#pakistani politician

[mingleup]

قائداعظم اور رفقاء کی پاکستان سے والہانہ محبت۔

اپنا سب کچھ ملک پر لٹانے والے قائداعظم کے ساتھی۔

آج کے جاگیردار، وڈیروں لٹیروں کی داستان۔

تفصیلی تجزیہ ویلاگ میں۔

[xtruss]

The One & Only, The Legend of Legends Former Prime Minister of Pakistan IMRAN KHAN!

Corrupt to their Cores, Thieves, Looters and Traitors Pakistan’s Army Generals, Politicians of Thirteen Dirty Political Parties, Judges and Yellow Journalists are Scared of IMRAN KHAN, The Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. This is the real honest man who showed the World their Abominable Faces who were destroying Pakistan By licking the Scrotums of the Hegemonic, Conspirator, Two-Faced, Liar and War Criminal United States for the past 75 Years!

[zvaigzdelasas]

[BBC is UK State Media]

Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman of the Jamaat-e-Islami party had been named the victor of the provincial assembly seat PS-129 in the city of Karachi.

But this week he claimed the candidate backed by Imran Khan's PTI party had secured far more votes and that their tally had been reduced.

As such he would relinquish the seat.

"If anyone wants to make us win in an illegitimate manner, we will not be accepting that," Mr Rehman said at a press conference held by his party on Monday.

He added: "Public opinion should be respected, let the winner win, let the loser lose, no one should get anything extra."

He said that while he had received more than 26,000 votes, the independent candidate Saif Bari, backed by the PTI, had received 31,000 votes - but these were presented as 11,000 votes.

Pakistani electoral authorities have denied the allegations. It is unclear who will take up the PS-129 seat now.

15 Feb 24

[aureliaeiter]

Polytheists from the US: please stop fear mongering

I wanna start this post by saying that, as a bisexual woman, I do feel for my fellow women and LGBT people in the US, as well as for other minorities. I also fear for all of us around the world, as US politics have a direct impact in all countries.

However, please stop projecting your fears on the gods. If you think the gods suddenly became angry after the elections, after everything the world has gone through this year, that means you think the gods care more about you than they do about everyone else. And that's not okay.

1. You're the centre of the world. Please don't be entitled.

As I said, whatever the US does has an impact everywhere. That doesn't mean we need to extrapolate that into religion.

There are two things that have happened this year that would directly impact the gods. One was Mt Olympus burning in August. The other is an Israeli airstrike nearly hitting the Temple of Bacchus in Baalbek. I saw ZERO posts about the gods being angry about that. Or about the gods being angry at all. I understand you can't read the news about every country ever, but at least try to keep up with the country your religion comes from?

To those two things I said, I could add others that don't impact the gods directly like Palestine, Lebanon and Ukraine getting b0mbed; Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Poland, Austria, Spain and many other countries having deadly fires and floods; the rights of Italian LGBT people being set years back by their current PM, as well as LGBT people in some countries not having rights at all; conservative politicians being elected all over the world; WOMEN BEING BANNED FROM SPEAKING IN AFGHANISTAN; Pakistani Pagan tribes being targeted; the whole Gisèle Pelicot case... I could go on and on and on because there's just too much stuff going on in the world.

If you think none of these things would make the gods go angry, but the moment something happens in your country they're suddenly angry then that's an issue. And if you're trying to make this into a collective truth then you're making it everyone else's issue.

2. This is not an Abrahamic religion.

I understand many of you come from an Abrahamic background. I was raised in a deeply Catholic country. In the type of town where people get their favourite apparition or Mary tattooed. So I understand. But you have to somehow unlearn that when it comes to things like these.

The gods are not angry at you. Why would they be? Did you personally do something to offend them? Did you steal from their temple? Did you brag about being better than them in any way? I'm sure you didn't. So why would they be angry?

If you start saying things like “the gods are angry because of this!!” you sound just like the Christians who repeat Christ is coming soon everytime any type of natural catastrophe happens. Please stop. You're making all of us look crazy.

And also, what do you gain from this? Making other people upset? Especially those who just came into this religion and might think the gods are angry at them? It'd be fine if you posted something like “let's pray for our fellow Americans” but this doesn't make any sense. I just don't understand you people sometimes.

Also if you're gonna reply to this post by saying something along the lines of “people are allowed to talk about their feelings” then delete the comment because it shows you have little reading comprehension.

[odinsblog]

Henry Kissinger's victims:

3 million + Vietnamese

2.5 million + Cambodians

200,000+ Laotians

3 million + Bangladeshis

10,000+ Indians

10,000+ Pakistanis

15,000+ Egyptians

3500+ Syrians

6500+ Cypriots

40,000+ Chileans

30,000+ Argentinians

10,000+ Zimbabweans

60,000+ Mozambiqueans

900,000+ Angolans

11,000+ Guinea Bisseauans

300,000+ East Timorians

1,000,000+ Indonesians

20,000+ Western Saharans

1,100,000+ Iraqis

and so so many more

“…it is very possible that Henry Kissinger has played a role in the mass murder of more people than anyone else in human history.”

Henry Kissinger was a vile, evil man through and through. And while good people are justifiably rejoicing at his long overdue death, please never forget that his evil brand of warmongering, unending “defensive” wars, and colonialism lives on in far too many media pundits, Hollywood + media influencers, and powerful politicians.

Kissinger is dead, but his cruel, cold-blooded, sadistic brand of militarism still lives on, and that is what we must bring an end to.

[antisemitism-us]

This is what happens when politicians and the media support the protesters calling for the murder of Jews, instead of treating them as the vile blood-thirsty antisemites they are.

