For Contra

[sohaibbhatti]

It is with great pleasure that I write to Contra. I welcome a serious intellectual discussion which allows us all to debate the issues. I am, however, inclined to admit that the emotive ill-judged comments and material published here, by anyone regardless of nationalities, serves no one and hinders in the process of any honest attempts at a reasoned debate.

I must admit that I have not taken sympathetically to the harsh and critical tone of Contra's posts in the past and it wasn't so much his comments that led to reply to him but the ineptitude and incompetence of users in failing to speak in an honourable and intellectual manner. I hope that Contra and all others, including myself, shall refrain from such foul and emotive language and will strive to walk the path of dignity and intellect.

The latest reply by Contra is worth applause, if not anything else and I must admit that he has presented his side of the argument competently. Firstly, the issue of sources must be addressed.

There are many journalists, politicians and people from different walks of lives who depend on their sources in their professional lives; so much so that journalists code of conduct defines their responsibilities towards their sources, many of whom are serving in the government, armed forces and such, and directs them to respect their identity if needed. Such sources can never be revealed but for in a formal forum such as a tribunal or a court. The same goes for sources in the government and corporate sector that are sometimes also referred to as whistle blowers who will outline and bring to attention some odd and immoral practice. This is a widespread practice; so much so that in some legal systems whistle blowers have some sympathy, if not some rights but I am certain that they do have some, if not extensive, rights. Such examples can be found in the Damian Green affair this year when the Tory MP had received leaks from the govt. and was arrested; in the same breath you have the recent MP Expenses Scandal in the UK which was wholly dependant on a source giving information to the Daily Telegraph. Leaks do take place in governments and huge institutions; governments are inherently very incompetent structures where leaks and whistle blowing occurs very often and it is indeed on such leaks and sources that feed the media with their credible news stories.

The issue of sources in international, national, political issues is therefore outlined above and the identity of such sources is not always revealed. Therefore, Zaid Hamids sources can be heard and listened to, if not believed and although he should disclose his sources, I stand to reason that if he does not reveal his sources it is understandable. Although, his lack of sources has been a big criticism of his and I have been critical of him for this but where a need for his sources is commendable, by you, me and many others, it must also be recognised that revealing them might not be in the best interest of what Hamid does or indeed in the best interest of his sources.

Secondly, the issue of agencies using private companies is not an unknown phenomenon and has also been used in the past. The CIA has used private militias and companies in the past including Cuba, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Pakistan, Iraq to name a few. You should look it up; the details of it will take a lot of time and space, something I do not have the luxury of at the moment. Also look into the International Court of Justices judgement on the celebrated case of Nicaragua v USA. Do visit the ICJs website and not the wikipedia. The Bay of Pigs invasion planned by the Kennedy Brothers relied heavily on private militias and dissidents in Cuba and CIA funded them directly. And whereas the CIA is accountable to the legislature, it is not thoroughly and properly held to account. Even today President Obama has pardoned and given immunity to those CIA operatives who had tortured prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and, trust me my friend, this isnt accountability. Therefore, also look into the CIAs links with Victor Bout and how he was given the dirty tasks by the CIA and the Americans. Their links to him werent reported to the committees either. What is important is the agencies do take risks by delegating, as you put it outsourcing, some of their dirty work to private companies and mercenaries; the stand to gain a lot if all goes well but if leaked then that is a risk they are willing to take. They operate very much on the principle that ends will justify the means; a very Machiavellian point of view and instilled greatly by Bush, Kissinger and their cronies.

I welcome your comments and posts. They allow for a reasoned debate from which you and I, if not anyone else, will benefit. I shall look forward to hearing from you, my friend.

Regards,
Ebu

 

[takjhank]

Dear Abu..
Contra will never reply of your intelectually written post. Because he dosn't have any actual kind of knowledge. He is just like a teen ager. Thats y i adviced him so many times, that he should get a true knowledge that whats going arround and whats going in the world. He just consider his some extrimist t.v. channels and reporters, thats it.
Anyways, your effort is really appriciatable. And I pray that contra come and say something seriously. Otherwiseeeeeeeeeeeee.................. just let him continue.... what he is doing. Afterall he is an "Indian".. :)

tj..

