Musharraf admits that some scientists may indeed have sold secrets (MERGED)

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
81

Originally posted by camouflage: *
*
Whatever Libya and Iran did, they did it after Pakistan proved that it cared less for the "ummah". So, basically your point has been proved --> WRONG. **

I did not see Libya or Iran puttign their asses on the line for those taleban folks.

the point is incorrect in your eyes, fine.. but it is not "proven" wrong by any means, Just your statement that is it proven wrong does not prove it wrong.

Your 4th question was invalid, since Pakistan is in no position to ask that question, you acted as a munafiq in the past and now you get treated like a munafiq, you shouldn't protest on being treated on how you deserve to be treated. This is Divine Justice.

why is the question invalid? there is a simple logic to this. If you can not come up with an answer, dont just ditch the question.

I suppose Then if we go to pre-Talebvan era. Iran's approach to Pakistan and cozying up to India was its munafiqat, and Those Afghanis repaying Pakistan by importing their pathetic guna nd drug culture in our cities was their munafiqat :)

*\Pakistan did put Taliban's neck on the line to save their own. *

No, pakistan did not offer up taliban as a scape goat. Taliban got themselves in trouble. Pakistan did not run to US or UN whimpering like a lil punk and pointing fingers at afghanistan.

Here your "axis of evil countries" after seeing the chitrol in Iraq just want to divert the attention else where so they dont get a spanking from Uncle Sam started pointing fingers.

*since when can secular nations be part of the "ummah"? *

Good and since all nations are secular thus thers is no Ummah, and anyone who wants Pakistan to put Ummah first has no where to start because there is no Ummah. problem solved.

Put Pakistan first. end of story.

82

looks like they’re looking for those payments Abdali…

The Pakistani government is examining records of the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International in its investigation into the role Pakistani scientists may have played in selling nuclear knowhow to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

According to bankers, some of whom worked with BCCI before it collapsed in 1991, Pakistani investigators have sought the help of former BCCI employees to try to uncover payments made to scientists connected with Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

BCCI’s role in financing Pakistan’s own nuclear efforts has long been the subject of scrutiny. In 1992, a report into BCCI from a US Congressional sub-committee headed by Senator John Kerry, now a leading Democratic presidential contender, said “there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan’s nuclear programme”. Though it said the issue deserved further investigation, there was little public follow-through.

This year, however, as evidence has mounted that Pakistani scientists helped the uranium enrichment programmes of Iran, North Korea and Libya, the Pakistani government has launched an investigation. A government spokesman in Islamabad said that anybody found to have passed on secrets would be punished, but denied that the government approved any transfers.

-more-
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073281357120

83

Re: ‘Musharraf wept over nuke scientist’s betrayal’

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
do you really think musharuff crying for letting nuke secrets out?

For the first time ever I saw tears in the President’s eyes, who thought that it was the worst ever breach of the nation’s trust," recalled a presidential aide

[Musharraf wept over nuke scientist’s betrayal](http://headlines.sify.com/2764news4.html?headline=

sify’s source is The News dear. I wouldn’t exactly bet my ass on The News’s credibility.

84

Here is some more fuel to the fire.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54334-2004Jan27.html?nav=hptoc_w

Food for thought!

Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons.
R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983)

Underneath this flabby exterior is an enormous lack of character.
Oscar Levant (1906 - 1972)

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb

85

Time magazine says Abdul Q. Khan is a man with a MEGATON ego. He was convicted stealing nuclear technology when he was on a visit to Netherlands. He ran a nuclear bazaar and has stashed billions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts.

Father of Pakistan’s nuclear program had black market contacts

Another intelligence official said Khan had acknowledged his contacts with black market dealers. Both Khan and his former aide deny they profited or played any role in supplying technology to either Iran or Libya.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040128/w012884.html

86

Dr.Khan's conviction was actually overtunrned on appeal because of a technicality.

87

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr Xtreme: *

What criteria are you using to judge a country secular or munafiq? Libya has cracked down far harder on Islamists than Pakistan has until recent history anyway. You cite Taliban in one breath and Iran in the other conveniently ignoring the fact that both were at each other's throats due to the sectarian divide so all the points you have made look pretty flimsy.

First name me a country you consider NOT to be munafiq, let us look at it in greater detail and THEN you can start pointing fingers at Pakistan. None of the countries you have mentioned so far bear up to scrutiny. You can start a seperate thread if you like.
[/QUOTE]

My criteria for judging is simple, following man made laws that contradict Islamic teachings is what makes a country secular or munafiq if that country claims to be an Islamic Republic.

