Saturday, June 10, 2017

Music Video - Katy Perry - Roar (One Love Manchester)

Video Report - Hung Parliament: ‘Disastrous’ night for Theresa May as Conservatives fail to secure expected support


Saudi Arabia’s national soccer team has come under criticism for its refusal to observe a minute’s silence for the London attack victims during a recent match with Australia.
Before the World Cup qualifier in Adelaide on Thursday, the Australian national soccer team lined up in the center of the field to keep silence over the killing of two Australian women in last week's terror attacks in London.
However, the Saudi team continued jogging, passing the ball and taking their positions on the field. Pictures show a Saudi player, Salman al-Faraj, facing the Australian team with his hands behind his back.
The Asian Football Confederation had reportedly approved the minute’s silence against the wishes of Saudi officials.
According to a tweet by Adam Peacock, a presenter with Fox Sports Australia, the Football Federation of Australia “tried to reason” with the Saudis, but they could not persuade them to participate in the minute’s silence.
Social media users have criticized the Saudi team’s behavior.

Qatar crisis: Is Saudi Arabia supporting terror also?

ONE is a religious extremist who has issued a call for Americans to be killed and another is a former Hamas chief who has been called a “dear guest” in Qatar.
Together, they’re enough reason for seven nations to turn their backs on Qatar in an unprecedented move.
Having had enough of Qatar not toeing the line, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Yemen and the Maldives sensationally cut off ties with its wayward neighbour this week.
They accused Qatar of supporting Islamist groups, including some backed by Iran, as well as harbouring extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood.
While Qatar has no doubt supported Islamist and extremist groups, Saudi Arabia is far from innocent. Therein lies the hypocrisy.
Riyadh, the capital, has itself faced accusations of tolerating or even supporting extremists, in particular after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
And in some cases there’s evidence to suggest Saudi Arabia has supported or co-sponsored some of the same figures it has accused its own neighbour of supporting.
Among Saudi’s biggest gripes is Qatar’s support for figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Islamist theologian and the “unofficial ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood”.
According to non-profit policy organisation the Counter Extremism Project, the Doha-based cleric — known for his extremist rhetoric and militant fatwas and is one of Sunni Islam’s most influential scholars.
He’s been offered a leadership role within the Brotherhood but has refused and doesn’t want to limit his reach by joining any organisation that might “constrain (his) actions”.
The Egyptian-born figure has been banned from visiting the US, UK and France due to his reputation as a violence-inciting Islamist, the CEP report.
Al-Qaradawi has been open about urging Muslims who are unable to fight jihad to financially support the mujahedeen, supported suicide bombings, and has called for the execution of Americans in Iraq, homosexuals and Jewish people.
Former Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal is also on the list.
Living in Qatar, he has acted as the public face of Hamas for more than a decade and according to the CEP has overseen Hamas’ transition from a purely terrorist organisation into a terrorist/political hybrid.”
Once called a “dear guest” in Qatar by a Qatari diplomat, Meshaal has been involved in a power struggle within the group and continues to push for “armed resistance” against Israel in its pursuit of the “liberation” of Palestine “from the river to the sea”.
