What's new

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui Thread

Savak said:
Headshot Switchblade lol

Seriously, do you even mean all that. The Americans kidnapped her and her kids in 2003 and are now telling the courts they arrested her in Afghanistan while the fact is she was in Bagram in their custody for 5 long years. Shes been a forgotten victim all these years.


lol... ya, they did it to her only coz shez probably NOT guilty.

US has this dangerous policy of NOT prosecuting the real terrorists, psychos, mass murderers, etc and instead making them work for it.
 
Dr. Aafia Siddiqui Thread | All Related News Goes Here

The mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui

A Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three is to stand trial in New York for attempted murder. But shadowy questions about her life remain – including her links to al-Qaida and her five 'lost' years

Declan Walsh
The Guardian,
Tuesday 24 November 2009

On a hot summer morning 18 months ago a team of four Americans – two FBI agents and two army officers – rolled into Ghazni, a dusty town 50 miles south of Kabul. They had come to interview two unusual prisoners: a woman in a burka and her 11-year-old son, arrested the day before.

Afghan police accused the mysterious pair of being suicide bombers. What interested the Americans, though, was what they were carrying: notes about a "mass casualty attack" in the US on targets including the Statue of Liberty and a collection of jars and bottles containing "chemical and gel substances".

At the town police station the Americans were directed into a room where, unknown to them, the woman was waiting behind a long yellow curtain. One soldier sat down, laying his M-4 rifle by his foot, next to the curtain. Moments later it twitched back.

The woman was standing there, pointing the officer's gun at his head. A translator lunged at her, but too late. She fired twice, shouting "Get the **** out of here!" and "Allahu Akbar!" Nobody was hit. As the translator wrestled with the woman, the second soldier drew his pistol and fired, hitting her in the abdomen. She went down, still kicking and shouting that she wanted "to kill Americans". Then she passed out.

Whether this extraordinary scene is fiction or reality will soon be decided thousands of miles from Ghazni in a Manhattan courtroom. The woman is Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three. The description of the shooting, in July 2008, comes from the prosecution case, which Siddiqui disputes. What isn't in doubt is that there was an incident, and that she was shot, after which she was helicoptered to Bagram air field where medics cut her open from breastplate to bellybutton, searching for bullets. Medical records show she barely survived. Seventeen days later, still recovering, she was bundled on to an FBI jet and flown to New York where she now faces seven counts of assault and attempted murder. If convicted, the maximum sentence is life in prison.

The prosecution is but the latest twist in one of the most intriguing episodes of America's "war on terror". At its heart is the MIT-educated Siddiqui, once declared the world's most wanted woman. In 2003 she mysteriously vanished for five years, during which time she was variously dubbed the "Mata Hari of al-Qaida" or the "Grey Lady of Bagram", an iconic victim of American brutality.

Yet only the narrow circumstances of her capture – did she open fire on the US soldier? – are at issue in the New York court case. Fragile-looking, and often clad in a dark robe and white headscarf, Siddiqui initially pleaded not guilty, insisting she never touched the soldier's gun. Her lawyers say the prosecution's dramatic version of the shooting is untrue. Now, after months of pre-trial hearings, she appears bent on scuppering the entire process.

During a typically stormy hearing last Thursday, Siddiqui interrupted the judge, rebuked her own lawyers and made strident appeals to the packed courthouse. "I am boycotting this trial," she declared. "I am innocent of all the charges and I can prove it, but I will not do it in this court." Previously she had tried to fire her lawyers due to their Jewish background (she once wrote to the court that Jews are "cruel, ungrateful, back-stabbing" people) and demanded to speak with President Obama for the purpose of "making peace" with the Taliban. This time, though, she was ejected from the courtroom for obstruction. "Take me out. I'm not coming back," she said defiantly.

The trial, due to start in January, is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. It is a tale of spies and militants, disappearance and deception, which has played out in the shadowlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan since 2001. In search of answers I criss-crossed Pakistan, tracking down Siddiqui's relatives, retired ministers, shadowy spy types and pamphleteers. The truth was maddeningly elusive. But it all started in Karachi, the sprawling port city on the Arabian Sea where Siddiqui was born 37 years ago.

Her parents were Pakistani strivers – middle-class folk with strong faith in Islam and education. Her father, Mohammad, was an English-trained doctor; her mother, Ismet, befriended the dictator General Zia ul-Haq. Aafia was a smart teenager, and in 1990 followed her older brother to the US. Impressive grades won her admission to the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, later, Brandeis University, where she graduated in cognitive neuroscience. In 1995 she married a young Karachi doctor, Amjad Khan; a year later their first child, Ahmed, was born.

Siddiqui was also an impassioned Muslim activist. In Boston she campaigned for Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya; she was particularly affected by graphic videos of pregnant Bosnian women being killed. She wrote emails, held fundraisers and made forceful speeches at her local mosque. But the charities she worked with had sharp edges. The Nairobi branch of one, Mercy International Relief Agency, was linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in east Africa; three other charities were later banned in the US for their links to al-Qaida.

The September 11 2001 attacks marked a turning point in Siddiqui's life. In May 2002 the FBI questioned her and her husband about some unusual internet purchases they had made: about $10,000 worth of night-vision goggles, body armour and 45 military-style books including The Anarchist's Arsenal. (Khan said he bought the equipment for hunting and camping expeditions.) Their marriage started to crumble. A few months later the couple returned to Pakistan and divorced that August, two weeks before the birth of their third child, Suleman.

On Christmas Day 2002 Siddiqui left her three children with her mother in Pakistan and returned to the US, ostensibly to apply for academic jobs. During the 10-day trip, however, Siddiqui did something controversial: she opened a post box in the name of Majid Khan, an alleged al-Qaida operative accused of plotting to blow up petrol stations in the Baltimore area. The post box, prosecutors later said, was to facilitate his entry into the US.

Six months after her divorce, she married Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, at a small ceremony near Karachi. Siddiqui's family denies the wedding took place, but it has been confirmed by Pakistani and US intelligence, al-Baluchi's relatives and, according to FBI interview reports recently filed in court, Siddiqui herself. At any rate, it was a short-lived honeymoon.


Fowzia Siddiqui is the elder sister of Aafia Siddiqui. Photograph: Declan Walsh
In March 2003 the FBI issued a global alert for Siddiqui and her ex-husband, Amjad Khan. Then, a few weeks later, she vanished. According to her family, she climbed into a taxi with her three children – six-year-old Ahmed, four-year-old Mariam and six-month old Suleman – and headed for Karachi airport. They never made it. (Khan, on the other hand, was interviewed by the FBI in Pakistan, and subsequently released.)

Initially it was presumed that Siddiqui had been picked up by Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) spy agency at the behest of the CIA. The theory seemed to be confirmed by American media reports that Siddiqui's name had been given up by Mohammed, the 9/11 instigator, who was captured three weeks earlier. (If so, Mohammed was probably speaking under duress – the CIA waterboarded him 183 times that month.)

There are several accounts of what happened next. According to the US government, Siddiqui was at large, plotting mayhem on behalf of Osama bin Laden. In May 2004 the US attorney general, John Ashcroft, listed her among the seven "most wanted" al-Qaida fugitives. "Armed and dangerous," he said, describing the Karachi woman as a terrorist "facilitator" who was willing to use her education against America. "Al-Qaida Mom" ran the headline in the New York Post.

But Siddiqui's family and supporters tell a different story. Instead of plotting attacks, they say, Siddiqui spent the missing five years at the dreaded Bagram detention centre, north of Kabul, where she suffered unspeakable horrors. Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist turned Muslim campaigner, insists she is the "Grey Lady of Bagram" – a ghostly female detainee who kept prisoners awake "with her haunting sobs and piercing screams". In 2005 male prisoners were so agitated by her plight, she says, that they went on hunger strike for six days.

For campaigners such as Ridley, Siddiqui has become emblematic of dark American practices such as abduction, rendition and torture. "Aafia has iconic status in the Muslim world. People are angry with American imperialism and domination," she told me.

