16/08/2013

Respect the national sovereignty !

nasser-photo.2.jpg

'Those who attack Egypt will never leave Egypt alive. We shall fight a regular war, a total war, a guerrilla war. Those who attack Egypt will soon realize they brought disaster upon themselves. He who attacks Egypt attacks tile whole Arab world.'

President Gamal Abdel Nasser - 15 September 1956

25/05/2013

Latest News Syria: Victory Day of National Resistance

Syria.May 25th.Victory Day of National Resistance.jpg

May 25th… Victory Day of National Resistance, Liberating the South From Israeli Occupation

May 25, 2013

"Withdrawal which won't touch dignity", with this brief, Israeli General Shaul Mofaz tried to justify the reason behind the Israeli army humble defeat in South Lebanon on May 25th, 2000 which became the victory Day of the National Resistance and liberating south Lebanon after 22 years of the Israeli occupation.

The withdrawal of the Israeli occupation from South Lebanon on this day without negotiations or conditions was a defeat for Israel which Yediot Ahronot newspaper described as "shameful" calling this day as "the day of shame".

The Israeli occupation forces invaded south Lebanon in 1978 and expanded its occupation to the Lebanese lands till reaching Beirut in 1982.

The Lebanese men rushed to bear weapon and defend their homeland to establish what is known later the Lebanese National resistance to confront what had been called as "the legend army" which can't be defeated. 

The resistance military operations have forced the Israeli army to retreat under the density of their processes to from an occupation line before liberating the South in 2000.

The resistance launched hundreds of special operations in the first half of 2000 targeting the sites of the occupation, forcing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

The day before liberation, the resistance stormed the occupation and its militias, led by Antoine Lahd, posts with bombing explosives.

The hardest strikes which the Israeli occupation received in the first month of 2000 were the assassination of Akl Hashem, one of the Israeli agents, and after two hours, the resistance targeted two Israeli military convoys, claiming the lives of three Israelis and wounding many others.

At 6:42 a.m. the Mercedes of Israeli General Benny Gantz crossed gate 93 of Fatima on the Lebanese-Israeli borders to be followed by vehicles and troop carriers into the occupied Palestinian lands abandoning an occupation barbed wire for which they paid souls and money but in vain.

On the same day and at 6:43 Israel closed its borders with Lebanon after pulling out the last soldier to end a 22 year occupation that cost it 1200 soldier.

Mazen

http://sana.sy/eng/22/2013/05/25/483984.htm

14/10/2012

Syria fights for national sovereignty

nasser-photo.jpg

Speech by President Nasser of the United Arab Republic, September 15, 1956

In these decisive days in the history of mankind, these days in which truth struggles to have itself recognized in international chaos where powers of evil domination and imperialism have prevailed, Egypt stands firmly to preserve her sovereignty. Your country stands solidly and staunchly to preserve her dignity against imperialistic schemes of a number of nations who have uncovered their desires for domination and supremacy.

In these days and in such circumstances Egypt has resolved to show the world that when small nations decide to preserve their sovereignty, they will do that all right and that when these small nations are fully determined to defend their rights and maintain their dignity, they will undoubtedly succeed in achieving their ends. . . .

I am speaking in the name of every Egyptian Arab and in the name of all free countries and of all those who believe in liberty and are ready to defend it. I am speaking in the name of principles proclaimed by these countries in the Atlantic Charter. But they are now violating these principles and it has become our lot to shoulder the responsibility of reaffirming and establishing them anew. . . .

We have tried by all possible means to cooperate with those countries which claim to assist smaller nations and which promised to collaborate with us but they demanded their fees in advance. This we refused so they started to fight with us. They said they will pay toward building the High Dam and then they withdrew their offer and cast doubts on the Egyptian economy. Are we to declaim [disclaim?] our sovereign right? Egypt insists her sovereignty must remain intact and refuses to give up any part of that sovereignty for the sake of money.

Egypt nationalized the Egyptian Suez Canal company. When Egypt granted the concession to de Lesseps it was stated in the concession between the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian company that the company of the Suez Canal is an Egyptian company subject to Egyptian authority. Egypt nationalized this Egyptian company and declared freedom of navigation will be preserved.

But the imperialists became angry. Britain and France said Egypt grabbed the Suez Canal as if it were part of France or Britain. The British Foreign Secretary forgot that only two years ago he signed an agreement stating the Suez Canal is an integral part of Egypt.

Egypt declared she was ready to negotiate. But as soon as negotiations began threats and intimidations started. . . .