 

[Typhoon]

Many ask about the sources of Zaid hamid. What sources do people need. What mystyrious has he said that needs more explaination?
All historical things he say can be checked if one do a little research on the internett or library.
The other things regarding to our politics are not hidden from us.
Indians barking against him all the time do not need any kind of warmth. They have nothing to here, this is a forum by pakistanis and for pakistanis.
They should mind their own busyness and stress with their own failures facing them on their homeground.
Indians on our forums have only one purpose, and that is to spread nonsense and anti pakistan bakwaas.
Go home contra. You are too small to be here. :twisted:

 

[contra]

Ebu Bhai,

1. The point you have made is that; unnamed and undisclosed sources are used by newspapers etc. and is a common practice. Also, a code of conduct exists regarding sources(in journalism).
You have missedout a very very important point:
Sources provide DOCUMENTS in support of their claims. No Journalist can write a story based on only verbal information. The journalist needs to have documents to prove his story.
I hope you get my point. You need to have DOCUMENTS supporting your claim.

Otherwise, it will be treated as rumours, and the journalist can face defamation charges.

2. Referring to Zaid Hamid and Ahmed Quraishi:
a) A few days back, a photograph was issued by Zaid Hamid showing a dead body of a terrorist in Swat. The terrorist was not Circumcised. This ZH claimed was proof that he is a Hindu Gorkha.
Now, is this photograph genuine? Or, has it been morphed?
Did a medical exam take place? If yes, then where is the Medical report?

b) Ahmed Quraishi has written an article and this was posted on this forum, where he claimed that the gun captured by the Pakistani Army is Swat, is an Indian made Vickers-Berthier machine gun.
I have replied to the above allegation, and have shown through photographs that the gun shown in AQ's article a Russian made PK Machine gun. This is commonly used by the Taliban.

3. No one is asking ZH or AQ to disclose their sources, but they should present supporting documents.

Another instance, a few days ago there was a post on this forum, about the trip your Politician made to New York. The clip was from The Lucman Show, in that he claimed that he has "heard" that Hussain Haqqani bought 2 women to the Presidents Security officials and ordered them to issue security passes to the women, so that they can enter the Presidential suite any time.
Lucman clearly said in that report that he has no way of confirming this, but the damage was done. Everybody had already passed a judgement that this was true.

No Pakistani English language newspaper carried this gutter story. Why? Because they are professional journalists and cannot carry a story without confirmation.

4. MP's Expenses Scandal: In the Expenses scandal, complete documents were available. That is why the MPs had to resign. This was a solid case. Do we know who was the source? NO. But was he a good source? Yes. Did the news organisation that broke this story do its job professionally? You bet they did. They did not take anything at face value. Every argument was supported with proof.

Damien Green: This man is an office bearer. Also, as you can know, he was leaking documents. Reason for arrest was that he was believed to be offering inducements to procure documents.
However, "Anyone charged with the offence has a defence if they can show they had a reasonable excuse or justification, including that they were acting in the public interest."

5. American Government was aware of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Blackwater is an American based company.
How can you compare it with the forces that invaded Cuba? These were trained by the CIA. Who told you they were private companies??? They were all Cubans in exile, and the US supported them to invade Cuba and sack the Castro regime.
The allegation made on Blackwater by your friends was that this company is being used by America to carry out covert military operations in Pakistan.
Blackwater is not a militia, its a registered security company.

As far as outsourcing work to others is concerned, yes individuals are on the parole of agencies. Dawood Ibrahim for example was and is on the parole of ISI.
Arms dealers in particular are on the parole of agencies.

6. The reason Iam speaking against the allegations being made on Blackwater is because many foreigners who visit countries like mine and yours, hire private security, and they have every right, provided they don't break the host countries laws.
Now, if Blackwater is doing something other than what it says it does, then it should be penalised after a proper investigation, not based on rumours.