But every major security agency of the US government – army, FBI, CIA – denies having held her. Last year the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, went even further. She stated that Siddiqui was not in US custody "at any time" prior to July 2008. Her language was unusually categoric.

To reconcile these accounts I flew to Siddiqui's hometown of Karachi. The family lives in a spacious house with bougainvillea-draped walls in Gulshan Iqbal, a smart middle-class neighbourhood. Inside I took breakfast with her sister, Fowzia, on a patio overlooking a toy-strewn garden.

As servants brought piles of paratha (fried bread), Fowzia produced photos of a smiling young woman whom she described as the victim of an international conspiracy. The US had been abusing her sister in Bagram, she said, then produced her for trial as part of a gruesome justice pageant. "As far as I'm concerned this trial [in New York] is just a great drama. They write the script as they go. I've stopped asking questions," she said resignedly.

But Fowzia, a Harvard-educated neurologist, was frustratingly short on hard information. She responded to questions about Aafia's whereabouts between 2003 and 2008 with cryptic cliches. "It's not that we don't know. It's that we don't want to know," she said. And she blamed reports of al-Qaida links on a malevolent American press. "Half of them work for the CIA," she said.

The odd thing, though, was that the person who might unlock the entire mystery was living in the same house. After being captured with his mother in Ghazni last year, 11-year-old Ahmed Siddiqui was flown back to Pakistan on orders from the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. Since then he has been living with his aunt Fowzia. Yet she has forbidden him from speaking with the press – even with Yvonne Ridley – because, she told me, he was too traumatised.

"You tell him to do something but he just stands there, staring at the TV," she said, sighing heavily. But surely, I insisted, after 15 months at home the boy must have divulged some clue about the missing years?

Fowzia's tone hardened. "Ahmed's not allowed to speak to the press. That was part of the deal when they gave him to us," she said firmly.

"Who are they?" I asked.

She waved a finger in the air. "The network. Those who brought him here."

Moments later Fowzia excused herself. The interview was over. As she walked me to the gate, I was struck by another omission: Fowzia had barely mentioned Ahmed's 11-year-old sister, Mariam, or his seven-year-old brother, Suleman, who are still missing. Amid the hullabaloo about their imprisoned mother, Aafia's children seemed to be strangely forgotten.

That night I went to see Siddiqui's ex-husband, Amjad Khan. He ushered me through a deathly quiet house into an upstairs room where we sat cross-legged on the floor. He had a soft face under the curly beard that is worn by devout Muslims. I recounted what Fowzia told me. He sighed and shook his head. "It's all a smokescreen," he said. "She's trying to divert your attention."

The truth of the matter, he said, was that Siddiqui had never been sent to Bagram. Instead she spent the five years on the run, living clandestinely with her three children, under the watchful eye of Pakistani intelligence. He told me they shifted between Quetta in Baluchistan province, Iran and the Karachi house I had visited earlier that day. It was a striking explanation. When I asked for proof, he started at the beginning.

Their parents, who arranged the marriage, thought them a perfect match. The couple had a lot in common – education, wealth and a love for conservative Islam. They were married over the phone; soon after Khan moved to America. But his new wife was a more fiery character than he wished. "She was so pumped up about jihad," he said.

Six months into the marriage, Siddiqui demanded the newlyweds move to Bosnia. Khan refused, and grew annoyed at her devotion to activist causes. During a furious argument one night, he told me, he flung a milk bottle at his wife that split her lip.

After 9/11 Aafia insisted on returning to Pakistan, telling her husband that the US government was forcibly converting Muslim children to Christianity. Later that winter she pressed him to go on "jihad" to Afghanistan, where she had arranged for them to work in a hospital in Zabul province. Khan refused, sparking a vicious row. "She went hysterical, beating her hands on my chest, asking for divorce," he recalled.

After Siddiqui disappeared in March 2003, Khan started to worry for his children – he had never seen his youngest son, Suleman. But he was reassured that they were still in Pakistan through three sources. He hired people to watch her house and they reported her comings and goings. His family was also briefed by ISI officials who said they were following her movements, he said. (Khan named an ISI brigadier whom I later contacted; he declined to speak).

Most strikingly, Khan claimed to have seen his ex-wife with his own eyes. In April 2003, he said, the ISI asked him to identify his ex-wife as she got off a flight from Islamabad, accompanied by her son. Two years later he spotted her again in a Karachi traffic jam. But he never went public with the information. "I wanted to protect her, for the sake of my children," he said.


Shams ul-Hassan Faruqi, a geologist and uncle of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, at his home in Islamabad, Pakistan Photograph: Declan Walsh
Khan's version of events has enraged his ex-wife's family. Fowzia has launched a 500m rupees (£360,000) defamation law suit, while regularly attacking him in the press as a wifebeater set on "destroying" her family. "Marrying him was Aafia's biggest mistake," she told me. Khan says it is a ploy to silence him in the media and take away his children.

Khan's explanation is bolstered by the one person who claims to have met the missing neuroscientist between 2003 and 2008 – her uncle, Shams ul-Hassan Faruqi. Back in Islamabad, I went to see him.

A sprightly old geologist, Faruqi works from a cramped office filled with coloured rocks and dusty computers. Over tea and biscuits he described a strange encounter with his niece in January 2008, six months before she was captured in Afghanistan.

It started, he said, when a white car carrying a burka-clad woman pulled up outside his gate. Beckoning him to approach, he recognised her by her voice. "Uncle, I am Aafia," he recalled her saying. But she refused to leave the car and insisted they move to the nearby Taj Mahal restaurant to talk. Amid whispers, her story tumbled out.

Siddiqui told him she had been in both Pakistani and American captivity since 2003, but was vague on the details. "I was in the cells but I don't know in which country, or which city. They kept shifting me," she said. Now she had been set free but remained under the thumb of intelligence officials based in Lahore. They had given her a mission: to infiltrate al-Qaida in Pakistan. But, Siddiqui told her uncle, she was afraid and wanted out. She begged him to smuggle her into Afghanistan into the hands of the Taliban. "That was her main point," he recalled. "She said: 'I will be safe with the Taliban.'"

That night, Siddiqui slept at a nearby guesthouse, and stayed with her uncle the next day. But she refused to remove her burka. Faruqi said he caught a glimpse of her just once, while eating, and thought her nose had been altered. "I asked her, 'Who did plastic surgery on your face?' She said, 'nobody'."

On the third day, Siddiqui vanished again.

Amid the blizzard of allegations about Siddiqui, the most crucial voice is yet to be heard – her own. The trial, due to start in January, has suffered numerous delays. The longest was due to a six-month psychiatric evaluation triggered by defence claims that Siddiqui was "going crazy" – prone to crying fits and hallucinations involving flying infants, dark angels and a dog in her cell. "She's in total psychic pain," said her lawyer, Dawn Cardi, claiming that she was unfit to stand trial.

But at the Texas medical centre where the tests took place, Siddiqui refused to co-operate. "I can't hear you. I'm not listening," she told one doctor, sitting on the floor with her fingers in her ears. Others reported that she refused to speak with Jews, that she manipulated health workers and perceived herself to "be a martyr rather than a prisoner". Last July three of four experts determined she was malingering – faking a psychiatric illness to avoid an undesirable outcome. "She is an intelligent and at times manipulative woman who showed goal-directed and rational thinking," reported Dr Sally Johnson.

Judge Richard Berman ruled that Siddiqui "may have some mental health issues" but was competent to stand trial.

Back in Pakistan Siddiqui has become a cause celebre. Newspapers write unquestioningly about her "torture", parliament has passed resolutions, placard-waving demonstrators pound the streets and the government is spending $2m on a top-flight defence. High-profile supporters include the former cricketer Imran Khan and the Taliban leader Hakumullah Mehsud who has affectionately described Siddiqui as a "sister in Islam".

The unquestioning support is a product of public fury at US-orchestrated "disappearances", of which there have been hundreds in Pakistan, and deep scepticism about the American account of her capture. Few Pakistanis believe a frail 5ft 3in, 40kg woman could disarm an American soldier; fewer still think she would be carrying bomb booklets, chemicals and target lists.