Middle East expert Dr Ben Rich said the Saudi terrorism excuse was wearing thin.
He also said there is fairly strong evidence that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have backed jabhat al-Nusra/Sham as well as other Islamist opposition actors in the Syrian conflict, many of whom are consolidated under the wider Ahrar al-Sham coalition.
The Nusra Front is the second-strongest insurgent group in Syria after Islamic State, according to the CEP.
Interestingly, the terror group receives sources of funding from private donations from wealthy individuals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, the CEP reveal.
But it is understood the group racked up millions of dollars through hostage exchanges negotiated by the Qatari government.
The Middle East was plunged into its biggest diplomatic crisis in years after Saudi Arabia and six other countries cut ties with Qatar following weeks of tension in the region.
On Monday, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Libya and the Maldives all severed diplomatic ties with Qatar, which has been accused of supporting Islamic groups.
They accuse the tiny state of harbouring extremist groups and suggested Qatari support for the agenda of Saudi Arabia’s regional archrival Iran.
Just this week, the CEP revealed the full extent of how Qatar has been financing and harbouring a dozen terrorists and operatives who have been living freely — and in some cases, in luxury — within oil-rich Qatar.
In its latest reports, Qatar: Extremism and Counter-Extremism and QatarMoney and Terror: Doha’s Dangerous Policies, the CEP said Qatar gives financial and material support to internationally-designated terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Nusra Front.
“Qatar is also currently harbouring at least 12 sanction-designated or wanted individuals, including former Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi,” the CEP said.
The CEP said Qatar “knowingly permits internationally-designated or wanted terrorist leaders and financiers to operate within its borders” and in doing so undermined regional and international security.
“The Qatari government has lent support to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Nusra Front, and the Taliban — through direct money loans, ransom payments, and the transfer of supplies,” the CEP said.
Three UN sanctioned Taliban operatives and at least seven al-Qaeda financiers are also understood to be living in the country.
Saudi Arabia on Friday issued a Qatar-linked ‘terrorism’ list, which it claims show its neighbour isn’t doing enough to stop terrorism in the region.
The list contains at least two names already designated internationally as terrorist financiers, and against whom Qatar took action, according to a previous US Department of State report.
Those two, Sa’d al-Ka’bi and Abd al-Latif al-Kawari, are among dozens of individuals and entities named by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and Bahrain.
“The four countries agreed on categorising 59 persons and 12 entities in their list of terrorism,” they said, affirming “that they won’t be lenient in pursuing” such persons and groups.
But along with Qataris, many on the list are individuals and groups from Egypt, Bahrain and Libya.
It could also be argued that Qatar has been taking some steps to eradiate terrorism.
In its latest Country Reports on Terrorism, the US State Department said Qatar in 2015 froze assets and imposed travel bans on Ka’bi and Kawari, both of whom are Qatari citizens.
“Despite these efforts, entities and individuals within Qatar continue to serve as a source of financial support for terrorist and violent extremist groups, particularly regional Al-Qaeda affiliates such as the Nusrah Front,” the State Department said.
“Qatar has made efforts to prosecute significant terrorist financiers.”