 

[sohaibbhatti]

Dear Contra,

I am pleased to read your reply; I did that with some pleasure, I must admit. Although I must also confess that the efforts made by Typhoon and tajkhank served no purpose in our discussion but I am nevertheless thankful to them for their contribution.

Firstly, the issues of procuring documents for the allegations must be addressed. You are right when you say that documents are needed but many journalists do in fact publish stories solely based on the premise of the trust that exists between them and their source. Sometimes where the allegation involved is of a material nature the need for the document becomes all the more important but if he news is of a trivial nature then the same need for documentary evidence is overlooked. This is something that occurs on an everyday basis; you are right in asking for documentary sources but sometimes documentary sources are not readily available or the publication of such documents may lead the investigation directly to the source. Let me be very clear here, I never claimed that the non-disclosure of sources is agreeable but I do admit that the non-disclosure, however unpleasant and uncouth, may be tolerated. This is what I said in my previous post.

But you must also be aware of the journalistic practice of publishing a story merely based on the information fed by the source in order to pressurise the government to disclose the real situation. Albeit, I such circumstances the journalist is 100% sure that the source is not lying otherwise the publication stands a lot to loose. But, nevertheless, the practice of publishing and reporting news without supporting documents does go on but only in certain extraordinary circumstances.

Secondly, the issue of terrorist and the make of the gun must be looked at. In a country which is predominantly Muslim it is indeed surprising to find and uncircumcised man. However, what Hamid has done is something which the government fails to do i.e. highlight the issues, question the facts and the quest to find the truth. He, and indeed anyone, can merely raise the issue and can make claims and talk in great rhetoric but in order to prove issues in the shadowy world of espionage is almost impossible. The ISI has never acknowledged their links with Dawood Ibrahim and neither has any formal forum and yet the Indian establishment is intent on linking him with the ISI; the leader of the Tamil Tigers Prabhakaran has been linked with RAW for years now but that it not to say that such insinuations are true. I applaud and appreciate your efforts to find the truth and set the record straight but I must also put it to you to realise the difficulties that Hamid faces and the job that he does. Although it may be unpleasant to you, as your allegations against Pakistan are unsavoury to Pakistanis, but you must take his findings with caution; you should hear them, question them, research and then make your own mind up. And if, in the quest of finding the truth, you find information which is doubtful and make point the finger at India then accept that and if it points towards Pakistan then feel free to blame us; but the most important issue, my friend, is that we all strive to gain the information that our governments hide from us. Hamid and Pakistanis are striving for that; and you should do the same insofar as India is concerned.

The issue of the terrorists pictures is a valid one i.e. are they morphed or not this applies equally to the pictures you had posted of the guns.

Insofar as Lucmans report about the women is concerned then you must realise that although he reported this instance but he also distanced himself from it by issuing a notice that it can not be corroborated. But you must realise that if you are a public figure then merely an allegation, regardless of corroboration, must result in you leaving your office. George Fernandes, your ex-defense minister, quit government on allegations of bribery, Shahid Malik MP quit government in the UK as did Peter Hain and when their names were cleared the joined the government. Over here whether there was corroboration or not the point is to raise awareness and make sure such controversial people like Haqqani investigated and properly admonished. But journalists do not carry stories from which the stand to loose; unfortunately in Pakistan the persecution of press has occurred. The situation of the Jang Group under the Nawaz Sharif tenure is not hidden so I will not be surprised if such information is not published merely because of repercussions.

You said:
MP's Expenses Scandal: In the Expenses scandal, complete documents were available. That is why the MPs had to resign. This was a solid case. Do we know who was the source? NO. But was he a good source? Yes. Did the news organisation that broke this story do its job professionally? You bet they did. They did not take anything at face value. Every argument was supported with proof.

And read above; I have said that in allegations of a material nature documentary proof is necessary but in this case we did know who the source was as he later identified himself. But you must also realise that the need for the source was needed because the House of Commons was trying to hide the expenses. The Speaker of the House tried to hide them and he even took the case to the High Court but failed. Sources told Sky news that the Home Sect. Jacqui Smith was resigning and there was no proof to substantiate that; there was no official statement from 10 Downing St and neither was an official notification letter or resignation letter available but then did report the news and it did turn out to be true. We still do not know the source and do not know the supporting evidence which led to such reporting.