But there are critics, too, albeit silent ones. A Musharraf-era minister with previous oversight of Siddiqui's case told me it was "full of ******** and lies".

Two weeks ago the Obama administration introduced a fresh twist, when it announced that next year (or in 2011) five Guantanamo Bay detainees will be tried in the same New York courthouse, a few blocks from the World Trade Centre. One of them is Siddiqui's second husband, Ammar al-Baluchi, also known as Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who stands accused of financing the 9/11 attacks.

But while the Guantanamo detainees will be tried for their part in mass terrorism, Siddiqui's case focuses on a minor controversy – whether she fired a gun at a soldier in an Afghan police station. And so the big questions may not be probed: whether the ISI or CIA abducted Siddiqui in 2003, what she did afterwards, and where her two missing children are now. In fact the framing of the charges raises a new question: if Siddiqui was such a dangerous terrorist five years ago, why is she not being charged as one now? A senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of strict anonymity, offered a tantalising explanation.

In the world of counter-espionage, he said, someone like Siddiqui is an invaluable asset. And so, he speculated, sometime over the last five years she may have been "flipped" – turned against militant sympathisers – by Pakistani or American intelligence. "It's a very murky world," he said.

"Maybe the Americans have no charges against her. Maybe they don't want to compromise their sources of information. Or maybe they don't want to put that person out in the world again. The thing is, you'll never really know."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/aafia-siddiqui-al-qaida

Her story is staggering. She is one of many hundreds in Pakistan who were just abducted in Pakistan by the CIA, mostly during the Mushraff era. I saw an interview from her sister, a Harvard graduate and I was shocked to learn that Aafia is kept in a dark room and regularly tortured by the Americans. According to her sister, after 7 years the one and only telephone conversation that the Americans have allowed her to make to her sister was traumatic in the sense that Aafia now talks about big-eyed teddy bears who come to meet her to play. I honestly think Aafia was innocent.

The Americans will never let her go. To do so would truly expose the brutality with which they treat prisoners. She will probably die in their custody. Truly saddening story.
 
Usman. i watched that interview too. It was on ARY, right?
This story is truly very saddening. God knows how many other innocent people have or are going through this....
 
Boi said:
Usman. i watched that interview too. It was on ARY, right?
This story is truly very saddening. God knows how many other innocent people have or are going through this....

Yes it was on ARY. I watched a little and was intrigued so dug up this article. Aafia's family are highly educated people and so they have a voice. Imagine all those innocent working class Pakistani civilians out there who have no voice at all. Such a promising life and career Aafia had and that has been taken away from her for eternity. In fact the same can be said about her children who are mysteriously 'missing'. This is American justice for you.
 
Boi said:
Usman. i watched that interview too. It was on ARY, right?
This story is truly very saddening. God knows how many other innocent people have or are going through this....

Sad story .. but she seems far from innocent.
 
Juggernaut said:
In Kashif's eye's the West can do no wrong.

Go read the article before you make any more idiotic posts.
 
chacha kashmiri said:
I suppose that excuses rape, strip searches and child abduction.

When did I say it did.

Try making some sense once in a while ?
 
Sad story .. but she seems far from innocent.

The second half of your sentence seems to imply that your 'sympathy' towards what has happened to this innocent woman has lessened because you feel perhaps that this frail woman is a top level al aqeda operative who managed to shoot us guards while she was chained and oppressed in us custody.
 
kashif77 said:
Go read the article before you make any more idiotic posts.

I've read the article. Thoroughly.

And I've also read your countless statements on a number of such articles.

My point still stands no matter how ''idiotic'' you may think it is.
 
kashif77 said:
Sad story .. but she seems far from innocent.

Sorry Kashif but nobody has any proof she is anything but innocent. Have the Americans stumped up something to the contrary? Any concrete proof? The answer is no they have not, and that is why she is still, after all these years not brought before the court on charges related to terrorism. All these stupid allegations such as that she once donated to charities who were later banned by the UN are no proof to label a highly educated and successful woman as the mastermind of Al-Qaeda. The War on Terror has frightened so many, that people are too scared to question whether any given captive is actually related to terrorism. Because of this, the CIA have a free leash to abduct and abuse anybody it considers a terrorist without any real need to justify the arrest. It puts innocent people at severe risk.
 
Usman said:
Sorry Kashif but nobody has any proof she is anything but innocent. Have the Americans stumped up something to the contrary? Any concrete proof? The answer is no they have not, and that is why she is still, after all these years not brought before the court on charges related to terrorism. All these stupid allegations such as that she once donated to charities who were later banned by the UN are no proof to label a highly educated and successful woman as the mastermind of Al-Qaeda. The War on Terror has frightened so many, that people are too scared to question whether any given captive is actually related to terrorism. Because of this, the CIA have a free leash to abduct and abuse anybody it considers a terrorist without any real need to justify the arrest. It puts innocent people at severe risk.


The jury is still out as far as this particular lady is concerned, however, you are quite right about the use of rendition/abduction by the Americans. What is that if not terrorism?
 
Well nobody will ever know what really happened. But it is difficult to believe that they just grabbed a woman who had nothing to do with anything. I am not one to judge if she is a culprit or an innocent victim. But I am sure she made some wrong decissions, maybe friended with wrong people, associated with wrong people or organization, got herself into a wrong situation and then when she wanted to get out of it...its all too late.
 
chacha kashmiri said:
I suppose that excuses rape, strip searches and child abduction.


But Obama wouldn't let that happen. He didn't win peace award for ordering his men to rape women.
 
Saqlain_doosra said:
But Obama wouldn't let that happen. He didn't win peace award for ordering his men to rape women.

Obamas a saint, he wants to close down guantanamo bay, he said so when he came into power over a year ago. It must be really hard to release prisoners who you have no evidence on.
 
Usman said:
Sorry Kashif but nobody has any proof she is anything but innocent. Have the Americans stumped up something to the contrary? Any concrete proof? The answer is no they have not, and that is why she is still, after all these years not brought before the court on charges related to terrorism. All these stupid allegations such as that she once donated to charities who were later banned by the UN are no proof to label a highly educated and successful woman as the mastermind of Al-Qaeda. The War on Terror has frightened so many, that people are too scared to question whether any given captive is actually related to terrorism. Because of this, the CIA have a free leash to abduct and abuse anybody it considers a terrorist without any real need to justify the arrest. It puts innocent people at severe risk.

She:

Told her husband to go to jihad in Afghanistan.
Purchased $10K worth of night goggles and body armor.
Divorced him and married into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family.
Opened a post office box for an al-Qaida operative.
Worked with "charities" linked to terrorist groups.


What proof exactly are you and your buddies waiting for .. her to blow her self up in a market ?

I do not condone secret arrests and detention .. she should have been openly tried in a Pakistani court !
 
Last edited:
kashif77 said:
Go read the article before you make any more idiotic posts.
so whose version are you going to believe han? CIA, ISI, her family, her ex husband, her uncle, or that british woman journo, or those in bagram jail who went on strike for 6 days after unbearable sobs and cries of Aafia???whome????????
 
Told her husband to go to jihad in Afghanistan.
Purchased $10K worth of night goggles and body armor.
Divorced him and married into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family.
Opened a post office box for an al-Qaida operative.
Worked with "charities" l

The only charge she is being tried for is the laughable one that she single handedly manhandled 2 us guards while in their custody and handcuffed. . Which means the rest is bs.
 
DanishJ said:
Kashif if you are a muslim and a pakistani, you are a disgrace to both.


Come on man..no personnel insults..people have the right to say whatever they want..only thing I don't understand about the Aafia case is that..there are almost 180-190 million Pakistani around the world and the americans go after her..she must have done something wrong in order to come on there radar right?!
 
To be frank, Kashif is a bit of a coconut! And its not just him, theres a few others on PP who Im not gonna mention. In my view, those Pakiz who are into rock music etc. can be allocated into this category. They have just have lost track of their identities in the company of their "friends"
 
Last edited:
mmkextreme_1 said:
Come on man..no personnel insults..people have the right to say whatever they want..only thing I don't understand about the Aafia case is that..there are almost 180-190 million Pakistani around the world and the americans go after her..she must have done something wrong in order to come on there radar right?!