Saudis Have A Lot To Lose In Qatar Fight, Even If They Win

As in other regional clashes, external powers are being drawn into the Gulf quarrel, not all of them on Saudi Arabia's side.
Saudi Arabia dwarfs Qatar on almost any measure, yet there are plenty of ways the tussle between the Gulf neighbors could end up hurting the world's biggest oil exporter -- even if it wins.
All week the Saudis and their allies have ratcheted up pressure on Qatar, cutting diplomatic ties and imposing a blockade by land, sea and air. The stated goal is to force Qatar to stop cozying up to Saudi Arabia's rival Iran and bankrolling Islamist groups across the region. Qatar says it's being punished for things it didn't do.
The disagreement is longstanding. The scale of the current crisis is new, and it's erupted into a Middle East already polarized by war. Saudi Arabia has struggled to impose its will in Syria and Yemen. Now discord has spread to the inner circle of Gulf monarchies, at a time when the Saudis and their young Prince Mohammed bin Salman are urgently seeking foreign investment to modernize an oil-dependent economy.
"Most worrying is that Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. may repeat the mistakes that were made when the Saudi leadership decided to launch a war in Yemen," said Yezid Sayigh, a Beirut-based senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They had no clear political strategy, based their action on false assumptions, have incurred heavy financial costs and a growing human toll, and are probably now worse off in terms of their security."
As in other regional clashes, external powers are being drawn into the Gulf quarrel, not all of them on Saudi Arabia's side. U.S. President Donald Trump, who visited the kingdom last month, tweeted support for the Saudi-led campaign, but the Pentagon -- which has one of its biggest overseas bases in Qatar -- and the State Department have taken a more neutral position. Turkey has accelerated pre-existing plans to deploy some troops to Qatar, and Iran offered alternative transport routes and supplies of staple goods that can no longer be imported from Saudi Arabia. Their backing reduces the chance of a quick Saudi victory.
"Turkey has a powerful military," said Paul Sullivan, a Middle East specialist at Georgetown University in Washington. "Iran is sending water and food," he said. "So now we have two significant forces supporting Qatar."
From the Saudi viewpoint, Qatar has been stirring up trouble all over. That includes promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, whose advocacy of Islam through the ballot box is disliked by some Gulf monarchs. It includes cordial ties to Iran, with which Qatar shares a giant gas field. It includes sponsoring the Al-Jazeera television network, which has been critical of Saudi allies. Rounding up the charge-list: Support for Islamic State and al-Qaida -- something the Saudis have also been accused of and, like Qatar, deny.
"Qatar for many years has taken steps to support certain organizations and intervened in situations," Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Wednesday. "We view Qatar as a brother state," he said. "But you have to be able to tell your friend or your brother what is right or wrong."
The Saudis and U.A.E. have hinted they'll take further steps to make the point, including curbs on bank lending to Qatar and transactions in its riyal currency. Gas-rich Qatar has financial resources of its own, though, to withstand a siege. Its $335 billion sovereign wealth fund owns stakes in global companies from Volkswagen to Barclays.
Qatar will be motivated to resist by the perception that what the Saudis are really after is regime change, according to Sanam Vakil, associate fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House in London.
Insisting "that Qatar capitulate on these demands is a challenge to its sovereignty," and therefore the legitimacy of the ruling family, Vakil said. "I find it hard to believe they will just roll over."
So far, they haven't. Week one of the standoff ended with Qatar defiant. Food imports that usually come across the Saudi border have been sourced elsewhere, Foreign Minister Mohammed Al Thani told reporters in Doha. "We can live forever like this," he said. "We aren't ready to discuss an intervention into our sovereignty."
That doesn't mean the pressure won't tell eventually. The Saudi economy is four times bigger than Qatar's. Its population is more than 10 times larger, and that internal market helps insulate the Saudis from any fallout, said James Reeve, the London-based senior economist at Samba Financial Group.
Stock markets share that view of who's more at risk. The main Saudi index was little changed on the week; Qatar's fell more than 7 percent.
Still, "any dispute of this type is likely to mar the investment climate for all countries," Reeve said. "Investors will be reminded that this is a region where political issues can flare up unexpectedly."
Saudi Arabia can ill afford instability in the Middle East, particularly of its own creation, at a time it's seeking to raise billions of dollars from foreign investors by selling shares of its oil giant, Saudi Aramco.
U.A.E. Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash, in an interview on Wednesday, acknowledged that the Gulf's reputation as a stable destination for capital could take a hit. "I can't deny that this rift has its toll," he said. But he said there was no alternative to confronting Qatar, because the other five members of the Gulf Cooperation Council can't trust a partner that's "going to be duplicitous in his policies."
If Qatar wants to fight back, it could threaten to pull out of the GCC, according to Theodore Karasik, a senior adviser at Gulf State Analytics. That would strike at Saudi efforts toward closer union.
"Qatar could begin the process of exiting from the group," said Karasik. "This would be a powerful message to all interested parties," and would likely win behind-the-scenes backing from Turkey, Iran and even Russia, he said.
Another GCC member, Kuwait, is leading the effort to ensure things don't reach that point. Its ruler traveled to Saudi Arabia and Qatar this week, for discussions that haven't yet been made public. Trump on Thursday offered his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, as a mediator.
The president himself is widely seen as having emboldened the Saudi camp. Trump has vowed to take a tougher line on Iran, and hailed King Salman as a key partner.
That's one reason why, when Islamic State struck at the heart of Tehran for the first time this week, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps promptly blamed Saudi Arabia and the U.S., and promised revenge -- another example of how battle-lines across the Middle East are hardening.
The Gulf monarchies now at loggerheads were among "the last somewhat peaceful places in the region," Sullivan said. "I'm getting worried."