I am responding to a question asked

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz

4) does this leave any doubt in anyone's mind that ther eis no Ummah, the way Iran and Libya ratted this out, there should be a law to never engage in business with these guys let alone do anythign officially, and anyone dealing with them unofficially gets sent to the gallows.
[/QUOTE]

Now this person is using an Islamic term for an issue that has nothing to do with Islam, and this is why I am asking him as to why did he use the term "ummah" and included Pakistan in it?

I didn't bring the names Libya and Iran, the only name I brought in was Taliban, so I mentioned the name of one country only (Afghanistan under Taliban), not countries as you have accused me of.

88

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by saby: *

He is our saviuor no doubt but even if a tiny bit of those reports is true, it would be pretty damning evidence. And it was NOT His personal property, once you put a government label on it, it becomes a national secret. And they are not for sale.
[/QUOTE]

Still.....if had sold the secrets to india or israel then wecould have made a case for harsh punishment ......(all assuming he really did that ...which is still highly doubtfull-considering the credibility of th enuclear comision in iraq and the credibnilty of our very own musshy...)

Iran did a lovely job here.......like kamran khan said it looked like iran had to settle some scores with them......what a islamic state......

Dr abulkalam righlty has said that he is happy with his decision to hve returnwed from pakistan..........slap on our faces.......atleast if we had to do all this...why make it public...with no reply from scientist ...it is still oneway traffic.....

89

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
*Originally posted by camouflage: *
*
Whatever Libya and Iran did, they did it after Pakistan proved that it cared less for the "ummah". So, basically your point has been proved --> WRONG. **

I did not see Libya or Iran puttign their asses on the line for those taleban folks.

the point is incorrect in your eyes, fine.. but it is not "proven" wrong by any means, Just your statement that is it proven wrong does not prove it wrong.

Your 4th question was invalid, since Pakistan is in no position to ask that question, you acted as a munafiq in the past and now you get treated like a munafiq, you shouldn't protest on being treated on how you deserve to be treated. This is Divine Justice.

why is the question invalid? there is a simple logic to this. If you can not come up with an answer, dont just ditch the question.

I suppose Then if we go to pre-Talebvan era. Iran's approach to Pakistan and cozying up to India was its munafiqat, and Those Afghanis repaying Pakistan by importing their pathetic guna nd drug culture in our cities was their munafiqat :)

*\Pakistan did put Taliban's neck on the line to save their own. *

No, pakistan did not offer up taliban as a scape goat. Taliban got themselves in trouble. Pakistan did not run to US or UN whimpering like a lil punk and pointing fingers at afghanistan.

Here your "axis of evil countries" after seeing the chitrol in Iraq just want to divert the attention else where so they dont get a spanking from Uncle Sam started pointing fingers.

*since when can secular nations be part of the "ummah"? *

Good and since all nations are secular thus thers is no Ummah, and anyone who wants Pakistan to put Ummah first has no where to start because there is no Ummah. problem solved.

Put Pakistan first. end of story.
[/QUOTE]

Here this is your question, I guess I have to keep referring to it in every response so that we don’t get off track.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *4) does this leave any doubt in anyone's mind that ther eis no Ummah, the way Iran and Libya ratted this out, there should be a law to never engage in business with these guys let alone do anythign officially, and anyone dealing with them unofficially gets sent to the gallows.
[/QUOTE]

After reading your question, it seems that you consider Pakistan to be part of the “Ummah”, and you didn’t like how other members of that “Ummah” treated Pakistan, right? Now what I am saying is this that, after what you did to Taliban, why are you expecting a better treatment from others? In other words, consider yourself out of the “ummah”.

Originally posted by Fraudz:
the point is incorrect in your eyes, fine.. but it is not "proven" wrong by any means, Just your statement that is it proven wrong does not prove it wrong.

Iran and Libya probably did what was in "their national interest", you remember what Pakistan did to the Taliban, don't you? Why are you then bringing up the "Ummah" now?

*Originally posted by Fraudz:
why am i bringing it up? just to demonstrate that Pakistan is not th eonly country that acts in its self interest. I guess point proved.
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well like I mentioned before, since whatever others did to Pakistan comes after what Pakistan did to Taliban, so comparing the two issues is like comparing apples with oranges.