Eden stated in the House of Commons there shall be no discrimination between states using the canal. We on our part reaffirm that and declare there is no discrimination between canal users. He also said Egypt shall not be allowed to succeed because that would spell success for Arab nationalism and would be against their policy, which aims at the protection of Israel.

Today they are speaking of a new association whose main objective would be to rob Egypt of the canal and deprive her of rightful canal dues. Suggestions made by Eden in the House of Commons which have been backed by France and the United States are a clear violation of the 1888 convention, since it is impossible to have two bodies organizing navigation in the canal. . . .

By stating that by succeeding, Abdel Nasser would weaken Britain : s stand against Arab nationalism, Eden is in fact admitting his real objective is not Abdel Nasser as such but rather to defeat Arab nationalism and crush its cause. Eden speaks and finds his own answer. A month ago he let out the cry that be was after Abdel Nasser. Today the Egyptian people are fully conscious of their sovereign rights and Arab nationalism is fully awakened to its new destiny....

Those who attack Egypt will never leave Egypt alive. We shall fight a regular war, a total war, a guerrilla war. Those who attack Egypt will soon realize they brought disaster upon themselves. He who attacks Egypt attacks tile whole Arab world. They say in their papers the -whole thing will be over in forty-eight hours. They do not know how strong we really are.

We believe in international law. But we will never submit. We shall show the world bow a small country can stand in the face of great powers threatening with armed might. Egypt might be a small power but she is great inasmuch as she has faith in her power and convictions. I feel quite certain every Egyptian shares the same convictions as I do and believes in everything I am stressing now.

We shall defend our freedom and independence to the last drop of our blood. This is the stanch feeling of every Egyptian. The whole Arab nation will stand by us in our common fight against aggression and domination. Free peoples, too, people who are really free will stand by us and support us against the forces of tyranny….

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956Nasser-suez1.html

27/09/2012

The war of Syria is a fight for national sovereignty

Nasser.jpg

23/09/2012

Suez Crisis: Speech by President Gamal Abdel Nasser

nasser-photo.jpgSpeech by President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic

15 September 1956

In these decisive days in the history of mankind, these days in which truth struggles to have itself recognized in international chaos where powers of evil domination and imperialism have prevailed, Egypt stands firmly to preserve her sovereignty. Your country stands solidly and staunchly to preserve her dignity against imperialistic schemes of a number of nations who have uncovered their desires for domination and supremacy.

In these days and in such circumstances Egypt has resolved to show the world that when small nations decide to preserve their sovereignty, they will do that all right and that when these small nations are fully determined to defend their rights and maintain their dignity, they will undoubtedly succeed in achieving their ends. . . .

I am speaking in the name of every Egyptian Arab and in the name of all free countries and of all those who believe in liberty and are ready to defend it. I am speaking in the name of principles proclaimed by these countries in the Atlantic Charter. But they are now violating these principles and it has become our lot to shoulder the responsibility of reaffirming and establishing them anew. . . .

We have tried by all possible means to cooperate with those countries which claim to assist smaller nations and which promised to collaborate with us but they demanded their fees in advance. This we refused so they started to fight with us. They said they will pay toward building the High Dam and then they withdrew their offer and cast doubts on the Egyptian economy. Are we to declaim [disclaim?] our sovereign right? Egypt insists her sovereignty must remain intact and refuses to give up any part of that sovereignty for the sake of money.

Egypt nationalized the Egyptian Suez Canal company. When Egypt granted the concession to de Lesseps it was stated in the concession between the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian company that the company of the Suez Canal is an Egyptian company subject to Egyptian authority. Egypt nationalized this Egyptian company and declared freedom of navigation will be preserved.

But the imperialists became angry. Britain and France said Egypt grabbed the Suez Canal as if it were part of France or Britain. The British Foreign Secretary forgot that only two years ago he signed an agreement stating the Suez Canal is an integral part of Egypt.

Egypt declared she was ready to negotiate. But as soon as negotiations began threats and intimidations started. . . .

Eden stated in the House of Commons there shall be no discrimination between states using the canal. We on our part reaffirm that and declare there is no discrimination between canal users. He also said Egypt shall not be allowed to succeed because that would spell success for Arab nationalism and would be against their policy, which aims at the protection of Israel.

Today they are speaking of a new association whose main objective would be to rob Egypt of the canal and deprive her of rightful canal dues. Suggestions made by Eden in the House of Commons which have been backed by France and the United States are a clear violation of the 1888 convention, since it is impossible to have two bodies organizing navigation in the canal. . . .