Video - Belly Dance - " NAGIN " - Mann Dole Mera Tann Dole

Video Report - What's Really Behind the Rift Between Qatar and Their Middle East Neighbors? (w/Guest David Hearst)

Video Report - CrossTalk: Targeting Qatar

Video Report - Syrian Army Has Reached the Iraqi Border, Cutting off the Americans at al-Tanf

Video Report - Inside Story - Blockade on Qatar is 'toying' with people's lives

Pashto Music - Naghma - Pa Khyber Tare


By Ben Anderson
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had just finished receiving his morning briefing last Wednesday when the windows at the presidential palace shattered. The cause: a massive truck bomb, detonated less than 1,000 meters away, during rush hour in the capital Kabul.
At least 150 people were killed and nearly 500 more injured, most of them civilians.
The blast, which left a crater more than 65 feet wide, took place inside the Diplomatic Zone, supposedly the most secure area in Afghanistan. Two days later, when thousands of Afghans took to the streets to demonstrate against both the Taliban and the government, four people, including an 8-year-old boy, were shot dead by police. The following day, at least seven people were killed when suicide bombers targeted a funeral for one of the protestors.
Such attacks have become common over the last few years, and Kabul, once considered a safe haven, is now a battlefield where civilians are regularly slaughtered at random, recalling the darkest days of the civil war.
The recent carnage is the latest sign that the already dire situation in the country can get even worse. Since the U.S. military handed security over to Afghan forces in December 2014, the government has rapidly lost territory to the Taliban, who now control or contest 40 percent of the country — more land than they have had since being overthrown in 2001.
Nowhere is secure, no one is safe, and there is no end in sight.
The U.S., which is still advising, assisting, and funding the Afghan government and its security forces, has called for a greater troop presence to “break the stalemate,” but leaders for the past several years have failed to articulate a desirable or realistic goal. In the past, there was hope that the Taliban would be persuaded through force to negotiate, but today they clearly have the momentum and little reason to come to the table. With no political solution and no prospect of military victory in sight, current policy appears geared toward simply preventing absolute catastrophe.
Yet even that grim goal appears increasingly unlikely. Although craven attacks like the latest bombing generate grizzly headlines, the war in the countryside is considerably worse. Nowhere is the complete collapse of Afghanistan felt more than in provinces like Helmand, Paktia, Kandahar, Kunduz, and Khost, where the Taliban are able to not just launch spectacular attacks, but take and hold ground, often seizing large amounts of American-supplied military hardware in the process. Last November, I travelled to several provinces where the Taliban had made significant gains to witness firsthand how bad things had become.
Zia Bardar crouched in an irrigation ditch as he dragged a long bamboo stick with a hook taped to the end across the road, looking for one of six IEDs he knew had been placed there. He was wearing a loose-fitting police uniform — but no protective gear.
This was Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital of Helmand province, and the Taliban were nearby, shooting at Bardar and his colleagues. Just up the road, a mangled rickshaw burned; it had driven over another IED earlier that morning, killing the family of six who were on board. Police said the family had fled their home and were within half a mile of making it into government-held territory. The police were trying to get to an army base that had been surrounded for four days, where they hoped to collect the body of a soldier and give him a proper burial. The mission offered no tactical gains, but it would make an awful situation a bit less difficult to bear.
Soon Bardar was laying flat on his stomach, sifting through rubble with his bare hands. I stood next to an armored Humvee that inched along behind while he attempted to locate the explosives. It was the only such vehicle the police had and at least three bullets struck it as I watched Bardar work. He found two of the IEDs immediately, and gently separated the detonating caps from the large yellow water jugs that had been filled with explosive powder. I asked his commander if he had been trained in EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). “Not too much,” he said. “He is the real hero.” Bardar eventually found and disarmed five IEDs, and the police made it to the base, where the dead soldier was loaded onto the back of the Humvee. Like many of his fellow police, tragedy had touched Bardar’s life. Two weeks before I watched him disable an IED