--- A Pakistani man was arrested in Canada this week and accused of plotting a mass shooting at a Jewish center in Brooklyn on the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s October 7 onslaught that sparked the war in Gaza, federal authorities in the United States announced Friday.

The would-be attacker had shared with undercover agents his plans to attack a Chabad center in Brooklyn, where the Hasidic sect is headquartered.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland said Muhammad Shahzeb Khan had attempted to travel from Canada, where he lives, to New York City with the “stated goal of slaughtering, in the name of ISIS, as many Jewish people as possible.”

[0intp0]

Do you guys know what was the biggest surrender of our history after world war two?

It was the surrender of Pakistani military against Bangladeshi

On 16 December 1971.

But today I didn't grab your attention only to give you some random history facts.

We Bangladeshi students need your help! So please read this article till the end

After the partition of the Indian region in 1947, two independent nations were born.One India and one Pakistan.

The country of Pakistan was divided into two parts, East Pakistan, currently Bangladesh and West Pakistan, currently Pakistan.

But the distance between the two regions was thousands of kilometers. So uniting them into one singular nation was definitely foolish.

To think that the partition actually happened because of religion is laughable on itself but this is a topic of debate for another blog.

Even though we got our freedom from the British empire the people of East Pakistan kept on getting exploited by the west pakistan government.

Note, from now on I will refer to East Pakistan only as Bangladesh because the way we were exploited by our own so called government which only resided on the west pakistan and left us on poverty clearly indicates they never saw us as their own people.

Pakistan didn't only exploit us politically and financially, but they also tried to take away our unique Bengali identity from us.

They banned our traditional Bengali festivals like Noboborso (which is Bengali new year) They tried to ban Rabindra sangeet in fact, they even tried to replace our Bengali alphabet with the Urdu alphabet.

People were already protesting against it and were participating in every traditional festival

But the elastic snapped when they tried to take away our mother tongue, Bangla

When a pakistani politician made the announcement that "Urdu and only Urdu will be the only national language of Pakistan" in Dhaka university's convocation, it was the students who roared in disapproval.

In 1952, breaking the curfew, students and common people went on a protest for our mother language Bangla.

The police started to shoot them and the soil of Bangladesh became stained with blood and Bangla became the only language for people had given up their lives.

That's why we celebrate "Sahid dibos" and "international mother language day" on 21st February.

Throughout the fight for our existence, freedom and culture, students of our nation had always played a crucial role.

They also made a student's political party "Chatro league"

After the election of 1970, when the Pakistani government didn't agree to give power to the Bangladeshi political party "Awami league" our students again started to organize protests and other activities

Finally "Awami league" ordered for a mass protest. 2nd march Dhaka and 3rd march the whole Bangladesh was shut down.

On 2nd march 11 am "Chatro league" students hoisted the flag of Bangladesh in Dhaka university.

All this information dump was for you all to understand how the students of Bangladesh had always played a crucial part in our liberation.

Our students have always been fierce and had stood up for injustice even if they had to sacrifice their life for it.

And right now history is repeating itself!!!

Again students are getting attacked because of their protests but this time, it was our so-called "chatro league" and the government who are doing this inhumane act.

They are beating the students with rods, throwing bricks at them and even police are shooting them.

Only because we wanted the quota policy to demolish. Only because we wanted equal opportunity for civil jobs.

On 25th march 1971, the Pakistani military committed genocide in Dhaka. They attacked sleeping students in Dhaka university and protesters on roads who were still protesting at night.

And now the same thing is happening, history is repeating itself.

Students of public universities are getting attacked in their own dorm rooms, they are getting beaten to death by the so-called "chatro league" members. There are screenshots of the chatro league leaders group chats flothing around the internet where they command the other members to stab the protester students.

There was a time when Chatro league claimed they always stood up when our mother and sisters needed protection

And now those same people are beating up those same sisters they vowed to protect

The police are shooting the protesters like they did in 1952 language movement

The only difference is in the past we were oppressed by another nation's government

But this time it's our own people who are causing our student's blood to stain our roads.

Please do not ignore us. Reblog this post or use the hastag #savebangladeshistudents to create awareness

[nakibistan]

List of notable Muslim allies of queer, trans or LGBTQI+ folks

Imam al-Nawawi – ally of Mukhannathun or trans femmes, female transsexuals and effeminate queers

Saint Khawaja Gharib Nawaz – ally and patron of Hijra and Khawaja Sara communities

Saint Baba Bulleh Shah – ally and patron of Muslim Khawaja Sira communities

Saint Lal Shabaz Qalander – patron of Khawaja Sira & trans Muslim communities

Abu Muhammad Ali Ibn Hazm – ally of queer Muslims

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - ally of transgender & intersex folks

Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi - ally of trans & intersex folks

Amina Wadud - ally of LGBTQI+ Muslims, founder of Queer Islamic Studies and Theology (QIST)

