, then what the -- are you doing hanging around with me? =D
HH: We'll make things happen and if we can't, we'll write a book about it
HH: Who said I was hanging around with you. A minute ago I thought you were about to hang me :D
MI: :O MI: Really?
HH: Look, Isloo is a mess. Journos gone wild. Politicos scared of mil. Mil scared of Yanks.
MI: Tell me one important thing. Who likes you and who hates you in the US establishment? Who wants you to stay and who wants to -- you up?
HH: The debate abt your oped has caused my detractors to put pressure on my boss
HH: In US estab, I can count on Leon and Petraeus
MI: I thought YOU were the boss!
MI: Who is against you?
HH: Folks at State don't like me
MI: Why?
MI: Too close to AZ?
HH: They think I am too mixed up w/ DoD and others and do not help them cut deals w/ Pak mil
HH: Close to AZ bit too
HH: They are wrong re DoD and others.
HH: It is just that becoz of A'tan, they are more imp than State
MI: I always thought HRC was one of your fans. She even has a lady from our parts working with her
HH: It is folks at State who got pissed off by your mission
HH: She may be but I was Holbrooke's buddy so everyone who hates him hates me
HH: I have no time for just pushing paper around
HH: State likes process
MI: Which mission? Sudan, Kashmir, there were so many they got pissed off about. I showed them how to do real American diplomacy and that was like a big pile of **** on their desk they couldn't swallow
HH: Conferences, statements-with nothing changing
HH: The latest one
MI: Yeah, I got it. You're right!
MI: Anyway, State will always hate me because I don't accept their muddling way of doing things
HH: I don't know for a fact but I won't be surprised if the FO statement was prompted by someone here
HH: Robin Raphel is back as Grossman's deputy
HH: You stepped on her toes w/ Kashmir mission
MI: That would be typical. But Grossman knows me and he knows how serious I am. Raphael still hates me for the Kashmir intervention where she did everything she could to **** me up
HH: And now they hate me more when folks back home who hate me tell them you and I might have been together on s'thing (whether we were or not is irrelevant to them)
HH: Grossman is good but he doesn't like anyone playing a larger than life role. Old school
HH: That's why I have been requesting you to let this one go
MI: Yeah I know. Found that out when he was our lobbyist. But he's a good guy
HH: That takes attention off me
MI: Hmmmmmmmmm....... Not sure anything could take attention off you
HH: I try and make peace with State and focus on battles at home
HH: HaHa :D MI: Diplomacy at its finest!!! HH: Yeah, right! But at least I shd not be painted as playing for your team
MI: Why not? You were a good quarterback for those three days!!
HH: I want to solve -***ing problems not fight a rearguard action all the time
HH: :x
HH: Let us wait and see if Hillary's latest foray changes things in any direction
MI: Did we really solve a true problem or was this all smoke and mirrors?
MI: I mean on those days of stress...
HH: View here is that everyone in Isloo sucks!
MI: That's pretty much true!!!!
HH: Too early to say re solution
MI: But if they all suck, then what did we save - a sinking ship that was going to sink anyway???
HH: And there is a genetic problem at that end, predisposed to going round and round in circles
MI: Yup!! That's for damn sure
HH: I think we save the situation from an extremely violent outcome
MI: How can you solve the problems you understand so well from here if all the people in charge over there are wrong? It's only one year til we have a change in the US. Then you really won't like who we have here!
HH: I mean, Iran might have done better if the Shah had been saved AND some true reform introduced
HH: Actually, I think the new ppl here might be better to deal with
HH: They won't take lies easily
MI: Don't bet on it. We have a lot of extremists cropping up and seeping into the system
MI: They don't trust anything Pakistani
MI: Don't matter what it is
HH: Well, in that case find me a cheap piece of beach :)
MI: Cain, Romney (who hates Muslims), Perry - its all the same crap
MI: Hmmmmm, yes, I can arrange that
MI: Why is Z such an idiot?
HH: But don't go off writing opeds abt arranging piece of beach w'out consulting first :P
HH: HaHa! Tough question
HH: I have a speech in 20 mins so let's keep that for later
HH: Bye for now
MI: Okay. Good luck.
HH: Thank you!
MI: Hi buddy, I understand you/ your foreign office hacks are commissioning hatchet pieces against me. Unfortunate.... very unfortunate
HH: I will enquire and stop them. There's no need for any of this.
HH: You haven't helped by engaging so much w/ Pak media.