Using that 'logic' so must all of the other 'terror' suspects like moazzam begg who were captured for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time and treated worse then caged animals.
 
Riff said:
To be frank, Kashif is a bit of a coconut! And its not just him, theres a few others on PP who Im not gonna mention. In my view, those Pakiz who are into rock music etc. can be allocated into this category. They have just have lost track of their identities in the company of their "friends"


To be honest he's not coconut. He's something else, but some time he makes sense.
 
DanishJ said:
Kashif if you are a muslim and a pakistani, you are a disgrace to both.


Riff said:
To be frank, Kashif is a bit of a coconut!


Happy to see that these gems of comments haven't been deleted.

Shows how warped the minds of some Pakistanis are becoming.

Point out the obvious links that this woman has with al-Qaeda and get called a coconut, a disgrace to Islam and Pakistan.

These kids so wrapped up in their war against the infidels that they cant even make out the truth anymore.

Post 9-11 world has sadly inflicted mental damage on many a Pakistani youth.
 
Last edited:
kashif77 said:
Happy to see that these gems of comments haven't been deleted.

Shows how warped the minds of some Pakistanis are becoming.

Point out the obvious links that this woman has with al-Qaeda and get called a coconut, a disgrace to Islam and Pakistan.

These kids so wrapped up in their war against the infidels that they cant even make out the truth anymore.

Post 9-11 world has sadly inflicted mental damage on many a Pakistani youth.

Typical response. When outdebated retreat back to safeground and try and win support by calling others brainwashed and against infidels. It worked for the chinese government against the uighurs.
 
chacha kashmiri said:
Typical response. When outdebated retreat back to safeground

Are you retarded ?

Do I even need to ask ...

Read the article.

The woman has obvious links to al-Qaeda.
 
The thing is Kashif even while putting the Al Qaeda/muslim terrorist's issue aside you have always failed to show the proper respect to Islam as a religion.

I've read a number of your comments and when it come's to Islam both you and hasan b never think before you open your mouths.

I'm assuming your a muslim? However some of the many comments you make about various aspects of the religion itself lead me to believe otherwise. I think that you along with a few other's here try way too hard to push themselves as liberal, open minded, in tune with todays world, whatever you wanna call it.
 
Last edited:
Told her husband to go to jihad in Afghanistan.

So this makes her a terrorist? If your friend tells you to take drugs, he's 100% responsible for your actions?

Purchased $10K worth of night goggles and body armor.

So what? Was it proven with evidence that this equipment was used for the purposes of terrorism?

Divorced him and married into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family.

Again, so what? Javed Miandad's son is married to Dawood Ibrahim's daughter? Does that make him a terrorist? A criminal?

Opened a post office box for an al-Qaida operative.

How does opening a post office box for someone facilitate their entry into the united states? I think you would need to apply for a visa first, was she working at the visa office as well stamping passports?

Worked with "charities" linked to terrorist groups.

After 9/11 there were many charities that were "banned" who had no links to terrorist groups. After the mumbai attacks fingers were pointed at Jamaat-ud-Dawa by India...no evidence was found to link this group to the attacks...point being, we don't know what charity she worked for or what alleged links it had...
 
Last edited:
Offstump .. can you please learn how to use the quote function .. is it really that difficult ?

You're misquoting me and ur post is hardly legible.
 
offstump said:
Told her husband to go to jihad in Afghanistan.

So this makes her a terrorist? If your friend tells you to take drugs, he's 100% responsible for your actions?

Purchased $10K worth of night goggles and body armor.

So what? Was it proven with evidence that this equipment was used for the purposes of terrorism?

Divorced him and married into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family.

Again, so what? Javed Miandad's son is married to Dawood Ibrahim's daughter? Does that make him a terrorist? A criminal?

Opened a post office box for an al-Qaida operative.

How does opening a post office box for someone facilitate their entry into the united states? I think you would need to apply for a visa first, was she working at the visa office as well stamping passports?

Worked with "charities" linked to terrorist groups.

After 9/11 there were many charities that were "banned" who had no links to terrorist groups. After the mumbai attacks fingers were pointed at Jamaat-ud-Dawa by India...no evidence was found to link this group to the attacks...point being, we don't know what charity she worked for or what alleged links it had...

Ok .. now that you've learned how to use quotes .. there's a pretty obvious pattern in her actions.

Any one of those acts would be suspicious in itself .. but put them all together and its obvious what she is up to.
 
how is it obvious? prove it then, rather than keep her locked up for years being tortured and raped....your mentality is to lock em all up if you think they're dirty...

also learning how to use quotes is not very difficult, but not acting like a douche appears to be for some people...
 
Last edited:
Those who knew Aafia recall that she was a very small, quiet, polite, and shy woman who was barely noticeable in a gathering. However, they add that when necessary, she would say what needed to be said. She was once giving a speech at a fundraiser for Bosnian orphans at a local mosque in which she began lambasting the men in the audience for not stepping up to do what she was doing. She would plead: "Where are the men? Why do I have to be the one standing up here and doing this work?" And she was right, as she was a mother, a wife, and a student in a community full of brothers with nothing to show when it came to Islamic work.

When she was a student at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), she began organizing drives to deliver copies of the Qur'an and other Islamic literature to the Muslims in the local prisons. She would have them delivered in boxes to a local mosque, and she would then show up at the mosque and carry the heavy boxes by herself all the way down the three flights of very steep stairs. Subhan Allah, look at the Qadar of Allah: this woman who would spend so much time and effort to help Muslim prisoners is now herself a prisoner (I ask Allah to free her)!

Her dedication to Islam was also very evident on campus. A 2004 article from Boston Magazine mentions that "...she wrote three guides for members who wanted to teach others about Islam. On the group's website, Siddiqui explained how to run a daw'ah table, an informational booth used at school events to educate people about, and persuade them to convert to, Islam." The article continues to mention that in the guides, she wrote: "Imagine our humble, but sincere daw'ah effort turning into a major daw'ah movement in this country! Just imagine it! And us, reaping the reward of everyone who accepts Islam through this movement, through years to come. Think and plan big. May Allah give this strength and sincerity to us so that our humble effort continue, and expands until America becomes a Muslim land."

Allahu Akbar...look at this himmah (concern)...look at these lofty aspirations and goals! As men, we should be ashamed to have to learn such lessons from a sister.

She would drive out of her way every week to teach the local Muslim children on Sundays. I was told by a sister that she would also drive out of her way every week to visit a small group of reverts to teach them the basics of Islam. One of the sisters who attended her circles described Aafia as "not going out of her way to be noticed by anybody, or to be anyone's friend. She just came out here to teach us about Allah, and English wasn't even her first language!"

Another sister who would attend her circles describes: "She shared with us that we should never make excuses for who we are. She said: 'Americans have no respect for people who are weak. Americans will respect us if we stand up and we are strong.'"

Allahu Akbar...O Allah, free this woman!