Gulbanu Khaki/Gul Khaki - ally of LGBTQ+ muslims, mother of a gay imam

Khaled Hosseini - ally of transgender & proud muslim dad of a transgender child

Siddika Jessa - LGBTQI+ activist, mother of a gay muslim son

Ani Zonneveld

Pamela Taylor

Laura Silver

Omid Safi

Kecia Ali

Ghazala Anwar

Ensaf Haider

Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur

Farid Esack

Zaitun Mohamed Kasim/Toni Mohamed Kasim

Anne-Sophie Monsinay

Imam Kahina Bahloul

Imam Philip Tuley

Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle

Farouk Peru

Abdennur Prado

Ingrid Mattson

Hasan Minhaj

Reza Aslan

Alia Bano

Zaid Ibrahim

Azahn Munas

Ayman Fadel

Inayat Bunglawala

Shahla Khan Salter

Nakia Jackson

Jeewan Chanicka

Taj Hargey

Michael Muhammad Knight

Maajid Nawaz

Shehnilla Mohamed

Mustafa Akyol

Writer Sabina Khan

Activist Jerin Arifa

Urvah Khan - LGBTQI+ ally, co-founder of Muslim Pride Toronto

Imam Khaleel Mohammed

Imam Tareq Oubrou

Imam Dr Rashied Omar

Shaykha Fariha Fatima al-Jerrahi

Shaykha Amina Teslima al-Jerrahi

Scholar Hussein Abdullatif

Maysoun Douas

Fátima Taleb

Aydan Özoğuz

Omid Nouripour

Özcan Mutlu

Ekin Deligöz

Cem Özdemir

Artist Nadia Khan

Marina Mahathir

Siti Musdah Mulia

Karima Bennoune

Grand Mufti Sheikh Assadullah Mwale

Muneeb Qadir

Dr. Amir Hussein

Dr. Sana Yasir

Dr. Sali Berisha

Dr. Omer Adil

Hashim Thaçi

Albin Kurti

Supermodel Nadia Hussain

Irish-Bangladeshi singer Joy Elizabeth Akther Crookes

Salma Hayek

Fouad Yammine

Pakistani Director Asim Abbasi

Pakistani Actress Nadia Jamil

Indian Actor Saqib Saleem

Indian Actor Irrfan Khan

Indian Actor Aamir Khan

Indian Actress Zeenat Khan/Aman

Indian Actress Shabana Azmi

Indian Actress Saba Azad

Indian Actress Sara Ali Khan

Indian Actress Huma Qureshi

Indian Director Zoya Khan

Pakistani Actor Furqan Qureshi

Bangladeshi Actress Azmeri Haque Badhon

Actor Muneeb Butt

Indian Actress Zareen Khan

Indian Actor Imran khan

Pakistani Actress Mehar Bano

Filmmaker Faruk Kabir

Filmmaker Saim Sadiq

Filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy

Riz Ahmed

Zayn Malik

Sally El-Hosaini

Malala Yousefzai

Hafid Abbas

Hojatoleslam Kariminia

Singer Sherina Munaf

Writer Alifa Rifaat

Writer Ismat Chughtai

Activist Nida Mushtaq

Activist Aan Anshori

Abdul Muiz Ghazali

Kyai Hussein Muhammad

Marzuki Wahid

Gigi Hadid

President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) - ally of waria or transgender females

Sinta Nuriyah - ally of trans & waria folks

Politician Keith Ellison

Mayor Sadiq Khan

Politician Ilhan Omar

Politician Rashida Tlaib

Politician Rushanara Ali

Politician Nabilah Islam

Politician Shahana Hanif

Politician Rama Yade

Politician Humza Yousaf

Politician Zarah Sultana

UK Sectratary General Zara Mohammed

Turkish politician Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu

Bengali Influencer Sobia Ameen

Shaykh Michael Mumisa

Muhammad Musharraf Hossain Bhuiyan

Mufti Abdur Rahman Azad - Hijra ally

Sheikh Hasina - Ally of hijra-intersex communities

Lawyer Iftikhar Chaudhry

Amani Al-Khatahtbeh

Professor Amel Grami

Professor Muhammad Aslam Khaki

Mohammad Hashim Kamali

Mehrdad Alipour

Lawyer Imaan Mazari/Iman Mazari

Shireen Mazari

Syed Murad Ali Shah

[gauntletqueen]

As a Pakistani uk trans girlie, do u wanna join me in killing Kier Starmer? In return, I'll join you in killing a Dutch politician you also despise :3

Just learned of that dude FUCK I will ABSOLUTELY Kill Him with you, let's murder Geert Wilders afterwards :3

[mingleup]

https://youtu.be/RvCmamM5OWU

قائداعظم اور رفقاء کی پاکستان سے والہانہ محبت۔

اپنا سب کچھ ملک پر لٹانے والے قائداعظم کے ساتھی۔

آج کے جاگیردار، وڈیروں لٹیروں کی داستان۔

تفصیلی تجزیہ ویلاگ میں۔

[xtruss]

SECRET PAKISTAN CABLE DOCUMENTS U.S. PRESSURE TO REMOVE IMRAN KHAN

“All will be Forgiven,” said a U.S. Diplomat, if the No-confidence vote against Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan succeeds.

— Ryan Grim, Murtaza Hussain | August 9 2023 | The Intercept

Imran Khan, Pakistan’s Former Prime Minister, during an interview in Lahore, Pakistan, on June 2, 2023. Photo: Betsy Joles/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The U.S. State Department encouraged the Pakistani government in a March 7, 2022, meeting to remove Imran Khan as prime minister over his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a classified Pakistani government document obtained by The Intercept.

The meeting, between the Pakistani ambassador to the United States and two State Department officials, has been the subject of intense scrutiny, controversy, and speculation in Pakistan over the past year and a half, as supporters of Khan and his military and civilian opponents jockeyed for power. The political struggle escalated on August 5 when Khan was sentenced to three years in prison on corruption charges and taken into custody for the second time since his ouster. Khan’s defenders dismiss the charges as baseless. The sentence also blocks Khan, Pakistan’s most popular politician, from contesting elections expected in Pakistan later this year.