HH: What happened to the 'silent soldier'?
MI: I issued a statement that was designed to put an end to all of this after Imran Khan's rally nonsense. But be that as it may, I'm not going to tolerate character assassination in any of this
HH: I agree
HH: Will do my best to prevent it
MI: Roger that
HH: Focus on your policy message instead of who did what and we can turn this around
MI: Please remind your boss that his beloved wife, who later became a good friend of mine, tried the same **** tactics in 1996 when Maleeha was envoy - result: her government was dismissed in Nov 1996.
MI: I'm not someone he can mess around with. He better get that message from me and really understand it
HH: My response to Imran was very simple and true: I did not write a treasonous letter and if Imran has a copy, he should present it
HH: I don't think your threatening helps
MI: That's true from my point of view as well. But politicians are politicians
MI: I don't make threats. I state facts. Your boss needs reminding of the facts
HH: Are you sure your side won't deny?
MI: No, maybe they will. But that would also be a mistake. Too much proof on that side as well.
HH: But does "proving" help anything?
HH: Is it not the nature of a private mission that officials deny it?
MI: Don't know. Don't care. My point is simple - I've said what I was going to. Attacks on my person will not be tolerated. And my statement stands. Stop telling lies about me and I might just stip telling the truth about you
HH: If you were to listen to my advice, you would let this blow over and prove yourself afterwards. You are the one who will outlast the flying **** :)
HH: That is usually my strategy: be there when the others have self-destructed or blown over
MI: I've kept to my word - if everyone wants to call it a fabrication and make me the fall guy, then gloves come off and it's not going to be fun or pretty for anyone
MI: You did something you thought was right outside channels because you felt it would be the most effective way to get the job done. I helped you execute. I haven't thrown you under the bus. But be damn sure I won't let anyone do that to me
HH: I'll do what I can to keep it pretty
HH: I haven't. I won't.
MI: By the way, I know a lot more than you give me credit for about the circumstances that led to May 1 and your role in all that. Just FYI
HH: Honorable ppl stick with one another. Take care.
MI: ;)
HH: I am maintaining silence so pls check with me before reacting if some Pak journo attributes anything to me
MI: It's interesting (and heartening) to see that many of the proposals made in the memo are now being implemented in the bilateral relationship. Very good
http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=26752&title=Memo:-Mullen-wanted-Zardari-clearance
spruce
Member
conspiracy theory again!!
spruce
Member
PENTAGON: Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby has said that the memo sent by Pakistani origin US citizen Mansoor Ijaz was not credible and Mike Mullen was confident that it was not sent by President Zardari.
In a statement, Pentagon Spokesman Kirby said former US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen neither knew Mansoor Ijaz and nor did he ever communicate with him.
Kirby said Admiral Mullen knew intermediary who brought secret memo to him, adding that the memo was not signed and was not credible.
There was nothing in the memo that indicated that it was from President Zardari, he added.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=26991&title=No-evidence-Zardari-sent-memo:-Pentagon
gv
Member
Haqqani just resigned.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/22/husain-haqqani-resigns-ready-to-face-investigation.html
pakstar
Member
Why army does not take action against traitors within the Army , such as Zia, Musharaf who have clearly overstepped the constitution, are they Gods and exempted ?
ISI sleeps when army produces traitors ?
Why security is only for civil bureaucracy?
plz comment on it.
pakstar
Member
@d0ct0r .. you have raised very valid question why there is no enquiry against MQM's memo? which is signed by Altaf.. it can be easily verified by ISI..
Dusky
Member
Their should be a inquiry against Shahbaz Sharif as well who went to Washington in October ’99 to get a statement against military take over. What's the difference between AH, SS and now Zardari? They all commented the same sin.
pakstar
Member
@Dusky You are right ager pindora khulay ga tu sab ki enquiry ho gi lakin.. Musharaf, zia etc are proven traitors they over-stepped the constitution of Pakistan and this matter does not require any enquiry .. why Army/ISI does not take action against traitor Generals within Army ?
have you say !
siddiqi73
Member
I personally have no problem with a memo or its contents. It is the duty of every Pakistani to do whatever it takes to tame, neuter and declaw this monstrosity called the Army and military establishment. I've always maintained that all these fancy tanks, artillery, nukes, frigates, F-16's, submarines etc. etc. should be taken away from armed forces and thrown in smelters. The billions saved could very easily revive our sick economy.
spruce
Member
We Want Imran Khan To Be The Next Prime Minster Of Pakistan
The Article of Mansoor Ejaz Published in Financial Times 10th October 2011
How Imran Khan knew the name of Haqqani on 30th October?