By stating that by succeeding, Abdel Nasser would weaken Britain : s stand against Arab nationalism, Eden is in fact admitting his real objective is not Abdel Nasser as such but rather to defeat Arab nationalism and crush its cause. Eden speaks and finds his own answer. A month ago he let out the cry that be was after Abdel Nasser. Today the Egyptian people are fully conscious of their sovereign rights and Arab nationalism is fully awakened to its new destiny....

Those who attack Egypt will never leave Egypt alive. We shall fight a regular war, a total war, a guerrilla war. Those who attack Egypt will soon realize they brought disaster upon themselves. He who attacks Egypt attacks tile whole Arab world. They say in their papers the -whole thing will be over in forty-eight hours. They do not know how strong we really are.

We believe in international law. But we will never submit. We shall show the world bow a small country can stand in the face of great powers threatening with armed might. Egypt might be a small power but she is great inasmuch as she has faith in her power and convictions. I feel quite certain every Egyptian shares the same convictions as I do and believes in everything I am stressing now.

We shall defend our freedom and independence to the last drop of our blood. This is the stanch feeling of every Egyptian. The whole Arab nation will stand by us in our common fight against aggression and domination. Free peoples, too, people who are really free will stand by us and support us against the forces of tyranny….

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956Nasser-suez1.html

16/09/2012

President Nasser's speech about National Sovereignty

nasser-photo.jpg


Speech by President Nasser of the United Arab Republic, September 15, 1956

In these decisive days in the history of mankind, these days in which truth struggles to have itself recognized in international chaos where powers of evil domination and imperialism have prevailed, Egypt stands firmly to preserve her sovereignty. Your country stands solidly and staunchly to preserve her dignity against imperialistic schemes of a number of nations who have uncovered their desires for domination and supremacy.

In these days and in such circumstances Egypt has resolved to show the world that when small nations decide to preserve their sovereignty, they will do that all right and that when these small nations are fully determined to defend their rights and maintain their dignity, they will undoubtedly succeed in achieving their ends. . . .

I am speaking in the name of every Egyptian Arab and in the name of all free countries and of all those who believe in liberty and are ready to defend it. I am speaking in the name of principles proclaimed by these countries in the Atlantic Charter. But they are now violating these principles and it has become our lot to shoulder the responsibility of reaffirming and establishing them anew. . . .

We have tried by all possible means to cooperate with those countries which claim to assist smaller nations and which promised to collaborate with us but they demanded their fees in advance. This we refused so they started to fight with us. They said they will pay toward building the High Dam and then they withdrew their offer and cast doubts on the Egyptian economy. Are we to declaim [disclaim?] our sovereign right? Egypt insists her sovereignty must remain intact and refuses to give up any part of that sovereignty for the sake of money.

Egypt nationalized the Egyptian Suez Canal company. When Egypt granted the concession to de Lesseps it was stated in the concession between the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian company that the company of the Suez Canal is an Egyptian company subject to Egyptian authority. Egypt nationalized this Egyptian company and declared freedom of navigation will be preserved.

But the imperialists became angry. Britain and France said Egypt grabbed the Suez Canal as if it were part of France or Britain. The British Foreign Secretary forgot that only two years ago he signed an agreement stating the Suez Canal is an integral part of Egypt.

Egypt declared she was ready to negotiate. But as soon as negotiations began threats and intimidations started. . . .

Eden stated in the House of Commons there shall be no discrimination between states using the canal. We on our part reaffirm that and declare there is no discrimination between canal users. He also said Egypt shall not be allowed to succeed because that would spell success for Arab nationalism and would be against their policy, which aims at the protection of Israel.

Today they are speaking of a new association whose main objective would be to rob Egypt of the canal and deprive her of rightful canal dues. Suggestions made by Eden in the House of Commons which have been backed by France and the United States are a clear violation of the 1888 convention, since it is impossible to have two bodies organizing navigation in the canal. . . .

By stating that by succeeding, Abdel Nasser would weaken Britain : s stand against Arab nationalism, Eden is in fact admitting his real objective is not Abdel Nasser as such but rather to defeat Arab nationalism and crush its cause. Eden speaks and finds his own answer. A month ago he let out the cry that be was after Abdel Nasser. Today the Egyptian people are fully conscious of their sovereign rights and Arab nationalism is fully awakened to its new destiny....

Those who attack Egypt will never leave Egypt alive. We shall fight a regular war, a total war, a guerrilla war. Those who attack Egypt will soon realize they brought disaster upon themselves. He who attacks Egypt attacks tile whole Arab world. They say in their papers the -whole thing will be over in forty-eight hours. They do not know how strong we really are.