But Aafia's biggest passion was helping the oppressed Muslims around the globe. When war in Bosnia broke out, she did not sit back and watch with one knee over the other. Rather, she immediately sought out whatever means were within her grasp to make a difference. She didn't sit in a dreamy bubble thinking all day about how she wished that she could go over to Bosnia and help with relief efforts. She got up and did what she could: she would speak to people to raise awareness, she would ask for donations, she would send e-mails, she would give slideshow presentations - the point I'm trying to make here is that Aafia showed that there is always something we can do to help our brothers and sisters, the least of which is a spoken word to raise awareness to those who are unaware. Sitting back and doing nothing is never an option.

http://www.al-istiqamah.com/IF/Aafia1.htm
 
Karnay jihad aur baad maie rona aur mangnie mafiyaan

"Aafia Siddiqui is a political operative of the Jamaat Islami and has no desire to help the poor Pakistanis. Her goal is to establish a fundamentalist, fanatic religious dictatorship in Pakistan."Aafia is mentally Arabized enslaved dangerous person and here are a few questions about her conduct.
1. Aafia was an excellent student who studied at MIT and got a PhD from Brandeis University.
2. Newsweek has reported that in 2001, her Fleet Bank account was regularly recieving money from the Saudi channel and payments were being made to "under FBI investigation" organisations like Benevolence international and Al Kifah refugee centre.
3. Till August 2001 she stayed in a flat(#2008) in a particular building in Boston. ANother Fleet Bank Customer, a Saudi, who was investigated by FBI had also given his address as #2008 in the same building during the same period.
4. Subsequent to the Fleet Bank investigation, Aafia Siddiqui was found to be purchasing high-tech military equipment, items that seemed unusual for her occupation as a microbiologist. According to Newsweek, FBI documents also stated that Khan, Siddiqui’s husband, had purchased body armor, night-vision goggles and a variety of military manuals that were supposed to be sent to Pakistan. Fleet National Bank accounts associated with the couple also showed "major purchases" from U.S. airlines and hotels in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and North Carolina as well as an $8,000 international wire transfer on December 21, 2001, to Habib Bank, a big Pakistani financial institution that has long been scrutinized by U.S. intelligence officials monitoring terrorist money flows.
5. Newsweek reported that Fleet National Bank investigators discovered that one account used by the Boston-area couple showed repeated debit-card purchases from stores that "specialize in high-tech military equipment and apparel", including Black Hawk Industries in Chesapeake, Virginia, and Brigade Quartermasters in Georgia. (Black Hawk's website advertises grips, mounts and parts for AK-47s and other military-assault rifles as well as highly specialized combat clothing, including vests designed for bomb disposal.)
The Fleet National Bank reports detailing all the transactions were filed with the U.S. Treasury Department, and suggest that Siddiqui and her estranged husband, Dr. Mohammed Amjad Khan, may have been active terror plotters inside the country until as late as the summer of 2002.
6. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence asserts that Siddiqui has ties to Guantanamo captive Ammar al-Baluchi. In 2002, 'Ammar directed Aafia Siddiqui--a US-educated neuroscientist and al-Qa'ida facilitator--to travel to the United States to prepare paperwork to ease Majid Khan's deployment to the United Staes. 'Ammar married Siddiqui shortly before his detention.
7. On March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the original 22 FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, was captured in Pakistan. Siddiqui may have drawn the FBI's attention when she was named by the captured senior al-Qaida operative, as CNN reported on April 3, 2003. According to Newsweek, FBI Agents also found evidence that she had rented a post-office box to help another Baltimore, Maryland-based individual alleged to have been an al-Qaeda contact who had been assigned by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up underground gasoline-storage tanks.
8. At that time, the Boston Herald also reported her being linked to alleged terrorist Adnan El Shukrijumah, "whose name surfaced among the belongings of" Mohammed. In any case, she attracted international attention at that time as the first woman to be sought by the FBI in connection with its pursuit of al-Qaeda.
On March 29, 2003 United Press International reported that the FBI purportedly believed Siddiqui may be a "fixer" for al-Qaeda, moving money to support terrorist operations.
9. On May 26, 2004, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that reports indicated that al Qaeda planned to attempt an attack on the United States that summer or fall. In addition, Director Mueller named Aafia Siddiqui as "an al Qaeda operative and facilitator", and as one of seven al-Qaeda associates who were being sought in connection with the possible terrorist threats in the United States, though they did not have any reason at that time to believe that the seven were working in concert. Ashcroft went on to say of the seven that they all posed "a clear and present danger to America, and should all be considered armed and dangerous." The other alleged terrorists named on that date were Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Amer El-Maati, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Abderraouf Jdey, and Adnan G. El Shukrijumah. The first two had been listed as FBI Most Wanted Terrorists since 2001, indicted for their roles in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. Jdey was already on the FBI's "Seeking Information" wanted list since January 17, 2002, to which Siddiqui and the other three were added as well.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/53487
 
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bk9GxAZYsuc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bk9GxAZYsuc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
"Why is there even a trial?" It was, of course, a rhetorical question and probably the most poignant and telling observation made during the opening proceedings against Dr Aafia Siddiqui in New York this week. It is a question I hope every US journalist and media group across the world keeps on asking every day as American tax dollars are squandered persecuting an innocent women for no other reason than someone is incapable of saying: "I made a mistake"

I don't know who this individual is, other than he is very senior in US intelligence and is directly responsible for ordering the kidnap, rendition, torture and abuse of Dr Aafia and the disappearance of her three children. In his drive to cover his own tracks and frame Dr Aafia she ended up being shot several times by US guards in an Afghan police cell in the province of Ghazni. Initially, he may have done nothing more than sign a piece of paper which brought about her kidnap from Karachi way back in March 2003 � but by now he will know that the entire Muslim world is watching and waiting to see what happens when the trial gets underway for real on Tuesday, January 19.

Despite the judge's futile attempts to keep switching and changing pre-trial hearings, supporters of Dr Aafia still manage to fill the spectator gallery and overspill room. Judge Richard Berman will by now be acutely aware he is handling one of the most sensitive cases ever brought before a court in the entire history of George W Bush's ill-fated War on Terror. I know he has received hundreds of postcards from those who have attended Cageprisoners meetings demanding he uses his influence to stop the primitive and brutal strip searches Dr Aafia has been forced to endure every time she meets with her legal team and attends court.

Should she resist these searches, I can tell you having witnessed CCTV footage fo a woman prisoner doing the same, Dr Aafia will be held down by around four to five male prison warders while two female officers tear away at her clothes and then carry out full cavity searches. What I witnessed on CCTV footage is tantamount to rape and had I not seen it with my own eyes, I would have thought it was filmed in a third world country. Sadly this primitive practice and the pleas of hundreds, if not thousands of westerners to Judge Berman to have the practice stop, have yet to take effect.

The trial is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, January 19 at 9am in the Federal Court in Manhattan, New York where the frail Pakistani mother-of-three faces charges for an alleged crime which happened in Afghanistan in July 2008. The pre-trial hearing on Monday was quite illuminating in itself after the prosecution:

� ADMITTED Dr Aafia is not a member of al-Qaida

� REVEALED she has no links to any terrorist organization

� STATED there were no fingerprints on the gun she was supposed to have wrested from one of the soldiers.

� CONCEDED no bullets were recovered from the cell

The defense complained that the prosecution had still not turned over the list of witnesses they intend to call so defense lawyers have no idea who those witnesses are. It had previously been agreed that the legal team representing Dr Aafia would get those names at least one week before the start of trial.

Dr Aafia's lawyers requested once again that she be spared the strip searches and have a video link. The judge said he wanted now for her to have the right to confront her accuser so she must be forced to court. (It should be noted that the defense made the argument that if Aafia's ability to face her accusers is so paramount, why is this not applied to the "evidence" when those who accuse her of having this evidence are not being brought to court and so she has no right to confront them? However she still must be strip searched and brought to trial against her will for the sake of this same right.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Aafia made one appeal to the public saying that she was for peace and wanted to help. She said that she was not against America and many injustices are being done to her. Many people in the audience cried as the US Marshalls again forcibly removed her, physically pushing her at times. The defense lawyers pleaded with the US Marshalls and the MDC prison legal representative, Christa Colvin, to allow even a 5 minute meeting between Aafia and her brother but the US marshals refused. When her brother attempted to say a few words to her, the marshals turned Aafia's head away so she could not respond.

So, this is justice US style. The case, outlined by the prosecution appears to be so thin it is anorexic. It all rests on whether this tiny framed, frail woman wrestled an assault rile from the hands of a burly US soldier and fired off two rounds while she was in a dazed and confused state.

The fact that she was kidnapped from her home city in Pakistan at the behest of US intelligence, beaten, tortured and abused in Bagram for several years before being dumped outside the governor of Ghazni's home five years later is not up for discussion.

The fact her three children, two of the US citizens, were also kidnapped and two of them are still missing is, apparently not relevant either.

All Judge Berman wants to establish is: "Did Aafia wrestle the gun for a US soldier with the intent to shoot him?"