This question raised and pre-planned propaganda started ...
...
Actually it is very simple and people are making it complex because of their lack of knowledge
Three points to be noted and every point in expressing in loud voice that Haqqani was involved in it
1) There is a simple logic. Memo is always inter-office . If someone write from here , then the content will be termed as "Letter" not "Memo". Memo itself means that someone from US writes on behalf of Pakistan. Then who is in US and representing Pakistan ? Of course Pakistan's Ambassador Hussain Haqqani
2) If you want to contact a country , you will not contact them directly but through your ambassador . Do you think Obama contact Zardari by himself ? No but through American Ambassador in Pakistan. Then if Mansoor Ijaz is saying that Pakistani Government want this or that , who conveyed him the message of Pakistan Government ? Of course Pakistan's Ambassador
3) In this article Mansoor Ejaz clearly wrote " Senior Pakistani Diplomat" in his first line so who can be our senior diplomat in US ? Who is close to Zardari and who is representing his views in front of US ? Of course Haqqani
Lastly they don't have any logic in their argument that if you assume that what PML-N is saying that ISI gave us this report then what is wrong ! ISI is a source of information for Pakistan and International media . They also give information to senior media persons openly , as they have real time information of many things. PML-N is clueless , they don't know the connections perceived wrong with ISI is not informational connection but puppet and master connection.
ISI is a source of information for everyone . Every chief minister , minister , governor, analyst , anchor , media do take information from them. ISPR reports also publish in news paper . So whats wrong even if we take their logic.
We are also saying that Government is giving permission to US for drone attacks , now if tomorrow someone evidence endorse our view then people say how you knew that ... Its crystal clear !
When Imran Khan said this on 30 October it was not a news because everyone knew that. But now if someone is saying how you knew at that time , so our answer is , it was crystal clear in the light of logic we mentioned above
Read the article by your own and judge Haqqani's name is implied without saying and even a blind can judge his name : http://www.cssforum.com.pk/general/news-articles/foreign-newspapers/56538-time-take-pakistan-s-jihadist-spies.html
It also came in many news that Ejaz was pointing Haqqani , and was crystal clear and no two opinion was there in this issue : http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/08/exclusive_mullen_denies_secret_back_channel_in_us_pakistan_relationship
Read this Imran Khan was not the first person to point out his name , read this : http://www.****/forum/showthread.php?89695-Imran-Khan-was-not-the-first-person-to-talk-about-Hussain-Haqqani-Involvement
Hamid Mir " I knew Haqqani's name 20 days before 30 October" : http://www.zemtv.com/2011/11/19/policy-matters-19th-november-2011-hamid-meer-and-faisal-raza/See More
spruce
Member
d0ct0r
Member
..It has been complicated by the involvement of opposition politician and former cricketer Imran Khan.
He named Hussain Haqqani as a player in the "memogate" affair at a large rally in Lahore on 30 October - before Mr Ijaz had brought his name into the public domain in the West.
Mr Khan has yet to explain why he did so.
d0ct0r
Member
@Irshad
"Senior diplomat" wasn't named in mansoor ijaz's initial 10 oct ft article, it could have been literally anyone,wajid shamsul hasan,hussain haroon,Haqqani and countless others are very senior diplomats and very close to Zardari so when Imran is specifically taking his name even when Mullen was in denial of existence of any memo then certainly either Imran went to London on behalf of ISI/Pasha and interviewed Mansoor Ijaz himself or Pasha shared this info with him during their "daily bed time story briefing" .
All the other links that you have posted including Anjum Niaz,Hamid Mir etc, they were all merely speculating and guessing,whereas its obvious that ISI khan wasn't speculating and specifically named Haqqani coz he was aware of outcome of pasha's meeting with Mansoor Ijaz..
aftab arif
Member
Just for you Doc
Here is a column published in The News on October 15th, 2011 which mentioned Hussain Haqqani’s name as the brainchild behind the Memo sent to Mullen by Mansur Ejaz.
Case closed!!!!
No smoke without fire
Anjum Niaz
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Golden words are not meant to be repeated. But for the sake of ‘Financial Times’ columnist Mansoor Ijaz, I must. You’ll soon know the reason why. The headline above is a comment from Nawaz Sharif after he heard Kayani and Pasha rubbish Admiral Mullen and his ilk’s allegation of the ISI/Haqqani nexus.