with his bare hands, his wife had been shot dead by her own uncle for marrying a policeman, someone who “worked for the infidels.” “My family is finished,” Bardar told me. “It is only me left.” Two days after Bardar cleared the IEDs, the area near the road fell to the Taliban. Squabbling between different units resulted in no one being willing to take up positions to defend the territory. Two days earlier, and just nine miles away, a stolen — or quite possibly sold — government Humvee laden with explosives was driven into a police base; the blast killed the chief along with at least 14 of his men. It was all beautifully filmed by a Taliban drone. Such brazenness is now routine. The Taliban currently control most of Helmand, including districts like Marjah, Sangin, Gereshk, and Garmsir, which U.S. Marines fought for years to win. Thousands of young American men lost their lives or limbs here, and Helmand was the beneficiary of more U.S. dollars and resources than anywhere else in Afghanistan. Today, there is little to show for it all apart from a few tarmac roads. The Afghan National Army and police are currently carrying out nothing more scrambled and often desperate attempts at damage limitation. Only the city of Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, remains under government control, and while I was there it was regularly attacked from all sides.
This year the grim pattern has continued. On April 19, ten men wearing army uniforms and driving army vehicles stormed the main military base in Mazar-i-Sharif and killed 144 mostly unarmed soldiers as they ate lunch or prayed; the Taliban said four of the attackers were former soldiers familiar with the base.
Such attacks have only accelerated Afghan defections and desertions that had already reached crippling levels. Last year, 6,800 soldiers and policemen were killed, a 35 percent rise over 2015. It’s a trend that already appears certain to continue this year, and the so-called fighting season has just begun. The Afghan National Security Forces have no chance of winning, and they are only holding on to major cities like Lashkar Gah because of an increase in U.S. airstrikes and special forces operations. But this strategy of military triage has not yet led to increased chances for peace. The countryside is falling and key population centers are being propped up in a series of bloody stalemates that promise to last for years and take thousands of lives. Displaced Persons (IDPs), who fled their homes after the Taliban took Kunduz for the second time in 13 months, set up Camp. With the government unable to help, this makeshift camp was set up with donations from affluent friends of the local governor. Takhar, Afghanistan.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who previously served as brigadier general to the 1st Marine Expeditionary in Afghanistan, seemingly admitted as much to the New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins recently. “In terror-prone areas like Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Somalia and Yemen,” Filkins wrote, “Mattis said his goal is to reduce violence to manageable levels. ‘I want to get to a point where the casualties are very low.’ At that point, he said, it would probably suffice for the United States to intervene only sporadically, in order to contain outbreaks of violence.”
Mattis’ honesty might be refreshing, were he not describing a failure from which it will take generations to recover. Bear in mind he’s describing not just failed states like Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has invested little, but Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. has spent a total of $5 trillion and lost more than 6,000 troops, and where at least 200,000 civilians have been killed.
According to a recent U.S. Worldwide Threat Assessment report, Afghanistan’s security stands to deteriorate further, even with sustained international support.
The report offers a laundry list of disconcerting details:
  • “Kabul’s political dysfunction and ineffectiveness will almost certainly be the greatest vulnerability to stability.”
  • “Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) performance will probably worsen due to a combination of Taliban operations, ANSF combat casualties, desertions, poor logistics support, and weak leadership.”
  • “The ANSF will almost certainly remain heavily dependent on foreign military and financial support to sustain themselves and preclude their collapse.”
  • “The fighting will continue to threaten U.S. personnel, allies, and partners, particularly in Kabul and urban population centers.”
  • “Although the Taliban was unsuccessful in seizing a provincial capital in 2016, it effectively navigated its second leadership transition in two years following the death of its former chief, Mansur, and is likely to make gains in 2017.”
That’s quite an outcome for America’s longest war.