One month after the meeting with U.S. officials documented in the leaked Pakistani government document, a no-confidence vote was held in Parliament, leading to Khan’s removal from power. The vote is believed to have been organized with the backing of Pakistan’s powerful military. Since that time, Khan and his supporters have been engaged in a struggle with the military and its civilian allies, whom Khan claims engineered his removal from power at the request of the U.S.

The text of the Pakistani cable, produced from the meeting by the ambassador and transmitted to Pakistan, has not previously been published. The cable, known internally as a “cypher,” reveals both the carrots and the sticks that the State Department deployed in its push against Khan, promising warmer relations if Khan was removed, and isolation if he was not.

The document, labeled “Secret,” includes an account of the meeting between State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and Asad Majeed Khan, who at the time was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

The document was provided to The Intercept by an anonymous source in the Pakistani military who said that they had no ties to Imran Khan or Khan’s party. The Intercept is publishing the body of the cable below, correcting minor typos in the text because such details can be used to watermark documents and track their dissemination.

Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan made a visit to Russia on February 23 to meet President Putin for a two-day visit. Photo: Reuters

“The cable reveals both the carrots and the sticks that the State Department deployed in its push against Prime Minister Imran Khan.”

The contents of the document obtained by The Intercept are consistent with reporting in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn and elsewhere describing the circumstances of the meeting and details in the cable itself, including in the classification markings omitted from The Intercept’s presentation. The dynamics of the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. described in the cable were subsequently borne out by events. In the cable, the U.S. objects to Khan’s foreign policy on the Ukraine war. Those positions were quickly reversed after his removal, which was followed, as promised in the meeting, by a warming between the U.S. and Pakistan.

The diplomatic meeting came two weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which launched as Khan was en route to Moscow, a visit that infuriated Washington.

On March 2, just days before the meeting, Lu had been questioned at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing over the neutrality of India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan in the Ukraine conflict. In response to a question from Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., about a recent decision by Pakistan to abstain from a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s role in the conflict, Lu said, “Prime Minister Khan has recently visited Moscow, and so I think we are trying to figure out how to engage specifically with the Prime Minister following that decision.” Van Hollen appeared to be indignant that officials from the State Department were not in communication with Khan about the issue.

The day before the meeting, Khan addressed a rally and responded directly to European calls that Pakistan rally behind Ukraine. “Are we your slaves?” Khan thundered to the crowd. “What do you think of us? That we are your slaves and that we will do whatever you ask of us?” he asked. “We are friends of Russia, and we are also friends of the United States. We are friends of China and Europe. We are not part of any alliance.”

In the meeting, according to the document, Lu spoke in forthright terms about Washington’s displeasure with Pakistan’s stance in the conflict. The document quotes Lu saying that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” Lu added that he had held internal discussions with the U.S. National Security Council and that “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.”

Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.”

Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office.

Asked about quotes from Lu in the Pakistani cable, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, “Nothing in these purported comments shows the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan should be.” Miller said he would not comment on private diplomatic discussions.

The Pakistani ambassador responded by expressing frustration with the lack of engagement from U.S. leadership: “This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored or even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate.”

“There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate.”

The discussion concluded, according to the document, with the Pakistani ambassador expressing his hope that the issue of the Russia-Ukraine war would not “impact our bilateral ties.” Lu told him that the damage was real but not fatal, and with Khan gone, the relationship could go back to normal. “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective,” Lu said, again raising the “political situation” in Pakistan. “Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”

The day after the meeting, on March 8, Khan’s opponents in Parliament moved forward with a key procedural step toward the no-confidence vote.

“Khan’s fate wasn’t sealed at the time that this meeting took place, but it was tenuous,” said Arif Rafiq, a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute and specialist on Pakistan. “What you have here is the Biden administration sending a message to the people that they saw as Pakistan’s real rulers, signaling to them that things will better if he is removed from power.”

The Intercept has made extensive efforts to authenticate the document. Given the security climate in Pakistan, independent confirmation from sources in the Pakistani government was not possible. The Pakistan Embassy in Washington, D.C., did not respond to a request for comment.

Miller, the State Department spokesperson, said, “We had expressed concern about the visit of then-PM Khan to Moscow on the day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and have communicated that opposition both publicly and privately.” He added that “allegations that the United States interfered in internal decisions about the leadership of Pakistan are false. They have always been false, and they continue to be.”

Top Left: Donald Lu, a Diplomat in Service and Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, waves toward media personnel upon his arrival at Tribhuvan International Airport on July 14, 2023, in Kathmandu, Nepal. Bottom: Pakistani Foreign Secretary Asad Majeed Khan is seen in Ankara, Turkey, on July 6, 2023. Photos: Photo: Abhishek Maharjan/Sipa via AP Images (Left); Ozge Elif Kizil/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images (Right)

American Denials

The State Department has previously and on repeated occasions denied that Lu urged the Pakistani government to oust the prime minister. On April 8, 2022, after Khan alleged there was a cable proving his claim of U.S. interference, State Department spokesperson Jalina Porter was asked about its veracity. “Let me just say very bluntly there is absolutely no truth to these allegations,” Porter said.

In early June 2023, Khan sat for an interview with The Intercept and again repeated the allegation. The State Department at the time referred to previous denials in response to a request for comment.

Khan has not backed off, and the State Department again denied the charge throughout June and July, at least three times in press conferences and again in a speech by a deputy assistant secretary of state for Pakistan, who referred to the claims as “propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation.” On the latest occasion, Miller, the State Department spokesperson, ridiculed the question. “I feel like I need to bring just a sign that I can hold up in response to this question and say that that allegation is not true,” Miller said, laughing and drawing cackles from the press. “I don’t know how many times I can say it. … The United States does not have a position on one political candidate or party versus another in Pakistan or any other country.”