As far as Damian Green affair is concerned I have not objected to his sources or his documents; I merely mentioned him to prove to you that leaks occur in governments and they are a major source of information. But what is important is that leaks occur without supporting documents also for which see above.

Lastly, the issue of CIA involvement with dubious and uncouth organisations read the Nicaragua case. I think that will suffice. Also read Chomskys Failed States and do read the articles pertaining to US aggression and terrorism. He is a neutral and a respected source so I do not think you will have much to say about him. www.chomsky.info.

BlackWater has a dubious past and a murky present, my friends. It is only in such circumstances that such activities can be brought into the public domain and the culprits be held accountable. We did not know about the rendition flights until the media took a stance and we do now know about this company either but someone in the mainstream media must take up this cause.

Regards,

Ebu

 

[contra]

Ebu bhai,

1. Sources Issue:
What you are saying is that journalists might ask questions etc. about a certain issue. There is a certain way of doing this. To ask probing questions or to present an opinion based on incidents is one thing.
But, to present unsubstantiated material as facts is no good journalism.

Secondly, the issue of terrorist and the make of the gun must be looked at. In a country which is predominantly Muslim it is indeed surprising to find and uncircumcised man. However, what Hamid has done is something which the government fails to do i.e. highlight the issues, question the facts and the quest to find the truth. He, and indeed anyone, can merely raise the issue and can make claims and talk in great rhetoric but in order to prove issues in the shadowy world of espionage is almost impossible.

2. Zaid Hamid is not raising issues, he is presenting his opinions as facts.

The issue of the terrorists pictures is a valid one i.e. are they morphed or not this applies equally to the pictures you had posted of the guns.

3. Just enter the name of the gun and search it on Google. The pictures are available on several sites, and i possibly couldn't have tampered with all of them. On the other hand, the photo of the terrorist was Published by Zaid Hamid.

George Fernandes, your ex-defense minister, quit government on allegations of bribery, Shahid Malik MP quit government in the UK as did Peter Hain and when their names were cleared the joined the government.

4. George Fernandes resigned because an inquiry was on. He did not resign on mere allegations. The government felt that enough material was available to order an inquiry.
[Politicians are thick skinned, they don't resign so easily]

I think we can agree to disagree on these issues.
Anyway, its nice to have a discussion without being abused or cursed.

 

[sohaibbhatti]

Dear Contra,

Presenting unsubstantiated material as facts is what you may think but unless the source and corroborating evidence is disclosed to you, you, I reckon, will not believe anything that is said or published. This, I reason, is understandable. But to say that Hamid or others are presenting opinions as facts may be far too harsh. We can only wait to see his documentary evidence, just as you said and I myself say also.

The photo to which you refer has been published inter alia by Hamid. Either those other publications and media outlets were lying or Hamid is. That is another issue upon which we can, as you so eloquently put it, agree to disagree.

George Fernandes did resign but he resigned not because there was an inquiry; the inquiry would have taken place regardless but he resigned in the spirit of democracy. Anything that might have raised an issue regarding his credibility will have caused him to resign, and any other self-respecting politician to resign for that matter. Politicians resign to save their skin, their partys and their governments skin regardless of the fact whether or not theres an inquiry. That is why Peter Hain MP resigned and so did Shahid Malik MP (both from government pending inquiry). Your Home Minister resigned after the Bombay attacks not because he had done anything wrong or that there would have been any inquiry but because of what had transpired he was seen to have lost his credibility so as to protect the country.

I must also say here that I find more self-respecting, honest and dignified politicians in India than in Pakistan and a smooth transfer of power along with a exemplary democratic process in India insofar as voting and elections are concerned. Problems and discrepancies are inherent in any system, and they exist in India also, but the Indians have tried to tackle them and generally they have succeeded.

Lastly, I would like to say that it has been a pleasure to have discussed issues with you and thank you for showing patience and respect. I hope the feeling is mutual.

Regards,

Ebu