Watch Ary News

Watch BBC World & Al-Jazeera

Watch Dawn News TV

Watch Dunya TV

Watch Express TV

Home » Latest News And Members Input

Bol Ke Lab Azad Hain Tere – June, 2010

Submitted by on June 1, 2010 – 2:18 am16 Comments
Bol Ke Lab Azad Hain Tere – June, 2010

Bol ke lab azad hain tere, share news and your views about anything and all things.
To write in urdu script you can use the following link. Just type in Urdu and then copy paste in comment section.
Click Here

OR
Click Here

Share

16 Comments »

  • afzaalkhan says:
    June 1, 2010 at 2:20 am

    ARY: SC grants Rabbani to appear in court

    Supreme Court Tuesday granted permission to Senator Raza Rabbani to appear before the court to present his views.

    A 17 judges bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry hearing the petitions challenging various clauses of the 18th constitutional amendment.

    Senator Waseem Sajjad, a counsel of the federation, pleaded to the bench that Senator Raza Rabbani, the head of the constitutional reforms committee of the parliament, wants to appear before the court to present his view on the case. The court said that Raza Rabbani will be welcomed and called when it will be needed.

    Reply to this comment »
  • afzaalkhan says:
    June 4, 2010 at 3:44 am

    So did Geo surrendered and kicked SM out or did SM finally kissed and made up with his old freinds. Interesting choice of ARY, same channel which banned Kashif for 3 months on one call from Zardari.

    ARY: Dr Shahid Masood joins ARY Network

    Reply to this comment »
  • afzaalkhan says:
    June 11, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Geo: Khosa can’t probe Punjab Bank scam: govt

    The government has informed Supreme Court that D.G FIA Tariq Khosa could not head the NAB investigations as he is serving as secretary Anti Narcotics whereas court has constitute a four-member committee for the appointment of new investigation officer,

    The Establishment Division Friday submitted a letter in the court in which, the court was informed that former D.G. FIA Tariq Khosa could not head the NAB probe as he is holding responsibilities in the Anti Narcotics ministry.

    Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in his remarks said system will work without interruption.

    A three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry with Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Justice Ghulam Rabbani hearing the case of Punjab Bank scam.

    The court in its previous hearing had issued orders for nominating Tariq Khosa as head of the case investigations. The Establishment Division in its reply today informed the court that Tariq Khosa was working in the Ministry of Anti Narcotics so as he could not head the investigation team of the case.

    The court was informed that the names of three officials have been proposed to head the probe including CCPO Karachi Waseem Ahmed, Additional Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa Fayyaz Ahmed and Additional I.G. Lahore Aftab Sultan.

    Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday in his remarks said the court has authority to nominate an investigation officer. The hearing of the case later adjourned till June 16.

    Reply to this comment »
  • taukeer says:
    June 18, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Bloody Sunday Inquiry indictment of British Army misbehaviour. Certainly they have not learnt anything form half a century.

    The Saville Report into the events of Bloody Sunday in Londonderry on 30 January 1972 has been published. The inquiry set out to answer a number of key questions:

    Were those killed and injured all unarmed and innocent civilians?
    “None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description. None was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury. In no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire.

    “None of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting.”

    Did the soldiers shoot in response to IRA gunfire?

    “We have concluded that the explanation for such firing by Support Company soldiers after they had gone into the Bogside was in most cases probably the mistaken belief among them that republican paramilitaries were responding in force to their arrival in the Bogside. This belief was initiated by the first shots fired by Lieutenant N and reinforced by the further shots that followed soon after.”

    Who fired first?
    On balance, Saville says a soldier fired first. “Soldiers reacted by losing their self-control and firing themselves, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and failing to satisfy themselves that they had identified targets posing a threat of causing death or serious injury.”

    The victims
    Relatives of those killed on Bloody Sunday wanted Lord Saville to give official recognition they were unarmed and innocent civilians, who were unlawfully killed.

    Were any of those killed or injured carrying weapons?
    Saville said that none of the victims were armed “with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghy”.