While the drama over the cable has played out in public and in the press, the Pakistani military has launched an unprecedented assault on Pakistani civil society to silence whatever dissent and free expression had previously existed in the country.

In recent months, the military-led government cracked down not just on dissidents but also on suspected leakers inside its own institutions, passing a law last week that authorizes warrantless searches and lengthy jail terms for whistleblowers. Shaken by the public display of support for Khan — expressed in a series of mass protests and riots this May — the military has also enshrined authoritarian powers for itself that drastically reduce civil liberties, criminalize criticism of the military, expand the institution’s already expansive role in the country’s economy, and give military leaders a permanent veto over political and civil affairs.

These sweeping attacks on democracy passed largely unremarked upon by U.S. officials. In late July, the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Michael Kurilla, visited Pakistan, then issued a statement saying his visit had been focused on “strengthening the military-to-military relations,” while making no mention of the political situation in the country. This summer, Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, attempted to add a measure to the National Defense Authorization Act directing the State Department to examine democratic backsliding in Pakistan, but it was denied a vote on the House floor.

In a press briefing on Monday, in response to a question about whether Khan received a fair trial, Miller, the State Department spokesperson, said, “We believe that is an internal matter for Pakistan.”

Political Chaos

Khan’s removal from power after falling out with the Pakistani military, the same institution believed to have engineered his political rise, has thrown the nation of 230 million into political and economic turmoil. Protests against Khan’s dismissal and suppression of his party have swept the country and paralyzed its institutions, while Pakistan’s current leaders struggle to confront an economic crisis triggered in part by the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on global energy prices. The present chaos has resulted in staggering rates of inflation and capital flight from the country.

In addition to the worsening situation for ordinary citizens, a regime of extreme censorship has also been put in place at the direction of the Pakistani military, with news outlets effectively barred from even mentioning Khan’s name, as The Intercept previously reported. Thousands of members of civil society, mostly supporters of Khan, have been detained by the military, a crackdown that intensified after Khan was arrested earlier this year and held in custody for four days, sparking nationwide protests. Credible reports have emerged of torture by security forces, with reports of several deaths in custody.

The crackdown on Pakistan’s once-rambunctious press has taken a particularly dark turn. Arshad Sharif, a prominent Pakistani journalist who fled the country, was shot to death in Nairobi last October under circumstances that remain disputed. Another well-known journalist, Imran Riaz Khan, was detained by security forces at an airport this May and has not been seen since. Both had been reporting on the secret cable, which has taken on nearly mythical status in Pakistan, and had been among a handful of journalists briefed on its contents before Khan’s ouster. These attacks on the press have created a climate of fear that has made reporting on the document by reporters and institutions inside Pakistan effectively impossible.

Last November, Khan himself was subject to an attempted assassination when he was shot at a political rally, in an attack that wounded him and killed one of his supporters. His imprisonment has been widely viewed within Pakistan, including among many critics of his government, as an attempt by the military to stop his party from contesting upcoming elections. Polls show that were he allowed to participate in the vote, Khan would likely win.

“Khan was convicted on flimsy charges following a trial where his defense was not even allowed to produce witnesses. He had previously survived an assassination attempt, had a journalist aligned with him murdered, and has seen thousands of his supporters imprisoned. While the Biden administration has said that human rights will be at the forefront of their foreign policy, they are now looking away as Pakistan moves toward becoming a full-fledged military dictatorship,” said Rafiq, the Middle East Institute scholar. “This is ultimately about the Pakistani military using outside forces as a means to preserve their hegemony over the country. Every time there is a grand geopolitical rivalry, whether it is the Cold War, or the war on terror, they know how to manipulate the U.S. in their favor.”

Khan’s repeated references to the cable itself have contributed to his legal troubles, with prosecutors launching a separate investigation into whether he violated state secrets laws by discussing it.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party Activists and Supporters of Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan clash with police during a protest against the arrest of their leader in Peshawar on May 10, 2023. Photo: Hussain Ali/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Democracy and the Military

For years, the U.S. government’s patronage relationship with the Pakistani Corrupt Military, which has long acted as the real powerbroker in the country’s politics, has been seen by many Pakistanis as an impenetrable obstacle to the country’s ability to grow its economy, combat endemic corruption, and pursue a constructive foreign policy. The sense that Pakistan has lacked meaningful independence because of this relationship — which, despite trappings of democracy, has made the military an untouchable force in domestic politics — makes the charge of U.S. involvement in the removal of a popular prime minister even more incendiary.

The Intercept’s source, who had access to the document as a member of the military, spoke of their growing disillusionment with the country’s military leadership, the impact on the military’s morale following its involvement in the political fight against Khan, the exploitation of the memory of dead service members for political purposes in recent military propaganda, and widespread public disenchantment with the armed forces amid the crackdown. They believe the military is pushing Pakistan toward a crisis similar to the one in 1971 that led to the secession of Bangladesh.

The source added that they hoped the leaked document would finally confirm what ordinary people, as well as the rank and file of the armed forces, had long suspected about the Pakistani military and force a reckoning within the institution.

This June, amid the crackdown by the military on Khan’s political party, Khan’s former top bureaucrat, Principal Secretary Azam Khan, was arrested and detained for a month. While in detention, Azam Khan reportedly issued a statement recorded in front of a member of the judiciary saying that the cable was indeed real, but that the former prime minister had exaggerated its contents for political gain.