And since there's no forensic evidence tying Dr Aafia to the gun, there seems to be no case. No fingerprints, no bullets, no residue � NOTHING.

The prosecution has even conceded there are no terror links which blows the New York tabloids' headlines calling her the 'Al-Qaida Mom'.

As I said at the start of this article the rhetorical question asked by one observer was probably the most poignant one of the day: "Why is there even a trial."

But here's an even better question I challenge the US media to ask: "Who is responsible for putting this innocent women through six years of hell and where are her missing children?"

* Yvonne Ridley is a patron of Cageprisoners, the first human rights organization which highlighted the mystery disappearance of Dr Aafia Siddiqui in 2003 and has campaigned for her release ever since.
 
Attorneys representing Al Qaeda-linked attempted murder suspect Aafia Siddiqui shocked a Manhattan courtroom today when they unveiled video evidence showing that two purported bullet holes in the wall of an interrogation room were there the day before their client allegedly picked up a rifle and shot at U.S. personnel. “The government says you can’t press ‘pause’ in this case, but you can, because we have the video and we pressed ‘pause,’” said lawyer Linda Moreno, as jurors looked at a still frame from a televised news conference after Siddiqui’s arrest.

According to the Post, the footage—produced the day before the outburst-prone neuroscientist allegedly shot at American soldiers and FBI agents in a police station in Afghanistan—clearly shows the two small holes, which prosecution witnesses said were evidence that Siddiqui opened fire. Siddiqui’s attorneys say the video, alongside the fact her fingerprints were never found on the weapon, mean there is no evidence the M4 was “touched by Dr. Siddiqui, let alone fired by her,” and that the prosecution wants to “scare you into convicting Aafia Siddiqui.” The 37-year-old was reportedly arrested with bomb-making notes and was wounded after grabbing a rifle and trying to shoot Americans in 2008, though she denies all wrongdoing and says she was detained for years and held in “secret prisons.”

Prosecutors say her shots might have struck furniture that was moved out of the room before the FBI arrived to investigate six days later. “Forensic science is an imperfect tool in this circumstance….You don’t have a good enough physical or photographic record of that room to know where the damage is,” said prosecutor David Rody, who also suggested Afghan personnel might have hidden the shell casings to cover up the “terribly embarrassing incident.” Prosecutors claim the differences between eyewitness accounts “are the hallmark of the truth” because they prove the witnesses didn’t conspire to frame Siddiqui, and that for jurors to acquit Siddiqui, they would have to conclude that government witnesses “lied to your face,” according to 1010WINS.

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/01/lawyers_no_evidence_siddiqui_shot_a.php
 
Okay this is laughable:
Cryptoanalyst said:
Prosecutors say her shots might have struck furniture that was moved out of the room before the FBI arrived to investigate six days later. “Forensic science is an imperfect tool in this circumstance….You don’t have a good enough physical or photographic record of that room to know where the damage is,” said prosecutor David Rody, who also suggested Afghan personnel might have hidden the shell casings to cover up the “terribly embarrassing incident.”
So the argument is "Well, there isn't any physical evidence that this happened. They might have moved the furniture. They might have hidden the casings. Hell, she might not actually have shot the gun at all. But you see we have eyewitnesses and if you don't believe them then you're saying that government witnesses are lying."

So despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, as God-fearing American citizens you are duty-bound to accept the word of government witnesses. ::J
 
offstump said:
Told her husband to go to jihad in Afghanistan.

So this makes her a terrorist? If your friend tells you to take drugs, he's 100% responsible for your actions?

Ok...so going by your logic, Bin Laden is not a terrorist since he never attacked anyone just asked his followers to blow themselves up.

offstump said:
Purchased $10K worth of night goggles and body armor.

So what? Was it proven with evidence that this equipment was used for the purposes of terrorism?

I totally get your point.....I mean which biologist wont like to have a night vision gogle and body armor to protect herself from bacteria and mice.

offstump said:
Divorced him and married into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family.

Again, so what? Javed Miandad's son is married to Dawood Ibrahim's daughter? Does that make him a terrorist? A criminal?

If her husband had no connection with KSM's family (like one of Bin Ladens son) than obviously she is not to be blamed else both Javed Miandad and Aafia can be blamed for some ideological support for the terrorists.

offstump said:
Opened a post office box for an al-Qaida operative.

How does opening a post office box for someone facilitate their entry into the united states? I think you would need to apply for a visa first, was she working at the visa office as well stamping passports?

Are you blind or you just pretend to be blind.....

offstump said:
Worked with "charities" linked to terrorist groups.

After 9/11 there were many charities that were "banned" who had no links to terrorist groups. After the mumbai attacks fingers were pointed at Jamaat-ud-Dawa by India...no evidence was found to link this group to the attacks...point being, we don't know what charity she worked for or what alleged links it had...

Still the group was banned by the pakistan government....And why dont u do a little read up on the history of Jamat ul Dawa?
 
I am not going to comment on Aafia Siddiqui's actions. Since I try to be as politically neutral as possible, I can't make a decision on whether she is complicit or not, however one thing I don't get is why she is being held to trial in New York. She is not an American citizen, the alleged crime was committed in Afghanistan, and she was held without due process for at least a couple of years. US laws regarding handling criminal suspects are pretty flawed, and you often have one party debunking the other party's notion of international criminal laws, as evident in the whole Guantanomo Bay in saga.

If you want to gain credibility, have at least a coherant train of thought when it comes to persecuting international terror suspects.
 
riasat and his Pakistan terror posts......again (still waiting on the 'counter points' in the Zaid Hamid 1971 thread btw)

riasat said:
Ok...so going by your logic, Bin Laden is not a terrorist since he never attacked anyone just asked his followers to blow themselves up.


Erm, ihope you realise that the people fighting in Afghanistan are NOT all Al Qaeda and/or Bin Laden followers and not fighting for Al Qaeda/Bin Laden?


riasat said:
Still the group was banned by the pakistan government....And why dont u do a little read up on the history of Jamat ul Dawa?

Yes we should shouldnt we?

After the ban imposed by UNSC, Hindu minority groups in Pakistan came out in support of JuD. At protest marches in Hyderabad, Hindu groups said that JuD does charity work such as setting up water wells in desert regions and providing food to the poor.[10] Its banning has been met with heavy criticism in many Pakistani circles including many Christians and Hindus as JuD was the first to react to the Kashmir earthquake and the Ziarat Earthquake and used to run over 160 schools with thousands of students and provided aid in hospitals as well.

http://ishare.rediff.com/video/news-politics/pakistani-hindus-rally-to-support-jamaat-ud-dawa/540068

:poodle
 
riasat said:
Ok...so going by your logic, Bin Laden is not a terrorist since he never attacked anyone just asked his followers to blow themselves up.

She allegdly told her husband to go for "jihad" in afghanistan...that can mean a wide assortment of things, not really blowing himself up...since you're brainwashed from watching news channels, jihad's literal translation is not "holy war"




riasat said:
I totally get your point.....I mean which biologist wont like to have a night vision gogle and body armor to protect herself from bacteria and mice.

She isn't a biologist, which shows how closely you have actually been following this case


riasat said:
If her husband had no connection with KSM's family (like one of Bin Ladens son) than obviously she is not to be blamed else both Javed Miandad and Aafia can be blamed for some ideological support for the terrorists.

What you're saying is laughable

riasat said:
Are you blind or you just pretend to be blind.....

Are you still bitter over 1971? its time to move on man...you out of all people should have sympathy for an innocent woman who has been raped...
 
Mohsin said:
riasat and his Pakistan terror posts......again (still waiting on the 'counter points' in the Zaid Hamid 1971 thread btw)




Erm, ihope you realise that the people fighting in Afghanistan are NOT all Al Qaeda and/or Bin Laden followers and not fighting for Al Qaeda/Bin Laden?




Yes we should shouldnt we?



http://ishare.rediff.com/video/news-politics/pakistani-hindus-rally-to-support-jamaat-ud-dawa/540068

:poodle


First and foremost my apologies for not countering Zaid hamids crap about 1971 as promised. I am just too busy lately with work and I come to the forum for 10-15 mins during my coffee break a few times a day. For research it will take me atleast 1 full weeks of work and dont quite find the energy to sit and do it.