Sharif came away from the APC disbelieving the duo-generals. His doubts were quickly doused in a conflagration of anti-US hysteria heavily weighed against Washington. Now the London-based FT has blown the lid off the cover with news of a coup that was in the works post Bin Laden. Don’t forget FT’s proclivity to cook up coups in Pakistan. Remember the delectable 20-something Christina Lamb whose story of a coup during Benazir Bhutto’s first term hit the FT headlines? The story was a dud; the newspaper apologised; and a teary Ms Lamb was asked to leave Pakistan.
Enter another coup-master Mansoor Ijaz. Billed by FT as an “American of Pakistani ancestry [who] in 1997 negotiated Sudan’s offer of counter-terrorism assistance to the Clinton administration,” Ijaz thrives on conspiracy theories, a game he’s staked his reputation upon.
Driven by an uncontrollable ego to showcase himself as a kingmaker, his October 10 column in FT ‘Time to take on Pakistan’s jihadist spies’ is radioactive. “A senior Pakistani diplomat telephoned me with an urgent request,” begins Ijaz. “Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, needed to communicate a message to White House national security officials that would bypass Pakistan’s military and intelligence channels… [he] feared a military takeover was imminent. He needed an American fist on his army chief’s desk to end any misguided notions of a coup – and fast.”
Stop! Let’s brainstorm. Which US-based “senior Pakistani diplomat” was Zardari’s messenger? Haqqanis dwell not only in Waziristan but in Washington too! Sunday last a senior columnist’s article ‘Killing the messengers’ was in defence of our ambassador in Washington: “There is no general like Sahibzada Yaqub Khan to at least record dissent with the nation’s madness… Our self-made and well-read man in Washington, Husain Haqqani, probably comes closest… [he] continues to quietly persuade Americans to be patient with Pakistan and to plead with Pakistanis to understand the global power equation. But at home he is reviled frequently for not joining the ‘Crush America’ ghairat brigade.”
Not only does Ijaz withhold the name but also the locale from where Zardari’s diplomat “in a flurry of phone calls and emails over two days”, crafted a memorandum that included a “critical offer from the Pakistani president to the Obama administration: ‘The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.’
“The memo was delivered to Admiral Mullen at 14.00 hours on May 10,” writes Mansoor Ijaz with authority, because he was the carrier!
Three things to mull over: First, Mansoor Ijaz must have provided irrefutable proof to the editors at FT. They will have gone over the “phone calls and emails” exchanged between Ijaz and the diplomat to establish the authenticity of the information. Publishing such slanderous material is to invite libel.
Second, if the story is fiction, then the president of Pakistan; the army chief and the ISI chief should sue Financial Times and Mansoor Ijaz for damages. Third, if the account is accurate, Pakistan must identify the senior diplomat who allegedly contacted Mansoor Ijaz and prepared a dossier on behalf of Zardari for the White House and Admiral Mullen with Mansoor Ijaz as the messenger. How did the diplomat gain access to our military’s top secrets to pass them on to the White House and Admiral Mullen? Who gave them to him?
Last, if Ijaz enjoyed the total trust of those that gave him this assignment, he chose to take it to Financial Times. Et tu Brutus?
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=72531&Cat=9
Courtesy Of choudhryhashmet from the main topic on PKP Homepage.
Now Imran can just use this as a reference if he wanted too and you would have to prove otherwise, so please stop P****** in the wind, otherwise you will have to change your clothes every five minutes.
d0ct0r
Member
Stop! Let’s brainstorm. Which US-based “senior Pakistani diplomat” was Zardari’s messenger? Haqqanis dwell not only in Waziristan but in Washington too!
… Our self-made and well-read man in Washington, Husain Haqqani, probably comes closest…
..Not only does Ijaz withhold the name but also the locale from where Zardari’s diplomat “in a flurry of phone calls and emails over two days”..
In her concluding remark she is using term 'Senior diplomat' rather then Hussain Haqqani,had she been dead sure she would not have asked that diplomat in question should be identified..
Third, if the account is accurate, Pakistan must identify the senior diplomat who allegedly contacted Mansoor Ijaz and prepared a dossier on behalf of Zardari for the White House and Admiral Mullen with Mansoor Ijaz as the messenger. How did the diplomat gain access to our military’s top secrets to pass them on to the White House and Admiral Mullen? Who gave them to him?
.