    A police photograph showed nailbombs on Mr Donaghey’s body. His family said they were planted – Saville disagreed.

    But the inquiry added: “We are sure that Gerald Donaghey was not preparing or attempting to throw a nail bomb when he was shot; and we are equally sure that he was not shot because of his possession of the nail bombs. He was shot while trying to escape from the soldiers.”

    Was anyone other than the known dead and wounded shot?
    Some soldiers have suggested the IRA spirited away their own dead. Saville said there was no evidence that anyone else had been killed on the day – and had they been, the stories would have emerged by now.

    The soldiers
    A key question for the inquiry was whether individual soldiers broke the law. They faced allegations that they either murdered people, fired without justification or gave false evidence.

    Did the soldiers act in self-defence or did they fire indiscriminately?
    Saville said the soldiers fired because they lost control. He said with the exception of two soldiers, “none of the firing… was aimed at people posing a threat of causing death or serious injury”.

    Should any soldiers face prosecution – and for what offence?
    The Saville inquiry has not made any recommendations about prosecutions – but he singles out some of the soldiers, who cannot be named, as people who he says lied to the inquiry or did not care what happened when they opened fire.

    Soldiers who appeared as witnesses were not granted immunity from prosecution; only immunity from self-incrimination. It is possible that individual soldiers could be prosecuted for their role in Bloody Sunday, but in practice this is highly unlikely.

    Senior British Army officers
    Derek Wilford: One of the senior officers The inquiry also set out to establish what orders were given by army commanders and their superiors in London.

    Senior officers testified in London, including the soldier in charge of the Parachute Regiment on the day, Colonel Derek Wilford, and the soldier in charge of the whole operation, Brigadier Pat MacLellan.

    Were the soldiers properly prepared on the day?
    “Soldiers of Support Company had been told by officers and believed that this was a particularly dangerous area for the security forces, with any incursion running the risk of meeting attacks by paramilitaries using bombs and firearms.”

    “If these soldiers were not frightened, they must at least have been highly apprehensive.”

    The report did not criticise Major General Ford, commander of land forces, for deploying soldiers to arrest rioters, but added: “his decision to use 1 Para as the arrest force is open to criticism on the ground that 1 Para was a force with a reputation for using excessive physical violence, which this ran the risk fo excerbating the tensions between the army and nationalists.”

    Did soldiers disobey orders?
    “The soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside did so as the result of an order by Colonel Wilford, which should not have been given and which was contrary to the orders that he had received from Brigadier MacLellan.”

    Did they cover up the events of the day?

    Saville concludes: “Apart from Private T many of these soldiers have knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing.”

    The Official and Provisional IRA
    Martin McGuinness confirmed he was an IRA member in 1972 Central to the soldiers’ explanation of events was the claim that they were responding to IRA gunfire. Martin McGuinness was the most prominent former IRA man to give evidence to the tribunal.

    Did a republican gunman fire the first shots?

    Saville says that there was “some firing by republican paramilitaries” but that on balance the Army fired first.

    A member of the Official IRA told the inquiry that they had shot at soldiers very early on in retaliation to the shooting of two of the protesters. Saville said: “These two Official IRA members had gone to a pre-arranged sniping position in order to fire at the soldiers; and probably did so when an opportunity presented itself rather than because two civilians had been injured.”

    What was the role of Martin McGuinness?
    “In the course of investigating the activities of the Provisional and Official IRA on the day, we considered at some length allegations that Martin McGuinness, at that time the Adjutant of the Derry Brigade or Command of the Provisional IRA, had engaged in paramilitary activity during the day.

    “In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day. Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.”

    The government
    The shootings happened against a backdrop of worsening violence in Northern Ireland; the march was a protest against internment – a form of imprisonment without trial introduced at the height of the political and civil crisis.

    Was the government responsible for the deaths?
    “The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries.”

    Did the British government encourage the soldiers to get tough?
    “In the months before Bloody Sunday, genuine and serious attempts were being made at the highest level [of the British government] to work towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland.

