Pandora Box of Television in Pakistan

Did i fail to pick the writer`s way ahead plan or there was not any mentioned there? what is the point in telling a already tense man that when he goes to the job and work for 8 hrs there, he is actually following west / british because they started it in there colony, the bus/car/train he travels runs with the engine that comes from elsewhere, the most of the houseohld products used in kitchen and washrooms are made by foriegn companies, all form of entertainment modes, movies, TV, theater were introduced by the west, make him feel degraded yet helpless as what to do??? And is it not it simple to say that all we have been doing is adopting things from others to fill out the gaps that we failed to fill, and we are not alone in doing that whole of the world has/is doing that. our eastern neighbour`s TV industry has been quick to do that and now they have over taken the market in our country.

Re: # 2

The kanjars, miraasies, musallies, etc., having gone into cricket, to become stars and heroes (Inshaallah, Mashallah), the bhaands who used to entertain marriage parties with their `jugat baazi`, have gone into TV to become artists and `fankaars`.

haha...even DHS computers are being programed to recognize pakis = terrorists

Feds on terror lookout for `high-risk` Pakistanis
Passengers put on special watchlist to check al-Qaida training camp ties
Posted: March 2, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Paul Sperry
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Department of Homeland Security agents

Pakistani travelers are the focus of a new temporary watchlist the federal government has created to identify high-risk passengers entering the United States, WND has learned.

The Department of Homeland Security has programmed a computer system that screens inbound passengers for signs of terror activity to flag certain individuals traveling from Pakistan. The system automatically creates a ``one-day lookout`` for the individuals in the official terror-watchlist database.

U.S. authorities are on high alert for Pakistani travelers who pose a possible terror risk after American spy satellites recently turned up photographic evidence of al-Qaida training camps inside Pakistan, U.S. officials say.

According to internal DHS documents obtained by WND, the department has directed customs officers to escort passengers identified by the ``one-day lookouts`` to secondary inspection, where they are subjected to a battery of questions to determine if they have visited terror camps in Pakistan.

(Story continues below)

American citizens of Pakistan descent also are under increased scrutiny. Over the past few years, U.S. authorities have arrested or investigated several Pakistani-American men who have trained at the camps during trips to Pakistan. One camp used photos of President Bush for target practice.

``The camps are a big concern,`` said a DHS official, who requested anonymity. ``We are questioning U.S. citizens, as well as Pakistani nationals, as they come back to the states if the computer says they might have terrorist ties.``

Vice President Dick Cheney earlier this week confronted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf with ``compelling`` evidence of active al-Qaida camps inside Pakistan. The two met face-to-face in Islamabad.


Cheney`s secret visit revealed new cracks in an already fragile alliance between Washington and Islamabad in the war on terror. Musharraf has denied the existence of terror camps in his country, even as authorities have traced major British terror plots back to al-Qaida-tied madrassas and camps in Pakistan.

DHS refers to the ramped-up screening process for Pakistani and other high-risk travelers as ``augmented primary.``

The ``one-day lookout`` is usually the result of analysis conducted on passenger information submitted by the airline prior to an international flight`s arrival in the U.S.

Muslim-rights groups and Democratic leaders in Congress have complained the government`s use of such information to ``profile`` potential terrorists constitutes an invasion of privacy. The government has said the nation`s ability to spot security threats would be critically impaired without access to such data.

DHS officials claim the system has resulted in several suspected terrorists being turned away or apprehended.

According to DHS documents, the airline-passenger information is fed into a so-called Automated Targeting System, or ATS-P, which flags inbound passengers who may pose a terrorism risk based on various criteria, including:

* suspicious travel itineraries;

* travel to Pakistan and other high-risk countries;

* use of suspect ticketing agencies;

* or possible matches to federal watchlists.

Additional data gleaned from passenger travel records, including seating and meal preferences, are reviewed by DHS officials at the National Targeting Center in Northern Virginia. Passengers added to the temporary watchlist warrant a closer look by an airport customs officer trained in ``counter terrorism response,`` or CTR.

CTR officers have been trained to ask ``passengers of interest`` a list of required questions from a matrix. Highly suspicious passengers are subjected to additional interviews and searches and may be taken into custody.

The matrix of questions is sensitive and closely held within the department. WND has obtained a copy of the matrix sheets, which contain more than 30 questions cross-referenced with more than a dozen security categories involving passport issues and travel patterns, among other concerns.

Question No. 2 reads: ``Did you travel to Pakistan? If so, what cities did you visit.`` Questions 5 and 6 deal with ``military training`` and ``school/training.`` Others drill down on specifics regarding such training.

WND has agreed not to reveal details, given that al-Qaida coaches its operatives in how to answer such questions to avoid suspicion at U.S. and other Western airports.