**Your 4th question was invalid, since Pakistan is in no position to ask that question, you acted as a munafiq in the past and now you get treated like a munafiq, you shouldn't protest on being treated on how you deserve to be treated. This is Divine Justice.*

Originally posted by Fraudz:
why is the question invalid? there is a simple logic to this. If you can not come up with an answer, dont just ditch the question.

*

I gave you a reason for invalidating your question, why should I answer an invalid question?

*Originally posted by Fraudz:
I suppose Then if we go to pre-Talebvan era. Iran's approach to Pakistan and cozying up to India was its munafiqat, and Those Afghanis repaying Pakistan by importing their pathetic guna nd drug culture in our cities was their munafiqat :)

*

I am concerned about your including Pakistan in the “ummah”, we can discuss your other concerns separately. By the way, Pakistan Army was very much involved in importing the pathetic guna nd drug culture.

**\Pakistan did put Taliban's neck on the line to save their own. *
Originally posted by Fraudz:
No, pakistan did not offer up taliban as a scape goat. Taliban got themselves in trouble. Pakistan did not run to US or UN whimpering like a lil punk and pointing fingers at afghanistan.

Here your "axis of evil countries" after seeing the chitrol in Iraq just want to divert the attention else where so they dont get a spanking from Uncle Sam started pointing fingers.

*

Pakistan would have been added to the list of rogue states or “axis of evil countries” if it hadn’t done what it did eventually, so maybe the whole situation then wasn’t 100% similar to the situation today, but the bottom line is the same, to save your own neck you put Taliban’s neck on the line and today some one else put your neck on the line to save theirs.

*since when can secular nations be part of the "ummah"? *
*Originally posted by Fraudz:
Good and since all nations are secular thus thers is no Ummah, and anyone who wants Pakistan to put Ummah first has no where to start because there is no Ummah. problem solved.

Put Pakistan first. end of story.

*

I guess we need to know what “ummah” means in light of Islamic teachings, so that Pakistan can stop considering itself as being an integral part of the “ummah” since it is generally perceived to be as such.

The meaning of Ummah in Islam

The text of Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah clearly defines the Islamic Ummah as the Ummah that believes in the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and which implements the Islamic laws and carries the message of Islam to the whole of humanity.
Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala says:
“And from whom We have Created is an Ummah that guides to the Truth and with this Truth they rule justly.” [TMQ Al A’raf:181]

Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala describes more of the characteristics of this Ummah,
“Verily you are the best Ummah brought unto mankind, enjoining the right, forbidding the evil and believing in Allah .” [TMQ. Al-i-Imran:110]

Allah explains that the honour bestowed upon this Ummah is conditional upon commanding the good and forbidding the evil and believing in Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala along with all the obligations of belief such as the belief in the Books, Messengers and all that has been legislated by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala for His servants.

90

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bao bihari: *

Still.....if had sold the secrets to india or israel then wecould have made a case for harsh punishment ......(all assuming he really did that ...which is still highly doubtfull-considering the credibility of th enuclear comision in iraq and the credibnilty of our very own musshy...)

Iran did a lovely job here.......like kamran khan said it looked like iran had to settle some scores with them......what a islamic state......

Dr abulkalam righlty has said that he is happy with his decision to hve returnwed from pakistan..........slap on our faces.......atleast if we had to do all this...why make it public...with no reply from scientist ...it is still oneway traffic.....
[/QUOTE]

Iran paid money for it, or did they get it for free (Islamic Brotherhood)?

This issue has nothing to do with Islam, and even if it did, lets not ignore Pakistan's actions while criticizing others for being unIslamic.

91

*After reading your question, it seems that you consider Pakistan to be part of the “Ummah”, and you didn’t like how other members of that “Ummah” treated Pakistan, right? *

wrong.

This was used to show anyone who thought that there is an Ummah and that Pakistan should be putting Ummah first, That Ummah does not exist..period. Solets look out for national interests first because that is exactly what everyone else is doing.

Now what I am saying is this that, after what you did to Taliban, why are you expecting a better treatment from others? In other words, consider yourself out of the “ummah”.

and what I am saying is that there is no Ummah, so anyone who got on pakistan's case for whatever it did to Afghanistan ( basically not getting innocent pakistanis kileld for the bullheadedness of taleban) can not just point the finger at Pakistan.