Official: Afghan soldier kills 3 US service members

By Ryan BrowneBarbara Starr and Ray Sanchez

Three US service members were killed and another wounded during a joint US-Afghan military operation in Nangarhar Province on Saturday, US officials told CNN.
One American official said the service members were shot in an apparent insider attack, also known as a "green-on-blue" because of the color-coding system used by NATO. During such assaults, members of the Afghan security forces are known to target US and other NATO soldiers.
The shooter in Saturday's incident was believed to be a member of the Afghan military, the US official said.
    The shootings occurred in the Achin District, where US and Afghan troops have been carrying out a monthslong offensive against a local affiliate of ISIS, officials said.
    President Donald Trump was briefed on the shootings, a White House spokesman said.
    A US military spokesman in Afghanistan said: "We are aware of an incident in Eastern Afghanistan. We will release more information when appropriate."

    Afghan police killed, wounded in another incident

    In Kabul, meanwhile, the US military command said an unspecified number of Afghan police were killed and wounded in a "friendly fire" incident during a joint Afghan-US operation overnight Saturday.
    In a statement, US Forces Afghanistan said members of the Afghan Border Police in Helmand Province were killed and wounded during an operation involving US and Afghan defense and security forces.
    Omar Zawak, spokesman for the governor of Helmand, said the deaths occurred when a US aircraft fired on Afghan police, the statement said.
    US Forces Afghanistan is investigating the incident.

    Two US service member killed in April

    US and coalition casualties in Afghanistan have become rarer, falling dramatically since the Afghan government assumed responsibility for combat operations in 2014.
    In late April,however, two US service members were killed and another wounded while conducting a joint raid in the Achin District, according to a Pentagon spokesman. The operation was targeting ISIS-K, the terror group's Afghanistan affiliate.
    Achin District is the primary base of operations for ISIS in Afghanistan and has been the site of multiple joint US-Afghan counterterrorism missions. A US Army Special Forces soldier was killed fighting the terror group there in early April.
    The district is also where the US dropped one of its most powerful bombs earlier this month, killing close to 100 ISIS fighters, according to Afghan officials.
    Beginning in 2016, Afghan security forces backed by US military advisers launched a major offensive against ISIS. Gen. John W. Nicholson, commander of US Forces Afghanistan, has said the terror group has lost about half of its fighters and been ejected from two-thirds of its territory.
    The latest counter-ISIS push began in March of this year.
    US officials estimate that ISIS has 600 to 800 fighters in the country, mostly former members of other regional terror groups, including the Pakistani Taliban and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. ISIS is believed to be behind a series of terror attacks, including the recent deadly attack on a hospital in Kabul.
    There are about 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan. The US counterterrorism mission is separate from the NATO-led effort to train, advise and assist the Afghan army and police force in its fight against the Taliban.