Can't you even read and comprehend properly? Isn't it obvious,by that time she was merely speculating and trying to guess the name and was asking questions about this alleged memo and she didn't issued a verdict like Imran in which he specifically named and blamed Zardari and "US's ambassador" Hussain Haqqani(Imran did that coz by that time he was aware of outcome of Pasha-Mansoor Ijaz meeting so he choose to specifically implicate Zardari- Hussain Haqqani..)
aftab arif
Member
So Imran could have done the same guessing game(which he should not do), but still does not prove that he was given the name by Pasha.
Sulaiman Dar
Member
Imran Khan took Husain Haqqani's name with full conviction as if he knew already that he's the real culprit who asked Mansoor Ijaz to write this memo while on the other hand this columnist is mere speculating and not even sure of his speculation.
aftab arif
Member
So when and where did Imran communicate with Pasha, i would really like to know, you seem like a resourceful person, who his 100% sure that Imran is guilty of something here, or is it just hawaii firing for a little fun?
aftab arif
Member
Acoording to Muhammed Malick he told Imran that it was Hussain Haqqani.
d0ct0r
Member
The memo Epicentre
Mohammad Malick
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The writer is editor The News, Islamabad.
Big storms sometimes begin deceptively small and then in no time become monsters, ruthlessly devouring the unprepared, the unsuspecting. Are Mansoor Ijaz’s revelations in the Financial Times something similar? He claims to have delivered an SOS message from President Zardari to President Obama at the behest of a top diplomat and says that he was specifically asked to approach Admiral Mike Mullen because Mullen could influence both Obama and Gen Kayani. “The memo was delivered to Admiral Mullen at 14.00 hrs on May 10”, wrote Mansoor, saying the very next day in Washington, Mullen had a meeting with “Pakistani national security officials” who had no clue at the time that their meeting had been spawned by a secret presidential memo. Rawalpindi too learnt of the memo months later when Mansoor went cautiously public in the FT.
For its part, political Islamabad kept pretending all these months as if it had done nothing out of the ordinary. Even the explosive FT disclosure was dismissed as a “blatant lie by a self-promoting individual”, as put by an important federal minister. Rawalpindi also pretended as if it had not noticed anything unusual but on the quiet, the system went into overdrive to ferret out facts. Washington was mum, as nobody had asked it for an explanation. And just when things misleadingly appeared to be settling into an inconsequential political groove, Hillary Clinton came calling.
And a lot has happened since my column last week. When asked bluntly about the memo, Secretary Clinton manoeuvred evasively by neither denying nor confirming the memo. And we all know what that really means in case of a critical question at such a diplomatic level. Within the last week the memo issue is also no longer confined to two messengers. Heavyweights have entered the fray and the buzz is that in a lovely European capital, relevant people huddled for hours in meetings, which may well irreversibly influence the political landscape back home. There seem to be no more doubts about the veracity of the memo. All suspicions and apprehensions seem to have been removed. The FT people would be laughing.
With the basics settled, the focus would shift to the memo’s contents. If the details trickling out are to be believed, we apparently do not have a gun but a smoking bazooka on our hands. The contents are so toxic that they could well float into the realm of treason. The memo supposedly has it all, including the promised change of security establishment (read: sacking of Kayani & Co). Even speculations about allowing nuclear security retooling, or American boots on the ground, are tantamount to political blasphemy, so imagine the devastating consequences when such offers are found written in black and white. “It’s an impossibly desperate dream menu rather than a memo,” says someone credible in Islamabad. Everything appears to be real, everything is now on the record. The problem, and the beauty of today’s digital existence, is that every little scrap of data gets preserved with the simple click of a key, instantly transforming seemingly inconsequential exchanges into key-evidence. One click and BlackBerries can turn into poison berries.
What happens in the larger context will perhaps languidly manifest itself, and over a stretched period of time, but what does appear imminent is that those aspiring for grander future roles could soon end up losing even their current lofty perches. And judging from the severity of circumstances, Islamabad should feel exceptionally relieved if the demanded ‘corrective measures’ stopped at this. But it remains a highly unlikely eventuality. It’s not as if the original ‘official’ messenger hasn’t been in the midst of some really dangerous situations in the past as well, but this time around he appears to have made the cardinal mistake of choosing the wrong ‘unofficial messenger’ for conveying his master’s potentially self-destructive message. And therefore penance will be his to pay, the cross for him to carry.