*Well like I mentioned before, since whatever others did to Pakistan comes after what Pakistan did to Taliban, so comparing the two issues is like comparing apples with oranges. *

well like I mentioned before, whatever Pakistan did to look out for its own interests is not something that others did nto do. Including PLO and Iran's cozying up to India on Kashmir issue. so what do we have now, apples, oranges and grapefruits?

*I gave you a reason for invalidating your question, why should I answer an invalid question? *

oh because your reason was invalid.

*I am concerned about your including Pakistan in the “ummah”, we can discuss your other concerns separately. . *

I am concerned that you are missing the point. as i have plainly stated earlier, There is no Ummah.. no country acts in the interest of teh "ummah"

*By the way, Pakistan Army was very much involved in importing the pathetic guna nd drug culture
*

if you say so, but the exporters did not have to export now did they? god fearing proud neighbours of ours who somehow thik that exporting drug and terror is cool :)

I guess we need to know what “ummah” means in light of Islamic teachings, so that Pakistan can stop considering itself as being an integral part of the “ummah” since it is generally perceived to be as such

Oh I dont want Pakistan to consider it self part of Ummah, because teh concept of Ummah does not exist anywhere else. Thanks for the info although it was nothing that I was not aware of previously.

The basic point is that Pakistan needs to start lookign out for its own interests first, and any of our ppl who whine about putting Ummah first should prove that Ummah exists before criticizing Pakistan for watching out for its own interests

92

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by camouflage: *

My criteria for judging is simple, following man made laws that contradict Islamic teachings is what makes a country secular or munafiq if that country claims to be an Islamic Republic.

I am responding to a question asked

Now this person is using an Islamic term for an issue that has nothing to do with Islam, and this is why I am asking him as to why did he use the term "ummah" and included Pakistan in it?

I didn't bring the names Libya and Iran, the only name I brought in was Taliban, so I mentioned the name of one country only (Afghanistan under Taliban), not countries as you have accused me of.
[/QUOTE]

Okay so if we can disregard Iran and Libya as munafiqs as well according to your criteria, then that leaves us with what? Taleban? Quite a few of them switched sides during the recent war so we aren't really left with much are we?

And how exactly did Pakistan put Talebs necks on the line? Do we decide policy in Afghanistan? Pak was right not to make the same mistake as Mullah Umar and rely on help from the "Ummah" coz it wouldn't have arrived. Arabs can't protect their own, fat chance of them helping the Talebs.

Fraudz is right Ummah looks good on paper but there isn't any Ummah at state level so Pakistan should look out for no 1 just like the rest of the Ummah.

93

A Q Khan is no longer a “Pride of Pakistan”. Scientists may have received millions from Iran
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/29/MNGHD4KBET1.DTL

Khan, who allegedly stole plans from the European energy consortium Urenco in the 1970s to jump-start Pakistan’s nuclear program, has amassed vast property holdings in Pakistan and Dubai over the years, and gained notoriety for giving houses and BMW cars to family members as presents.

“The people of Pakistan are now bewildered and feel betrayed that the supervision of the government was so lax as to permit such huge scale pilferage,” Naqvi said. “That these gentlemen could be so unpatriotic as to amass millions of dollars … at the cost of the nation is appalling and painful.”

Musharraf, who reportedly feels betrayed by Khan, is thought to favor public prosecution

94

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,8533539%255E401,00.html

Pakistan clears nuclear scientist
From correspondents in Islamabad
30jan04
PAKISTAN said today the country’s top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was not a suspect in the ongoing probe into alleged proliferation of nuclear technology to Iran and Libya by Pakistani scientists.

“Doctor Abdul Qadeer Khan is neither a suspect nor he is under any restriction,” Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told AFP.

95

whew thats a relief :)

96

Pakistan nuclear probe may never reveal full truth

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp;:4018c1f7:97f97dae18212bdf?type=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4234855
By Simon Denyer

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan may never reveal the full truth of its probe into the illegal export of nuclear weapons technology to Iran and Libya, particularly if, as some experts expect, it points to senior military figures.

Faced with overwhelming evidence and growing American pressure, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf could be forced to sacrifice the father of his country’s nuclear bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, in punishment for his alleged proliferation.

But diplomats doubt that Khan, who has kept silent in the face of the allegations, could have sold vital state secrets without the knowledge of Pakistan’s powerful military intelligence and senior officers.

The investigation will not even look into American accusations that former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s government and the military used Khan to sell nuclear technology to North Korea in the early 1990s in exchange for missile technology to deliver nuclear warheads.