About Jamat ul Dawah, I think A gentleman by the name of Hafeez Sayeed is the Amir of the group.. the same guy also happens to be the chief od LeT. Now how u see LeT is totally upto you. I mean one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. For me, I see him as a terrorist.


Now @Offstump..... Fine she is not a biologist but what could prompt her to buy night vision gogles? Also why do you find my post abt Javed Miandad laughable? Care to explain with some logic?

I will remain a little bitter about 1971 as long as we do not recieve official apology from the pakistan governement. Apology should not sound like "let bygones be bygones" ..... thats not apology.

Going back to Aafia, really guys why do you support her? I really dont see how she is innocent.
Also as one of you mentioned and I want to clarify, I am not a pakistan hater....I never was....I want Pakistan to flourish and South east asia to be a powerhouse of the world.
 
riasat said:
I am not a pakistan hater....I never was....I want Pakistan to flourish and South east asia to be a powerhouse of the world.
same here, We want Bangladesh to be prosperous and developed country,
Like Pakistan , i dont want Bangladesh to be dictated by foreign influence including indians / americans / chinese / arabs.
May we all have some mettle and strong and could stood up to these foreign influences.
 
riasat said:
First and foremost my apologies for not countering Zaid hamids crap about 1971 as promised. I am just too busy lately with work and I come to the forum for 10-15 mins during my coffee break a few times a day. For research it will take me atleast 1 full weeks of work and dont quite find the energy to sit and do it.

About Jamat ul Dawah, I think A gentleman by the name of Hafeez Sayeed is the Amir of the group.. the same guy also happens to be the chief od LeT. Now how u see LeT is totally upto you. I mean one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. For me, I see him as a terrorist.


Now @Offstump..... Fine she is not a biologist but what could prompt her to buy night vision gogles? Also why do you find my post abt Javed Miandad laughable? Care to explain with some logic?

I will remain a little bitter about 1971 as long as we do not recieve official apology from the pakistan governement. Apology should not sound like "let bygones be bygones" ..... thats not apology.

Going back to Aafia, really guys why do you support her? I really dont see how she is innocent.
Also as one of you mentioned and I want to clarify, I am not a pakistan hater....I never was....I want Pakistan to flourish and South east asia to be a powerhouse of the world.
riasat, the issue here is that she is not being tried for any of what you've talked about: buying night vision goggles, marrying an Al-Qaeda operative, opening PO Boxes for terrorists, etc. She's not on trial for any of that. She's on trial for allegedly opening fire on US soldiers with an assault rifle at a prison in Afghanistan. An act for which even the prosecution agrees there is no physical evidence. Your reasoning seems to be "All evidence points to the fact that she was a terrorist or involved with terrorists, so she must be guilty of this crime as well", which is utter b/s.
 
d0gers said:
riasat, the issue here is that she is not being tried for any of what you've talked about: buying night vision goggles, marrying an Al-Qaeda operative, opening PO Boxes for terrorists, etc. She's not on trial for any of that. She's on trial for allegedly opening fire on US soldiers with an assault rifle at a prison in Afghanistan. An act for which even the prosecution agrees there is no physical evidence. Your reasoning seems to be "All evidence points to the fact that she was a terrorist or involved with terrorists, so she must be guilty of this crime as well", which is utter b/s.

Agreed 100%.....She should not be tried for crimes she most likely did not commit.

However she is still a security risk and I hope you guys recognise this simple fact.
 
Don't know the whole details but it seems as though the accounts of military witnesses has completely outweighed the lack of physical evidence.

Pathetic, but I would've been surprised if the verdict had been anything else.
 
d0gers said:
Don't know the whole details but it seems as though the accounts of military witnesses has completely outweighed the lack of physical evidence.

Pathetic, but I would've been surprised if the verdict had been anything else.

Exactly
 
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3EReGzMMr6Q&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3EReGzMMr6Q&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Bad news for her but...................


i have a feeling musharraf will be blamed for this on pakpassion .
 
Time for peope to come out and show what Pakistan feels about the US!
Suspend NATO supplies and we'll see wat happens in 1 week!!!
 
Mohsin said:
Time for peope to come out and show what Pakistan feels about the US!
Suspend NATO supplies and we'll see wat happens in 1 week!!!
Agree
 
Mohsin said:
Time for peope to come out and show what Pakistan feels about the US!
Suspend NATO supplies and we'll see wat happens in 1 week!!!

Agree but what are the chances?
 
Disgraceful decision BUT not a surprise

They jump up and down when a western person gets jailed abroad despite their being strong evidence yet they ignore it when it comes to things like this - BUT the besharm apologists will swan in and spout their junk as well
 
Last edited:
Pathetic decision but I am not really suprised. This was going to be the final decision anyways, no matter what happened.
 
Poor evidence....

However you couldnt expect a american jury to not convict her based on lack of evidence
 
I don't know why u guys are blaming american jury. The blame lies with general pervez musharaf and then isi chief that handed her over to the americans. They should be brought to court to answer why pakistani people have been handed over to americans.
 
insaftak said:
I don't know why u guys are blaming american jury. The blame lies with general pervez musharaf and then isi chief that handed her over to the americans. They should be brought to court to answer why pakistani people have been handed over to americans.
why do you people comment when you are not well informed, Musharraf has nothing to do with Afia Siddique nor did he handed her over to the US authorities (full stop) .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Xpakistani said:
why do you people comment when you are not well informed, Musharraf has nothing to do with Afia Siddique nor did he handed her over to the US authorities (full stop) .
Reports say she was picked up by Pakistani Intelligence agencies in Karachi, later some British reporter found her in Afghanistan 'Jail'. Do you suggest she went to Afghanistan and handed herself to american soldiers?

this is only one case, there are countless others who disappeared and their families are still searching for them.

why do we forget things so easily?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Xpakistani said:
why do you people f***** comment when you are not well informed, Musharraf has nothing to do with Afia Siddique nor did he handed her over to the US authorities (full stop) .

maybe you should read the book "in the line of fire" by pervez musharaf.
 
Disco_Lemonade said:
this is only one case, there are countless others who disappeared and their families are still searching for them.

why do we forget things so easily?

its so hard for some of us to swallow that our own army Generals are handing people over to the Americans.
 
insaftak said:
maybe you should read the book "in the line of fire" by pervez musharaf.

Its a vague mention in the book about the so called terrorists, anything concrete and documented that we know for sure that Mush did hand over her to the US?

Any news media reported it?
 
Xpakistani said:
why do you people f***** comment when you are not well informed, Musharraf has nothing to do with Afia Siddique nor did he handed her over to the US authorities (full stop) .


I Kinda agree with him. Musharraf is not to blamed. The report was that she was in Afghanistan in a house where she was captured by American forces. That so called "killing a soldier" incidence took place there as well, although i don't believe it at all.

In the end, pathetic decision by American Jury. Law is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but for Aafia, it was the other way around.
 
insaftak said:
maybe you should read the book "in the line of fire" by pervez musharaf.


vsjkpc.jpg


Question to Musharraf: Why did you handover Pakistanis to US for interrogation? In particular, why were Americans given access to an accomplished Pakistani citizen like Dr. Afia Siddiqui?

Answer: These are baseless allegations. Not a single Pakistani was handed over by me to the US or any foreign country. Those taken by US were captured in Afghanistan and not given to US. Our policy was clear:


1) Pakistanis will be tried in Pakistan.


2) Foreigners will be offered to their own countries first and in case of refusal (which was invariably the case), will be handed over to the US.

The facts about Dr Afia Siddiqui’s case are still unclear. I only heard her name through the media when the story of her arrest in Afghanistan became public.
 
Last edited:
Why didn't he hand over all 689 Al Qaeda members? Why only selective 369? Why did he refuse to hand over the remaining 320 members and earn more millions?