A month after the meeting described in the cable, and just days before Khan was removed from office, then-Pakistan Army Chief, Corrupt General Qamar Bajwa publicly broke with Khan’s neutrality and gave a speech calling the Russian invasion a “huge tragedy” and criticizing Russia. The remarks aligned the public picture with Lu’s private observation, recorded in the cable, that Pakistan’s neutrality was the policy of Khan, but not of the military.

Pakistan’s foreign policy has changed significantly since Khan’s removal, with Pakistan tilting more clearly toward the U.S. and European side in the Ukraine conflict. Abandoning its posture of neutrality, Pakistan has now emerged as a supplier of arms to the Ukrainian military; images of Pakistan-produced shells and ammunition regularly turn up on battlefield footage. In an interview earlier this year, a European Union official confirmed Pakistani military backing to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s foreign minister traveled to Pakistan this July in a visit widely presumed to be about military cooperation, but publicly described as focusing on trade, education, and environmental issues.

This realignment toward the U.S. has appeared to provide dividends to the Pakistani military. On August 3, a Pakistani newspaper reported that Parliament had approved the signing of a defense pact with the U.S. covering “joint exercises, operations, training, basing and equipment.” The agreement was intended to replace a previous 15-year deal between the two countries that expired in 2020.

Pakistan’s Former Prime Minister Imran Khan leaves after appearing at the Supreme Court in Islamabad on July 26, 2023. Photo: Aamir Qureshi AFP via Getty Images

Pakistani “Assessment”

Lu’s blunt comments on Pakistan’s internal domestic politics raised alarms on the Pakistani side. In a brief “assessment” section at the bottom of the report, the document states: “Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process.” The cable concludes with a recommendation “to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad” — a reference to the chargé d’affaires ad interim, effectively the acting head of a diplomatic mission when its accredited head is absent. A diplomatic protest was later issued by Khan’s government.

On March 27, 2022, the same month as the Lu meeting, Khan spoke publicly about the cable, waving a folded copy of it in the air at a rally. He also reportedly briefed a national security meeting with the heads of Pakistan’s various security agencies on its contents.

It is not clear what happened in Pakistan-U.S. communications during the weeks that followed the meeting reported in the cable. By the following month, however, the political winds had shifted. On April 10, Khan was ousted in a no-confidence vote.

The new prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, eventually confirmed the existence of the cable and acknowledged that some of the message conveyed by Lu was inappropriate. He has said that Pakistan had formally complained but cautioned that the cable did not confirm Khan’s broader claims.

Khan has suggested repeatedly in public that the top-secret cable showed that the U.S. had directed his removal from power, but subsequently revised his assessment as he urged the U.S. to condemn human rights abuses against his supporters. The U.S., he told The Intercept in a June interview, may have urged his ouster, but only did so because it was manipulated by the military.

The disclosure of the full body of the cable, over a year after Khan was deposed and following his arrest, will finally allow the competing claims to be evaluated. On balance, the text of the cypher strongly suggests that the U.S. encouraged Khan’s removal. According to the cable, while Lu did not directly order Khan to be taken out of office, he said that Pakistan would suffer severe consequences, including international isolation, if Khan were to stay on as prime minister, while simultaneously hinting at rewards for his removal. The remarks appear to have been taken as a signal for the Pakistani military to act.

In addition to his other legal problems, Khan himself has continued to be targeted over the handling of the secret cable by the new government. Late last month, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said that Khan would be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act in connection with the cable. “Khan has hatched a conspiracy against the state’s interests and a case will be initiated against him on behalf of the state for the violation of the Official Secrets Act by exposing a confidential cipher communication from a diplomatic mission,” Sanaullah said.

Khan has now joined a long list of Pakistani politicians who failed to finish their term in office after running afoul of the military. As quoted in the cypher, Khan was being personally blamed by the U.S., according to Lu, for Pakistan’s policy of nonalignment during the Ukraine conflict. The vote of no confidence and its implications for the future of U.S.-Pakistan ties loomed large throughout the conversation.

“Honestly,” Lu is quoted as saying in the document, referring to the prospect of Khan staying in office, “I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.”

March 7, 2022 Pakistani Diplomatic Cypher (Transcription)

The Intercept is publishing the body of the cable below, correcting minor typos in the text because such details can be used to watermark documents and track their dissemination. The Intercept has removed classification markings and numerical elements that could be used for tracking purposes. Labeled “Secret,” the cable includes an account of the meeting between State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and Asad Majeed Khan, who at the time was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

I had a luncheon meeting today with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Lu. He was accompanied by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Les Viguerie. DCM, DA and Counsellor Qasim joined me.

At the outset, Don referred to Pakistan’s position on the Ukraine crisis and said that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” He shared that in his discussions with the NSC, “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.” He continued that he was of the view that this was “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face.” I replied that this was not a correct reading of the situation as Pakistan’s position on Ukraine was a result of intense interagency consultations. Pakistan had never resorted to conducting diplomacy in public sphere. The Prime Minister’s remarks during a political rally were in reaction to the public letter by European Ambassadors in Islamabad which was against diplomatic etiquette and protocol. Any political leader, whether in Pakistan or the U.S., would be constrained to give a public reply in such a situation.

I asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. He said that “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” He paused and then said “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar.” He then said that “honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.” Don further commented that it seemed that the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow was planned during the Beijing Olympics and there was an attempt by the Prime Minister to meet Putin which was not successful and then this idea was hatched that he would go to Moscow.