For instance, the al-Qaida training manual advises that ``during travel the brother should be taught the answers to the following questions ... when your travel to Pakistan is discovered:``

``A. What were you doing in Pakistan?
B. In which camp were you trained?
C. Who trained you? On what weapons were you trained? ...

``H. How many are in that camp?
I. What are their names?
J. Who are the group commanders there (in Pakistan)? Where do they live and what do they do?
K. What things did the commanders talk about?``

Also:

``A. What were you doing in Pakistan?
B. Are you a jihad fighter?
C. Do you belong to religious organizations?
D. Why did you come to our country in particular?
E. Whom will you be staying with now?
F. How long will you spend here?``

DHS has put its temporary lookout system and ``augmented primary`` interviewing process into operation at major international airports, including ones in Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Newark, N.J., Boston, New York, Miami and Los Angeles.

The system was set up by Erik Shoberg, a field operations official for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington.

DHS first responded in 2004 to intelligence that Pakistani-Americans were training at terror camps during trips to Pakistan by requiring customs officers to check young Pakistani male travelers for physical signs of military training. As WND first reported, they were asked to look for ``rope burns,`` ``unusual bruises,`` ``scars`` and other possible injuries suffered from obstacle courses, firearms or explosives.

``Many of the individuals trained in the Pakistani camps are destined to commit illegal activities in the United States,`` warned the two-page DHS advisory that launched the special action.

Re: # 242 Tahmed32

``earlier you were saying that if I disapproved of the use of militants to fight proxy wars (as in Kashmir), then it follows that I should also disapprove of Pakistan maintaining an effective defence against an Indian attack.``

That is exactly what I am saying. If `you disapprove the use of militants to fight proxy wars (as in Kashmir), then it follows that you should also not be surprised in case of an Indian attack following such a proxy war`. In other words, once a war (proxy or otherwise) is initiated, then one should be prepared for the consequences that might logically follow. Of course, the best thing would be not engage in such (proxy) wars in the first place, but that is a separate matter.

The double-speak arises, when you make calls for defense following any escalation of proxy war, but make no such calls when these (proxy) wars are initiated or being waged. THAT is being disingenuous.

#240 I appreciate your switching to a more civilized tone in your post. Your argument is also now a little different than what I had responded to earlier - i.e. earlier you were saying that if I disapproved of the use of militants to fight proxy wars (as in Kashmir), then it follows that I should also disapprove of Pakistan maintaining an effective defence against an Indian attack. I had provided you an explanation of why this argument is absurd - one can disagree with a government`s policy without calling for that country to be attacked.

Your revised argument no longer seems to call for me to disapprove of an effective national defence of Pakistan. Instead, it is merely is that I: get quite riled when your General-President`s irresponsible acts draw threats (think Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, GWB. And I am afraid even this is untrue. Show me a single post I have ever written to back this claim if you dont believe me.

As for Iraq/US not being the same situation as India/Pak - such comparisons depend on the issue being discussed and in this context it is quite relevant. Also quite relevant is the Kashmir/India situation that I mentioned which makes the Indian government less than the innocent victim you make it out to be.

Regards.

PS: You are welcome to agree or disagree with what I wrote above. However, unless you can show me a post to back your claim (as per above), this has to be my last post on this subject since I have spent too much time on the subject.

#231 by zeemax on March 2, 2007 9:30am PT


Really? That`s not what Gallup found out ... infact my types are what you should be wetting your pants about ...


oh we`re all so scared of you welfare queen inbred retard types taking away Kashmir by force and liberating palestine and all those other things on the islamist agenda...


oooooh...

Re: # 238 Tahmed

Actually, Iraq/US are not quite the same situation as India/Pak. You are in effect defending a dictator (Musharraf) who is at best a bad neighbor, and at worst a grave provacetuer who jeopardizes the safety of his own by climibing the hills of Kargil. Saddam never sent his agents (or protectees) on murderous missions to the US, but your dictator does to both Afghanistan and India. Therein lies the difference, but you find the two situations morally equivalent, or draw comparisons where none exist! See what I mean?

Let us take this a little further -- you are willing to accept such acts of provocation, but are compelled to come to his defense when the victims of such provocation respond in kind? Why the dichotomy? See what I mean, again?

``All your ``argument`` implies is that opposition to a government policy implies supporting the attack on the country``

I am implying that you get quite riled when your General-President`s irresponsible acts draw threats (think Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, GWB- `I have come to check if the General is still with us`, or those from India in response to well-publicized instances), but you do not get quite as riled by the root causes, i.e. the provocative acts in the first instance. Ignoring these, you are unwilling to accept the consequences that might result and are ordinarily considered by most people to be appropriate.

That is what I will call being `disengenous`. You see, if you accept provocative acts as being acceptable, then you should be willing to live with the consequences too. Musharraf`s dual policies are becoming transparent worldwide and most can see through his double game. Can you?