Simple. The remaining 320 were Pakistanis. He never handed over Pakistani. Only the foreigners that crossed over into Pakistan, illegally, without passports were given back, to either, their own countries or the USA. No one has the right to over-stay in Pakistan without legal documents and use our soil to launch attacks on neighbouring countries.

Secondly, Afia Siddiqui herself was a US citizen. She was not handed over. She was arrested in Afghanistan by the US forces, as accepted by US forces.
 
Last edited:
Pakistan woman guilty of US attack

A US court has convicted a female Pakistani scientist of attempted murder for shooting at her US interrogators while being detained in Afghanistan in 2008.

Aafia Siddiqui was found guilty by a New York court on Wednesday after a 12-member jury reached a unanimous verdict.

Siddiqui, 37, who faces life in prison when she is sentenced on May 6, was charged with seven counts, including attempted murder and assault, and found guilty on two attempted murder counts.

The jury said, however, that the neuroscientist trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US, did not commit the crime with premeditation.

'Coming from Israel'

Siddiqui showed no emotion as the jury pronounced its verdict – reached after two days of deliberations – but shouted out as the jury members were leaving the court.

"This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America. Your anger should be directed where it belongs. I can testify to this and I have proof," Siddiqui said.

Pakistan's embassy in Washington said it was "dismayed over the unexpected verdict".

Siddiqui shouted that the verdict was "from Israel" as the jury was leaving court [AFP]
"The government of Pakistan made intense diplomatic and legal efforts on her behalf and will consult the family of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and the team of defence lawyers to determine the future course of action," it said.

Siddiqui grabbed a US warrant officer's rifle while she was detained for questioning in July 2008 in Afghanistan's Ghazni province and fired at FBI agents and military personnel as she was wrestled to the ground.

None of the US agents or personnel were injured but Siddiqui, who the US government has accused of links with al-Qaeda, was shot.

Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan police, who said she was carrying containers of chemicals and notes referring to mass-casualty attacks and New York landmarks.

She was not charged in connection with those materials and the charges she was convicted of do not mention terrorism.

Instead, the case centred on an incident the next day in the Afghan police compound, where US soldiers and FBI agents sought to question her.

"She saw her chance to kill Americans and she took it," Christopher LaVigne, the prosecutor, told jurors.

"Not only did she have the motive and intent to harm the United States, she had the know-how to do it."

Linda Moreno, Siddiqui's defence lawyer, said during the trial that there was no evidence the rifle had ever been fired, since no bullets, shell casings or bullet debris were recovered and no bullet holes detected.

Moreno also said the testimony of the government's six eyewitnesses contradicted one another on Siddiqui's location in the 28sq m room, the number of bullets fired and who was present.

'Labelled a terrorist'


Tina Foster, a spokeswoman for the Siddiqui family and the executive director of the International Justice Network, told Al Jazeera that there were "a lot of unfair rulings made by the judge and I think we can expect to see an appeal".

"Aafia walked into that courtroom already labelled a terrorist by prosecutors, despite the fact that she was not on trial for any terrorism related offence," Foster said.

"I think that if there was credible evidence that Aafia Siddiqui had been involved in any sort of terrorist activities … any sort of plot against the United States that she had been involved in, we would have seen prosecutions for those crimes," she said.

"One has to wonder whether the reasons she was in custody to begin with are ever going to be addressed by the government of the United States.

"Why she had been on that wanted list, and why all of these allegations that were not made in court have continued to be leaked to the media and have continued to paint Dr Aafia in a negative light despite the fact that she has never been charged with any terrorism activity."

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/02/201023234822659697.html
 
Mohsin said:
Time for peope to come out and show what Pakistan feels about the US!
Suspend NATO supplies and we'll see wat happens in 1 week!!!

why not bring our lawyers back as afiya was involved in terrorist activities. we should not encourge terrorists in our society at any cost and she says "this is a verdict from israel"

whole world knows Talibans are supported by Israeli and indian money. so on one hand you take money from israel and on other hand you are against them. what a munafqat.
 
Last edited:
Strange how some so called intelligent people just happen to turn up in Afghanistan. It must be a top holiday destination.
 
muzher said:
Pakistan woman guilty of US attack

A US court has convicted a female Pakistani scientist of attempted murder for shooting at her US interrogators while being detained in Afghanistan in 2008.

Aafia Siddiqui was found guilty by a New York court on Wednesday after a 12-member jury reached a unanimous verdict.

Siddiqui, 37, who faces life in prison when she is sentenced on May 6, was charged with seven counts, including attempted murder and assault, and found guilty on two attempted murder counts.

The jury said, however, that the neuroscientist trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US, did not commit the crime with premeditation.

'Coming from Israel'

Siddiqui showed no emotion as the jury pronounced its verdict – reached after two days of deliberations – but shouted out as the jury members were leaving the court.

"This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America. Your anger should be directed where it belongs. I can testify to this and I have proof," Siddiqui said.

Pakistan's embassy in Washington said it was "dismayed over the unexpected verdict".

Siddiqui shouted that the verdict was "from Israel" as the jury was leaving court [AFP]
"The government of Pakistan made intense diplomatic and legal efforts on her behalf and will consult the family of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and the team of defence lawyers to determine the future course of action," it said.

Siddiqui grabbed a US warrant officer's rifle while she was detained for questioning in July 2008 in Afghanistan's Ghazni province and fired at FBI agents and military personnel as she was wrestled to the ground.

None of the US agents or personnel were injured but Siddiqui, who the US government has accused of links with al-Qaeda, was shot.

Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan police, who said she was carrying containers of chemicals and notes referring to mass-casualty attacks and New York landmarks.

She was not charged in connection with those materials and the charges she was convicted of do not mention terrorism.

Instead, the case centred on an incident the next day in the Afghan police compound, where US soldiers and FBI agents sought to question her.

"She saw her chance to kill Americans and she took it," Christopher LaVigne, the prosecutor, told jurors.

"Not only did she have the motive and intent to harm the United States, she had the know-how to do it."

Linda Moreno, Siddiqui's defence lawyer, said during the trial that there was no evidence the rifle had ever been fired, since no bullets, shell casings or bullet debris were recovered and no bullet holes detected.

Moreno also said the testimony of the government's six eyewitnesses contradicted one another on Siddiqui's location in the 28sq m room, the number of bullets fired and who was present.

'Labelled a terrorist'


Tina Foster, a spokeswoman for the Siddiqui family and the executive director of the International Justice Network, told Al Jazeera that there were "a lot of unfair rulings made by the judge and I think we can expect to see an appeal".

"Aafia walked into that courtroom already labelled a terrorist by prosecutors, despite the fact that she was not on trial for any terrorism related offence," Foster said.

"I think that if there was credible evidence that Aafia Siddiqui had been involved in any sort of terrorist activities … any sort of plot against the United States that she had been involved in, we would have seen prosecutions for those crimes," she said.

"One has to wonder whether the reasons she was in custody to begin with are ever going to be addressed by the government of the United States.

"Why she had been on that wanted list, and why all of these allegations that were not made in court have continued to be leaked to the media and have continued to paint Dr Aafia in a negative light despite the fact that she has never been charged with any terrorism activity."

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/02/201023234822659697.html


I find this hard to believe that there were so many present and a rifle was left unattended for Afia to pick it up and then have all that time to fire at them. This is an abslute lie at best or the personnel were so incomptent that they would leave rifles laying around in an intorgation room. I mean this doesn't make sense at all and then whats more she managed to miss everyone despite being close by. I am sorry but that alone is enough for any sane person to say NOT GUILTY.
 
Guys, I don't know what you all will feel about what I'm going to write. Just like in those CIA Hollywood movies, they show a normal citizen knowing a deep deep government level secret, and he/she is taken in custody without any reason and is tortured and all. I think Dr. Aafia's case is very similar. Maybe she knows something or she has something that the world needs to see, but CIA/American Govt. is not allowing her to reach that perticular place or not allowing her to reveal that top secret, that may finish the war or prove a lot of stuff (for example who did 9/11). I don't know, but i think it is something like this.

Sorry if I may sound irrationale.
 
Back
Top