Meanwhile, all fact-finding is over. The Big ones will now sit to eventually reshape the contours of the country’s future ruling structure. Of course, institutional queries will be made, questions posed, but it will be more of a formality as the answers to the yet unasked questions are already known. So what happens next, is the real question here.
In a related development, the office of National Security Advisor in each country was being perceived as the perfect focal point to coordinate strategy between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US. Where needed, the office would have been created, or resurrected. With the four NSAs coordinating matters and even bypassing certain institutions and offices protocol-wise higher than their own, matters were expected to move at a much faster pace and in the desired direction. In the envisaged scheme of things, the NSA’s office would have been second in power only to that of the president and hence the desperate attempt to secure this all-important office. But for now at least, the concept appears a dead horse.
Exhaustive background interviews with those in the know reveal that a clear understanding now exists on what really needs to be done to put brakes on this runaway mandated autocracy passing itself off as elected democracy. The prevailing geopolitical situation however is momentarily staying the increasingly edgy hand. But for how long such international considerations will thwart domestic compulsions, is anybody’s guess. It was also shared that the public stance notwithstanding, privately the superpower’s interlocutors had been indicating their “ease” with dealing with “someone with real authority being directly in charge of things”. But the Mullen blow up has forced a mindset of extreme caution in Rawalpindi’s dealings with Washington even though the US political policy in the region is being dictated by its military and intelligence organs, both being areas of relative comfort for Rawalpindi.
The earlier professed desire of allowing democrats unfettered freedom to run things is also no longer being expressed by those who truly matter. Is the change of views being caused primarily by the growing pressure of increasingly restless colleagues, or is it based on a realistic reassessment of ground realities and complete disenchantment with the political masters? I asked someone extremely close to the alpha general, and he responded, “He is not someone who rigidly remains wedded to any notion without merit. He also does not leave things to chance or fate, or scores unsettled, and will not move a step on anything till he has carefully thought his way through, factored in all consequences of both, moving forward too fast, or even staying still for too long”.
There remains an institutional apprehension about political Islamabad rolling a desperate dice and causing a change at the top if too many questions are asked at this point about the memo. While there may be a few differing voices on this count, an institutional consensus appears to be in place that a change will definitely be caused post-March 2012 Senate elections, were the ruling political dispensation allowed to have its marauding ways till then. “If change in top command is brought in now, it would be for mala fide reasons and the institutional reaction will be as decisive, but come March it will be a different story,” was the assessment of a concerned three-star.
The potent mix to justify the hitherto unjustifiable appears to be in place. There is no governance per se anymore, anywhere. Law and order is conspicuous by its very absence. The economy is bankrupt. Corruption has touched unimaginable heights. Incompetence is the sole requirement for landing important government posts. The executive mocks judges. Court verdicts are not worth the paper they are typed on. Thousands of people are being pushed below the poverty line every day, while the ruling elite churns out new millionaires and billionaires by the week. Desperate circumstances have transformed ordinary masses into raving, raging mobs. The disconnect between the rulers and the ruled is absolute, and naked. We are hurtling towards being a failed State. So what is holding the natural ‘unnatural’ consequence from occurring? Concerns about international reactions, or the obligatory weight of a three-year extension? Should it not happen, no matter what? Is this criminalised democracy still the only or the better option available? I do not know, but we may get the answers sooner than we expect.
d0ct0r
Member
there is no mention of Hussain Haqqani's name in that article..
@aftab
So Imran could have done the same guessing game(which he should not do), but still does not prove that he was given the name by Pasha.
Let me paste what i had said about this issue on another topic..
"so when Imran is specifically taking his name even when Mullen was in denial of existence of any memo then certainly either Imran went to London on behalf of ISI/Pasha and interviewed Mansoor Ijaz himself or Pasha shared this info with him during their "daily bed time story briefing" .
Just watch again what he had said in 30 oct rally
aftab arif
Member
@ doc
Muhammed Malick was asked by Imran what's this article all about on the eve of PTI Jalsa and is Hussain Haqqani the top diplommat that you referring to, and Malick told him Yes it is Hussain Haqqani. Now if you believe that Imran was told by someone else, then at least provide proof to such an accusation and not bed time stories, these accusations may have an initial impact but fizzle out very rapidly, ciao.
d0ct0r
Member
So should we call Muhammed Malick establishment's man,he knew about Pasha's meeting and its outcome
Hussain Farooqui
Member
Invitation for foreign interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan by any politician or diplomatic must be taken into serious account. It is like treachery.
You must log in to post.