I told Don that this was a completely misinformed and wrong perception. The visit to Moscow had been in the works for at least few years and was the result of a deliberative institutional process. I stressed that when the Prime Minister was flying to Moscow, Russian invasion of Ukraine had not started and there was still hope for a peaceful resolution. I also pointed out that leaders of European countries were also traveling to Moscow around the same time. Don interjected that “those visits were specifically for seeking resolution of the Ukraine standoff while the Prime Minister’s visit was for bilateral economic reasons.” I drew his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly regretted the situation while being in Moscow and had hoped for diplomacy to work. The Prime Minister’s visit, I stressed, was purely in the bilateral context and should not be seen either as a condonation or endorsement of Russia’s action against Ukraine. I said that our position is dictated by our desire to keep the channels of communication with all sides open. Our subsequent statements at the UN and by our Spokesperson spelled that out clearly, while reaffirming our commitment to the principle of UN Charter, non-use or threat of use of force, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and pacific settlement of disputes.

I also told Don that Pakistan was worried of how the Ukraine crisis would play out in the context of Afghanistan. We had paid a very high price due to the long-term impact of this conflict. Our priority was to have peace and stability in Afghanistan, for which it was imperative to have cooperation and coordination with all major powers, including Russia. From this perspective as well, keeping the channels of communication open was essential. This factor was also dictating our position on the Ukraine crisis. On my reference to the upcoming Extended Troika meeting in Beijing, Don replied that there were still ongoing discussions in Washington on whether the U.S. should attend the Extended Troika meeting or the upcoming Antalya meeting on Afghanistan with Russian representatives in attendance, as the U.S. focus right now was to discuss only Ukraine with Russia. I replied that this was exactly what we were afraid of. We did not want the Ukraine crisis to divert focus away from Afghanistan. Don did not comment.

I told Don that just like him, I would also convey our perspective in a forthright manner. I said that over the past one year, we had been consistently sensing reluctance on the part of the U.S. leadership to engage with our leadership. This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored and even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate and we do not see much U.S. support on issues of concern for Pakistan, particularly on Kashmir. I said that it was extremely important to have functioning channels of communication at the highest level to remove such perception. I also said that we were surprised that if our position on the Ukraine crisis was so important for the U.S., why the U.S. had not engaged with us at the top leadership level prior to the Moscow visit and even when the UN was scheduled to vote. (The State Department had raised it at the DCM level.) Pakistan valued continued high-level engagement and for this reason the Foreign Minister sought to speak with Secretary Blinken to personally explain Pakistan’s position and perspective on the Ukraine crisis. The call has not materialized yet. Don replied that the thinking in Washington was that given the current political turmoil in Pakistan, this was not the right time for such engagement and it could wait till the political situation in Pakistan settled down.

I reiterated our position that countries should not be made to choose sides in a complex situation like the Ukraine crisis and stressed the need for having active bilateral communications at the political leadership level. Don replied that “you have conveyed your position clearly and I will take it back to my leadership.”

I also told Don that we had seen his defence of the Indian position on the Ukraine crisis during the recently held Senate Sub-Committee hearing on U.S.-India relations. It seemed that the U.S. was applying different criteria for India and Pakistan. Don responded that the U.S. lawmakers’ strong feelings about India’s abstentions in the UNSC and UNGA came out clearly during the hearing. I said that from the hearing, it appeared that the U.S. expected more from India than Pakistan, yet it appeared to be more concerned about Pakistan’s position. Don was evasive and responded that Washington looked at the U.S.-India relationship very much through the lens of what was happening in China. He added that while India had a close relationship with Moscow, “I think we will actually see a change in India’s policy once all Indian students are out of Ukraine.”

I expressed the hope that the issue of the Prime Minister’s visit to Russia will not impact our bilateral ties. Don replied that “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective. Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”

We also discussed Afghanistan and other issues pertaining to bilateral ties. A separate communication follows on that part of our conversation.

Assessment

Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process. We need to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Samaa is Pakistani Private Media]

The video posted on X has since made rounds on different social media platforms. "This issue must reach its logical end after escalation .. it should not be left in the middle .. Mr Trudeau What are you? .. Today 10 of our submarines will go from Hindustan and nuke you Canada .. What is your place?" the Indian politician said in the video.

23 Sep 23

[theragamuffininitiative]

some of my favorite tmfu trivia:

apparently at the height of its popularity, tmfu was being played on 50% of the television sets in the nation when each episode aired.

robert and david got as much if not more fan mail than clark gable - with david being the most popular

when the beatles visited usa they wanted to meet robert (specifically robert for some reason, maybe they were upset at the comparison between david and them lol). and they did, there's pictures of them together.

david purportedly decided how he would play the aloof illya as a more developed character than what he was originally given - largely from a hospital room after a nasty reaction to penicillin.

david also wanted to do his own stunts (and was capable of doing them), but made an agreement not to do the dangerous ones - except he broke this deal with a particular clifftop duel and 35ft dive into the water below.

tmfu was released during the cold war and since it featured a positive russian spy character allied with an american character, politicians lowkey threatened to bury the show and everyone involved (think how people would react now if a pakistani, an israeli, and an american headlined a show together)

robert gave david's mother an autographed photo calling her his favorite russian grandmother

a secret service member once told david during a white house visit that he/Illya was the reason they took that career path.

despite malicious rumors to the contrary, robert and david apparently had a wonderful on set relationship and though they didn't socialize a lot outside of work, their friendship and correspondence continued long past the show.