    سیاسي ګوندونه د مشال خان د قاتلانو په اړه څه وايي؟

     د پاکستان سياسي ګوندونه وايي که د مشال خان په وژنه کې د دوي د ګوند غړي شامل وي نو دوي يې له خپلو ګودونو لرې کوي او عدالت چې هره سزا ورکړي نو دوي ته به هغه د منلو وړ وي.
    د عوامي نشنشل ګوند مرکزي جنرل سیکریټري ميا افتخار حسين هم دا خبره کوي خو وايي چې د مشال خان د وژنې په اړه د ګډې پلټنيزې ډلې رپورټ نيمګړی دی.
    د میا افتخار حسېن په وینا ، دا ځکه چې د مشال خانه په وژنه کې د ډيرو سياسي ګوندونو غړي شامل دي خو په ياد رپورټ کې يوازې د دوي د ګوند نوم اخستل شوی دی.
    نوموړي وویل ، د اسلامي جميعت طلبا يو غړی چې مشال خان يې په ډزو ويشتی وو او د پاکستان تحريک انصاف د زده کونکو د سازمان [ځايي] مشر چې د مشال خان د مړي بې حرمتي يې کړې وه په ویډیو کې څرګند دي خو په ګډ تحقيقاتي رپورټ کې دانه دي ويل شوي چې د دې کسانو تعلق له جماعت اسلامي او پاکستان تحريک انصاف سره دی.
    ​میا افتخار حسېن وویل ، دوی دا رپوټ په دې دلیل نیمګړی بولي چې یوازې پکې د پښتون سټوډنتس فېډريشن نوم اخیستل شوی دی.
    خو د حکومتي ګوند پاکستان تحريک انصاف يو مشر غړی علي محمد خان بيا وايي چي د مشال خان د وژنې په اړه د ګډې پلټنيزې ډلې رپورټ غير جانبداره او له سياسي مداخلته پاک دی.
    نوموړی وايي د دوي د ګوند چې څوک هم د مشال خان په وژنه کې ککړ وي نو له ګوندهبه يې وباسي.
    علي محمد خان وویل ، زموږ تګلاره خو د ظالم او اداري فساد ضد ده نو که زموږ يو سياسي کارکن پر دې تګلاره ځي خو سمه ده او که داسې نه کوي نو هغه موږ بيا له خپله ګونده وباسو.
    د جماعت اسلامي مشر سراج الحق وايي د مشال خان په وژنه کې د دوي د ګوند غړي ندي ککړ.
    سراج الحقله مشال راډیو سره په خبرو کې وویل ، مشال خان هجوم وژلی دی کومه چې ډيره د فکر وړ خبره ده.
    نوموړی وايي د دې پيښې په اړه ګډ تحقيقاتي رپورټ دوي مني او د پاکستان عدالتونه ازاد دی او چې څه پريکړه وکړي دوي ته به د منلو وړ وي.
    مشال خان د خیبر پښتونخوا په مردان کې په عبدالولي خان پوهنتون کې د ژورنالزم د څانګې زده کوونکی وو.
    نوموړی د ۲۰۱۷م کال د اپريل پر ۱۳مه نېټه بلواګرو زده کونکو مذهب ته د سپکاوي په تور وواژی.
    د پاکستان تر ټولو لوی عدالت یا سپریم کورټ د هغه د وژنې لامل مالومولو لپاره د پلټنو په موخه د کارپوهانو او چارواکو یو ځانګړې ډله جوړه کړه.
    دې ډلې په خپل رپوټ کې وویل چې مشال خان د مذهب سپکاوی نه وو کړی او د هغه د وژنې پلان یوه میاشت مخکې جوړ شوی وو.