#236 zeemax: This clears up another mystery. Much obliged for explaining the meaning of this interesting phrase.

#235 you can call me two-faced if that makes you feel better. but no amount of namecalling adds up to an argument.

this is the specific issue you are saying: Right, and when these religious parties follow his diktat through either jehad in Kashmir, or his prized commandos capture peaks in Kargil, and India threatens to pay back in the same coin, you scurry over to his side of the fence, don`t you - and then that is when all your talk about missiles and bombs starts!

ignoring the disparaging tone of the above (which merely reflects your immaturity and says nothing about Pakistanis or of me personally), all you are saying is that if ``India threatens to pay back in the same coin`` I ``scurry to his side of the fence``. You call this an argument?

All your ``argument`` implies is that opposition to a government policy (i.e. the proxy war through religious parties in this case) implies supporting the attack on the country by a foreign nation (however ``aggrieved`` it considers itself to be, as in case of India on the proxy war)? If your assumption was a generally accepted one - it would imply those opposed to the Iraq war condoning attacks on the US by foreign countries. it would imply that those opposed to the indian policy in kashmir condoning attacks on India by foreign countries. In other words, your ``argument``, based on which you have been writing your disparaging posts to me, is absurd.

Ciao - I have wasted more time with you then your rude manner and irrational and superficial posts deserve.

I knew before that PukeResearch knows better than Kofi Annan re international law, but now I find he knows better than Gallup as well re Muslims ...

Hahaha ....

#224 by tahmed32 o

.. academic question: do you know the meaning of the phrase ``likkhhay musa, perhay khuda``? (i really dont know, no trick question here).

I hope not. It is usually said to refer to illegible handwriting .. nothing spectacular ..

Re: # 234 Tahmed32

All you have succeeded in confirming is that you are indeed the two-faced person that I have always suspected you are. You have no spine and no principled position to defend. When groped, all one finds is a cloud, vapor - no meat and no substance, and no enduring values that emerge that earn univeral respect. Don`t be crushed - a lot of ordinary people are like that. So take heart, you are no exception - just one more run of the mill talking head.

I don`t think that pushing you more on the specific issues raised in #230 or #228 is going to bear any fruit. Your future response will be as vacuous as the last. You will still ask for `strong arguments`, #230 or #228 nothwithstanding.

Ciao

PewResearch: It has obviously not occurred to you that real life is indeed not black and white, that I can approve of some of musharraf`s policies while disapproving of another.

Thus, I can oppose his encouragement of religious extremists while at the same time support him when he gives a ``fitting response`` to attempts by India to bully Pakistan as he did in 2003.

And use of ``scurrying around the fence`` and other disparaging remarks are no substitute for a strong argument, and you have presented none in response to what I wrote earlier.

Re: # 231 Zeenuts

Read...and dismissed.

Re: # 228 Tahmed 32

And here is another delectable oxymoronic assertion from you:

In #226 you give Musharraf `credit` for pursuing a `responsible policy` `effectively`. Then, in exactly ONE post later (#228) you say, `Musharaff is wrong in his policy...`. Never does it cross your mind that his policies (Afghan Jehad, appeals to GW Bush to `talk` to Taleban after 9/11, Kargil fiasco, and numerous others) are as muddled as horse shit. Yet, you jump back and forth across the fence like a trapeze artist. Hamidm (whom Raw Dust erroneously compared with you) is unambiguously clear in lampooning the General-President, but not you!!

See my point about being disingenuous in #225. At best you are one confused man. At worst, you are indeed disingenuous.

QED. Ciao

#225 by PukeResearch

Mr. PukeResearch,

Zeemax can be disregarded because he is vile, but powerless. His type don`t amount to much.

Really? That`s not what Gallup found out ... infact my types are what you should be wetting your pants about ...

Read the following closely with your reading glasses on:

What Makes a Muslim Radical?

Ask any foreign-policy expert how the West will know it is winning the war on terror, and the likely response will be, “When the Islamic world rejects radicalism.” But just who are Muslim radicals, and what fuels their fury? Every politician has a theory: Radicals are religious fundamentalists. They are poor. They are full of hopelessness and hate. But those theories are wrong.

Based on a new Gallup World Poll of more than 9,000 interviews in nine Muslim countries, we find that Muslim radicals have more in common with their moderate brethren than is often assumed. If the West wants to reach the extremists, and empower the moderate Muslim majority, it must first recognize who it’s up against.



Fundamentally Similar

Because terrorists often hijack Islamic precepts for their own ends, pundits and politicians in the West sometimes portray Islam as a religion of terrorism. They often charge that religious fervor triggers radical and violent views. But the data say otherwise: There is no significant difference in religiosity between moderates and radicals. In fact, radicals are no more likely to attend religious services regularly than are moderates.

Hope you got it now ... :~)