“Is it possible that scientists could have done this without any military people becoming aware – that he (Khan) could have travelled several times to Iran and North Korea and no doubts were raised about him?” asked one Western diplomat.

The answer is no, according to many diplomats and analysts in the Pakistani capital Islamabad.

“It is not my view that the establishment has proliferated,” said retired Brigadier Shaukat Qadir.

“But individuals in the establishment at very high positions of authority, senior military officers, may have either chosen to look the other way or also got a share of the ill-gotten gains.”

Press speculation has centred on former army chief of staff Aslam Beg, who has been accused of proposing to sell nuclear technology to Iran in the early 1990s in return for conventional weapons and oil. Beg denies have made any such deal, but his role is in any case unlikely to be scrutinised too closely.

“Former chiefs of army staff are sacrosanct in Pakistan,” said Qadir. “Nobody wishes to carry it that far.”

Influential daily The News quoted retired intelligence officials on Wednesday as saying that reports of corruption at Khan Research Laboratories reached military intelligence chiefs in the late 1980s and 1990s, but no action was taken.

HEROES TURNED VILLAINS

Musharraf himself insists that no government or military officials were involved in any nuclear transfers. Instead he has turned his anger on scientists whom he accuses of selling Pakistan’s state secrets “for personal gain”.

Calling them “enemies of the state”, the Pakistani general has vowed harsh punishment for anyone found guilty.

As investigations draw to a close, intelligence officials have named Khan, revered as a national hero, as a key suspect. They have used newspapers like The News to lay out the case against Khan, in what some see as an effort to prepare the ground for possible prosecution.

But is Musharraf prepared to sacrifice such a national icon?

Local newspapers say aides have advised the general to soft-pedal the probe, since any prosecution might provoke a national outcry and open a Pandora’s box which implicates senior army figures.

The aides have recommended Khan be stripped of his role as adviser to the prime minister and quietly put out to pasture in return for his silence.

But it is far from certain if that would be enough to satisfy Washington. Musharraf is said to be leaning towards a prosecution, a move that would certainly anger some Pakistanis.

So far Islamist parties have only managed to bring a few hundred people at a time out on the streets in scattered protests against the treatment of the scientists.

"It would not be easy, given this halo around ‘the father of the bomb’,’ said former Senator Shafqat Mahmood. “On the other hand if the government is able to show evidence to people that is convincing, some of the criticism will certainly be blunted.”

Any trial would almost certainly have to be conducted behind closed doors, not just to protect Pakistan’s state secrets but also to protect anyone Khan might want to bring down with him.

97

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Marathi Maanus: *
Pakistan nuclear probe may never reveal full truth

[/QUOTE]

I suppose pretty much every country has done that. I mean even JFK files were sealed.

so nothing new or surprising.

98

Shukar hay hukumat ko kuch to aqal aaee.

99

Dr Khan not involved

Question: Is this the beggining of another Musharrafite bait and switch?

100

Alright, so you were mocking those who thought that there is an Ummah… let me ask you:

A when has Pakistan put the “ummah” ahead of its “national interests”?
B Eliminate the word Islamic when referring to Republic of Pakistan, rest assured no one would want Pakistan to put ummah first.
C Every one else acts in accordance with their constitution, why not follow them then also?

Ummah does exist, refer to my earlier post, maybe not in the form of a country but it does exist. I wonder why you are stuck with the false notion that the “ummah” consists of countries only.

And you thought that it would be a piece of cake to qualify for Jannah? Just because others have been choosing the freeway to hell doesn’t mean that you need to follow them too.
Anyways I’ll tell you why Pakistan’s interest should not contradict the interests of the ummah…
The Objectives Resolution

Yeah Right, give me a break.

The meaning of ummah is still not clear to you it seems. There is a contradiction in your statements:
You mention that there is no ummah, and then you also mention that no country acts in the interest of the “ummah”, you are basically accepting that there is an “ummah”, but no country is acting in the interest of the ummah.

Just for clarification purposes, the import of the culture you are referring to did not take place when Taliban were governing Afghanistan, and btw didn’t you export the drugs all over the world? Did you think it was cool?

The concept of Ummah does exist, if you think that only a country can represent ummah, then its your definition of ummah that is incorrect not its concept.

Basic point for Pakistan is to stop acting as a munafiq by calling itself an Islamic Republic but acting as secular.