    Afghan Women Complain Over ‘Symbolic’ Roles

    By Mina Habib
    Maliha (not her real name) works in the press office of an Afghan government ministry. She told IWPR that although one of her responsibilities was to issue invitations to press conferences and briefings, her boss simply did not allow her the authority to do her job.
    “The minister selects specific media and then orders me to inform the outlets he has already chosen,” she said. “It has affected my dignity at work and my reputation. Although I have the authority, the minister does not allow [me to use it]. If my role is not symbolic then what would you call it?”
    Women working with government in Afghanistan warn that statistics showing growing numbers of female employees do not tell the whole story about ongoing gender bias within the workplace.
    According to the ministry of labour and social affairs, nearly 78,000 women have been appointed to government positions since the Taleban regime was unseated in 2001.
    More than 8,000 women are also currently employed in government offices.
    But Mary Nabard Ayen, deputy director of the state-run Bakhtar news agency, said that although women had a greater public presence their role remained largely symbolic.
    “Our leaders must accept that women constitute half of society, and deserve equal rights to men,” she said, noting that Article 22 of the Afghan constitution explicitly provides equal rights to men and women.
    The constitution also guarantees that at least 64 lawmakers must be women, and four female ministers have been appointed to the current administration of President Ashraf Ghani.
    Ayen said, however, that such appointments were just for show and had little real impact. She noted that this had been the case in both the post-2001 administrations.
    “The national unity government has appointed some women to important leadership roles so as to prove to the international community that they have given women a role within the structures of power,” she continued. “But the women appointed have no authority.”
    Ayen said that she experienced discrimination on a daily basis in her own work, adding, “Very often, I am not asked for my opinion, and when I am asked then my opinion is ignored.”
    Ministry of women’s affairs spokeswoman Kobra Rezai agreed that the presence of women in public life had increased over the last 16 years, noting that over a quarter of both civil servants and lawmakers were now female.
    But she too said that conservative traditions often took precedence over Afghan law.
    Changing these attitudes would take time and women needed to fight for their rights, she said, adding, “Women in government offices face many challenges, but these challenges will toughen them up so that they become experienced managers.”
    Shahla Farid, a law professor at Kabul university, said that several factors continued to restrict women’s access to work. This in turn meant that female employees were still seen as an exotic and unusual phenomenon.
    “Insecurity and instability as well sexual harassment have deterred women from finding jobs,” she said. “So there is still discrimination and unequal treatment of women, women are still seen as an object of pleasure and enjoyment.”
    They also still remained reliant on the will of male figures to succeed or fail at work.
    “A woman is appointed to an important post, if for example, she is related to a minister or knows a member of parliament,” she said. “Their competency is not considered and this means women have little authority at work because their capacity is inferior to the duties they are assigned.”
    Sharafuddin Azimi, a professor of psychology at the Kabul university, noted that women had been excluded from the public sphere by decades of war in which they were largely denied access to education.
    “Women should work in areas that suit their specialised fields,” he said, adding that this would help build self-confidence.
    “They should believe in their own potential. Women must be hired based on their capacity not on their political affiliations, ethnic origin, linguistic abilities or relations to a particular faction.”
    Ziba Samya is the deputy for supporting and promoting women’s rights department at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.
    She also argued that women needed to take the initiative and actively struggle for their rights, adding that her organisation had heard many complaints from women about their limited authority at work.
    Maryam Kofi, a lawmaker from Badakhshan province, said that the current state of Afghan politics meant that men and women alike had been disenfranchised. She argued that parliament as a whole had been sidelined in the decision-making processes.
    “In the national unity government, working authority has been taken away from men as well as women and in fact power is monopolised by the presidential palace,” she said.
    “Here in parliament we are given responsibility but not authority. For example, if we impeach a minister and dismiss him from the post, we later we hear that he is continuing his position as an acting minister, so there is no authority left, neither for us nor for parliament.”

    Pakistan - Former President Zardari condemns CM Punjab’s remarks against Supreme Court

    Former President Asif Ali Zardari has condemned the statement of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif accusing the Supreme Court of partiality and discrimination and holding only the Sharif  family accountable as “irresponsible, contemptuous and unacceptable” and demanded that Shahbaz withdraw and apologize his unwarranted and provocative remarks.

    “It is shocking that from the picture of Hussain Nawaz appearing before JIT Shahbaz Sharif should have concluded that the Supreme Court was aiming only at the Sharif family”, he said in a statement today.

    Those who bemoan that “this child was made to sit there” would do well to recall how the twice elected Prime Minister Shaheed Benazir would sit on brick piles outside jails with small children in her arms
    seeking justice. The PPP then did not accuse the Supreme Court for training guns on the Party, he said.

    Even when Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was assassinated through abuse of judicial processes it never said that the Supreme Court had trained
    its guns on the Party.

    The rulers should also recall the inhuman brutalities inflicted on their political opponents in the name of investigations in cooked up politically motivated cases that eventually did not stand judicial scrutiny and the accused were set free..

    The PPP believes in across the board accountability of all but at the same time it will not permit subverting the lawful investigative and judicial processes to escape accountability, he said.

    Zardari also urged members of the bars and the legal fraternity to take notice of the Chief Minister’s threatening and derogatory remarks.