    “Any action involving the use or likely use of unwarranted lethal force against nationalists on the occasion of the march (or otherwise) would have been entirely counterproductive to the plans for a peaceful settlement; and was neither contemplated nor foreseen by the United Kingdom Government.”

    Did the Northern Ireland government at Stormont want violence?
    “So far as the Northern Ireland Government was concerned, although it had been pressing the United Kingdom Government and the Army to step up their efforts to counter republican paramilitaries and to deal with banned marches, we found no evidence that suggested to us that it advocated the use of unwarranted lethal force or was indifferent to its use on the occasion of the march.”

    Was there a shoot-to-kill policy?

    “It was also submitted that in dealing with the security situation in Northern Ireland generally, the authorities (the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments and the Army) tolerated if not encouraged the use of unjustified lethal force; and that this was the cause or a contributory cause of what happened on Bloody Sunday. We found no evidence of such toleration or encouragement.”

    Reply to this comment »
  • taukeer says:
    June 25, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    Anyone knows if PKPOL completely taken over by Jiyalas?

    Reply to this comment »
  • taukeer says:
    June 27, 2010 at 9:23 am

    JUST Installed UBUNTU (LINUX). What a relief! Never ever will I ever use windows ever ever ever again! Death to Microsoft!

    Reply to this comment »
  • afzaalkhan says:
    July 1, 2010 at 5:44 am

    Am off for 2 weeks, no updating forum till then. Cya all and take care

    Reply to this comment »
  • afzaalkhan says:
    July 17, 2010 at 5:05 am

    am back n blog has finally updated with videos. Will do article later on

    Reply to this comment »
  • afzaalkhan says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:13 am

    I wonder if Facebook and west would stand for freedom of speech now? On reflection since they have so far refused to cover kashmir I must be dreaming:p

    Ary News: India threatens Kashmiri Facebook users

    Indian authorities battling to control anti-India protests in the Kashmir Valley are now threatening to prosecute Kashmiris using Facebook and other sites to spread images and ideas that portray the atrocities on innocent people and human rights violations by the occupation troops in the territory.

    Local human rights groups told mediamen that several Kashmiri Facebook users had received phone calls from the police asking about their activities and ordering them to report to the police station.

    “As a result, many Kashmiris are now deactivating their Facebook accounts and re-registering under false names,” they said, Kashmir Media Service reported.

    Human rights activist and co-ordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, Khurram Parvez said, such is the intimidation that the authorities are monitoring whosoever writes what.

    A person, who asked not to be identified, said that he received phone calls from the police after he uploaded a clip of two teenagers bleeding to death after being shot by the police in Islamabad.

    “Indian media never shows such pictures,” he said, adding, “There was no mischievous intent on my part. People here already know everything. I wanted the outside world to see.”

    Reply to this comment »
  • afzaalkhan says:
    July 23, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    ARY News: ARY NEWS pulled off air in many cities

    ARY NEWS was pulled off the air Friday night in various cities of Pakistan, apparently on pressure of the authorities annoyed at channel’s just criticism and bold editorial policy, the channel said.

    Cable operators in some areas of the twin cities – Islamabad and Rawalpindi – and many other cities across the country suspended the channel’s transmission from going on-air at around 10:00 p.m. Many other cable operators altered the channel’s frequency.

    The transmission was suspended when channel’s popular program “View on News with Dr Shahid Masood” was on-aired. Viewers faced sudden blackout at their screens during the program.

    The channel was pulled off the air by the cable operators allegedly on pressure of the government. The attempt was aimed to disrupt the program in which Dr Masood with his panelists was discussing government’s handling of the matter of awarding service extension to Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

    Viewers from various cities telephoned ARY NEWS’ bureaus and offices and complained the sudden shutdown. Many said they are not receiving the transmission, while others stated their cable operators have tuned the channel at very last frequencies on their systems.

    PEMRA officials when contacted refused to say whether they ordered cable operators to suspend the channel’s transmission.

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

CAPTCHA Image
*

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.