We believe in international law. But we will never submit. We shall show the world bow a small country can stand in the face of great powers threatening with armed might. Egypt might be a small power but she is great inasmuch as she has faith in her power and convictions. I feel quite certain every Egyptian shares the same convictions as I do and believes in everything I am stressing now.

We shall defend our freedom and independence to the last drop of our blood. This is the stanch feeling of every Egyptian. The whole Arab nation will stand by us in our common fight against aggression and domination. Free peoples, too, people who are really free will stand by us and support us against the forces of tyranny….

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956Nasser-suez1.html

14/09/2012

National sovereignty: President Nasser

nasser-photo.jpg

Speech by President Nasser of the United Arab Republic, September 15, 1956

In these decisive days in the history of mankind, these days in which truth struggles to have itself recognized in international chaos where powers of evil domination and imperialism have prevailed, Egypt stands firmly to preserve her sovereignty. Your country stands solidly and staunchly to preserve her dignity against imperialistic schemes of a number of nations who have uncovered their desires for domination and supremacy.

In these days and in such circumstances Egypt has resolved to show the world that when small nations decide to preserve their sovereignty, they will do that all right and that when these small nations are fully determined to defend their rights and maintain their dignity, they will undoubtedly succeed in achieving their ends. . . .

I am speaking in the name of every Egyptian Arab and in the name of all free countries and of all those who believe in liberty and are ready to defend it. I am speaking in the name of principles proclaimed by these countries in the Atlantic Charter. But they are now violating these principles and it has become our lot to shoulder the responsibility of reaffirming and establishing them anew. . . .

We have tried by all possible means to cooperate with those countries which claim to assist smaller nations and which promised to collaborate with us but they demanded their fees in advance. This we refused so they started to fight with us. They said they will pay toward building the High Dam and then they withdrew their offer and cast doubts on the Egyptian economy. Are we to declaim [disclaim?] our sovereign right? Egypt insists her sovereignty must remain intact and refuses to give up any part of that sovereignty for the sake of money.

Egypt nationalized the Egyptian Suez Canal company. When Egypt granted the concession to de Lesseps it was stated in the concession between the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian company that the company of the Suez Canal is an Egyptian company subject to Egyptian authority. Egypt nationalized this Egyptian company and declared freedom of navigation will be preserved.

But the imperialists became angry. Britain and France said Egypt grabbed the Suez Canal as if it were part of France or Britain. The British Foreign Secretary forgot that only two years ago he signed an agreement stating the Suez Canal is an integral part of Egypt.

Egypt declared she was ready to negotiate. But as soon as negotiations began threats and intimidations started. . . .

Eden stated in the House of Commons there shall be no discrimination between states using the canal. We on our part reaffirm that and declare there is no discrimination between canal users. He also said Egypt shall not be allowed to succeed because that would spell success for Arab nationalism and would be against their policy, which aims at the protection of Israel.

Today they are speaking of a new association whose main objective would be to rob Egypt of the canal and deprive her of rightful canal dues. Suggestions made by Eden in the House of Commons which have been backed by France and the United States are a clear violation of the 1888 convention, since it is impossible to have two bodies organizing navigation in the canal. . . .

By stating that by succeeding, Abdel Nasser would weaken Britain : s stand against Arab nationalism, Eden is in fact admitting his real objective is not Abdel Nasser as such but rather to defeat Arab nationalism and crush its cause. Eden speaks and finds his own answer. A month ago he let out the cry that be was after Abdel Nasser. Today the Egyptian people are fully conscious of their sovereign rights and Arab nationalism is fully awakened to its new destiny....

Those who attack Egypt will never leave Egypt alive. We shall fight a regular war, a total war, a guerrilla war. Those who attack Egypt will soon realize they brought disaster upon themselves. He who attacks Egypt attacks tile whole Arab world. They say in their papers the -whole thing will be over in forty-eight hours. They do not know how strong we really are.

We believe in international law. But we will never submit. We shall show the world bow a small country can stand in the face of great powers threatening with armed might. Egypt might be a small power but she is great inasmuch as she has faith in her power and convictions. I feel quite certain every Egyptian shares the same convictions as I do and believes in everything I am stressing now.

We shall defend our freedom and independence to the last drop of our blood. This is the stanch feeling of every Egyptian. The whole Arab nation will stand by us in our common fight against aggression and domination. Free peoples, too, people who are really free will stand by us and support us against the forces of tyranny….