[charlesdesvoeux]

TMOT JIRV LET'S GOOO

some context: jirv was rescued via time travel (which was developed by an elon musk-type billionaire and his shitty tech company) and must now learn how to live in the 21st century. his "bridge" to the modern world is a british man of pakistani descent in his late 20s/early 30s. they fall in love. here they meet at a dinner organized by the billionaire, featuring some high ranking politicians.

The Lieutenant turned out to be a man slightly above average height, with a stiff posture and a singularly blank look in his blue-green eyes-- which betrayed only a little surprise at the realization that his assigned babysitter was a man with brown skin. We were introduced; he shook my hand and did not smile. The seating chart had us opposite one another for dinner, which gave me the opportunity to conduct further observations. He was impeccably dressed, in full 19th Century-Royal-Navy-Lieutenant-Regalia; his epaulets sometimes caught the light and shone. He looked only at his food, and yet he ate very little. He answered any and all questions with strained politeness. He asked me nothing, but neither did the others. Considering the company, I didn’t really matter. They talked tech-- declaring AI a godsend, and some other things using jargon I could not decipher-- and politics-- saying we could not possibly accept any more refugees, being as they were a drain upon the State’s finances-- and some Rich People Shit, like holidays in the Seychelles and how difficult it was to invest in the Fine Arts market these days, while the anonymous maid served us course after course, each portion pretty but minuscule. I was enraged, of course; I was also in bed with them, considering I was being handsomely paid to look after their time-traveling pet. Both can be true.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The Israel & Palestine Double Standard | Douglas Murray

I'm so fed up of the double standards on all of this. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed in the last 12 years by Bashar al-Assad and other Muslims in the civil war in Syria.

There's no one on the streets of Sydney or Melbourne. There's no one on the Streets of London. We have seen hundreds of thousands of people killed in the last decade in Yemen, Muslims being killed. There's no one on the streets of Melbourne. Nobody is standing outside the Sydney Opera House calling gas the Hutus or gas the Shia, gas the...

Nobody's marching for the dead Muslims in Yemen. Their co-religionists -- we're always told about care so much about their co-religionists -- don't give a damn about their co-religionists. They really don't.

Muslims do not love other Muslims. They have no love for them. They have no love for the Palestinian peoples. None. If they had any, the Jordanians would have taken in the West Bank Palestinians, Egyptians would have taken in the territory they used to run, the Gaza, and own the Gaza. And they would have taken in the Palestinians from the Gaza. Why have the Egyptians made sure that not one Palestinian is allowed to leave Gaza? Why do they make sure that their border wall is tough as anything?

What do they mind? One thing. Jews living. Jews living and Jews winning. It hits them deep in their soul, in their psyche. It's an ancient, ancient hatred. Perhaps the most ancient among the monotheisms. And the deepest and the ugliest, the nastiest. And the one that that has been least addressed.

And we've imported it. As we sit here, roughly the same population of the Gaza is being forcibly moved by the government of Pakistan. Almost 2 million Muslims are being moved by the Pakistani authorities into Afghanistan. Okay. We have a very large Pakistani community here in the UK. If their country of origin can do that, why can't we?

If it comes to that. If it has to come to that. And why does nobody notice this, why is nobody saying this is an appalling war crime by the Pakistani government? Well, only because there are so many Pakistani politicians and others in the UK and other countries who have a deep connection to their country of origin and would never want to see it looked at in a bad way. They will not criticize that. They haven't said a word about that.

So no, I think that if you are zoning in, zooming in on Israel, lambasting Israel and are basically not bothered with everything else in the world, you're not motivated by anything other than being anti-Jewish, antisemitic of course. And it just has to be said.

I mean, I've said this so many times that I tire myself with it but, it's necessary to say. Antisemitism is a shape shifter. It's a shape-shifting virus. It can come from anywhere. At times in the past, it was the case that people didn't like Jews because they were seen to be a different religion and strange and different, and so they were hated for their religion. Then after the wars of religion, you couldn't hate anyone for their religion, so people started to hate the Jews for their race. And after the Holocaust, you couldn't hate people because of their race anymore, so people hated the Jews because of their nation. On and on...

[exoid-the-locomotive-monarch]

Congrats Britain for finally, after 14 years, realizing that the party founded by rich aristocrats to maintain power for the British crown, DOES NOT LIKE YOU.

However, the party founded by workers and organized labor has little to brong to the table.

So the first thing this party needs to do is keep control of the narrative, especially in the critical condition Nigel Farage is an MP.

Nigel got his way to the top uncovering scandals in EU politics and electoral reform and embracing Margaret Thatcher to win the Right-Wing vote. Since this is an age after the Syrian civil war, Nigel has pivoted towards immigration politics to split the vote. It iv crucially important Labour does not let Nigel be the first thing British people think of when someone says “immigration reform”

Starmer, for the love of God, you have a mega-majority, if you have the BALLS to do what you can do, I have 3 requests:

1: associate economic and social strife with Tory politics, this is the elite class taking money from the poor and using their control over the media to shun anyone who doesn’t share their aristocratic and prudish culture. A coal miner from Wales has more in common with a Pakistani immigrant than… Nigel Farage.

2. Fix the voting system. I know that huge labor victory was because of first past the post, and that’s bullshit. Politicians should run on a popular platform, try ranked choice voting, or a percentage ratio, anything goddamnit. Nigel Farage is wrong about some things but he’s right about election mechanics

3. Build your coalition. Yeah I said it. Take back what you said about trans women in women’s spaces you pussy.

4: when a British person googles “nagging arse” make sure the first result they see is this

Thank you and have a safe Labour majority Britian, from across the pond!