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956Nasser-suez1.html

28/08/2012

Syria and Pakistan: The Issue of National Sovereignty

Pakistan.girls.Independence.Day.jpg

August 18, 2012

The colonial rulers did indeed divide to rule, and they still do. That is why the media likes to project the predicament of Syria in sectarian terms.

America’s allies in the region, Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were mobilised. They armed and financed a group of militants. They infiltrated Syria from Jordan and Turkey not only to topple Assad’s regime but also to frighten the genuine and peaceful opposition off the streets. Contradicting their stand against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Americans has been financing and arming the organisation in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Egypt. They have also terrorised the minorities out of these countries so as the fragmentation of the Middle East becomes an accomplished fact.

Pakistan is as much affected by what happens in Syria, as Syria is in Pakistan. Supporting the writ of the Syrian government on its territories is also supporting our own sovereignty.

On the Eve of August 14, Dilip Hiro wrote in Yale Global: The Syrian imbroglio is a sectarian one, produced by a mix of age-old conflict between Sunnis and Shias, and an old imperialist policy of divide-and-rule. The 1947 partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan eased communal violence dramatically. ... The Britain conceded a homeland for Indian Muslims....In Syria, a viable solution lies in partition. (http://yaleglobal. yale.edu/ content/partitio n-solution- syria)

I disagree with Hiro.

I met my Pakistani husband in Syria, and in Pakistan I lost him. Syria linked our destinies. I fleeing the ravages of the Lebanese civil war and he escaping a despotic general that killed his father and oppressed his people. We both come from countries that were suffering the aftermath of partition, a colonial legacy.

There were no British casualties amongst the one-and-a-half million who died when the subcontinent was divided. All those killed and maimed were Indians. It looked more like the Indians had conceded to Britain rather than Britain conceding to the Indians, as Hiro asserts. Since then the two new nations have fought four wars, have two unresolved disputes over water shares and over Kashmir. They have built two nuclear arsenals that they have drawn at each other. I can hardly say this is the evidence of what Hiro whimsically calls eased violence.

One wonders if Hiro thought to ask the Baloch, Sindhis, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Bengalis, the people of Junnagadh and Hyderabad, the Biharis, if they felt independent since Partition. The 14th of August remains the day of Partition and not of Independence. The two words are not interchangeable. Partition is an example not to follow.

On the 14th of August we must observe decades of further subjugation. Only the rulers of the two nations have a reason to celebrate, because on that day the British had bestowed on them their separate fiefdoms. Under them the subcontinent drifted into a state of underdevelopment, injustice and inequality. As a consequence, today the governments of India and Pakistan have lost their writ over vast tracks of their lands.

The colonial rulers did indeed divide to rule, and they still do. That is why the media likes to project the predicament of Syria in sectarian terms. The people came to the streets in Syria like the rest of the Arab world seeking freedom and democracy. But the Arab Spring took the Americans and their allies by surprise. They never imagined that the oppressed, hungry and dispossessed people of Asia would rise against their oppressors. They supported and placed despotic rulers. They armed their police, to crush any local uprising.

Based on Prof Raymond Wheeler’s 1930s study of the effects of the weather cycles on human behaviour, American scientists blamed the uprising in the Middle East to the hot weather. To them Mohammad Bouazizi of Tunisia set himself on fire not because he was hungry but because of solar activities.

Two centuries ago, famines ravaged India during a period of recurring droughts. India’s wheat was dispatched to Manchester to feed the cheap labour of industrial England. Indians were so starved that they ate their dead and their babies. Imperial scientists like Norman Lockyer declared that black spots on the Sun’s surface, and not the free market, caused the Indian starvation. Nothing, it seems, has changed in imperial minds.

When the Egyptians went to the streets, the United States supported undemocratic Hosni Mubarak till the end. They changed tactics when the people’s demonstration persisted.

In October 2011, six months after the start of the Syrian uprising, the American ambassador to Syria, Robert Stephen Ford, was attacked with eggs, tomatoes, and pebbles as he provocatively visited an opposition lawyer in downtown Damascus. People spontaneously gathered around his vehicle and threw at him whatever was at hand. A women interviewed by the Lebanese channel Al-Jadeed said, “We don’t want his democracy because it has become a knife with which they are cutting our throats”.

Such displays of people power are not acceptable for Americans. The Arab revolutions had to be derailed. America’s allies in the region, Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were mobilised. They armed and financed a group of militants. They infiltrated Syria from Jordan and Turkey not only to topple Assad’s regime but also to frighten the genuine and peaceful opposition off the streets. Contradicting their stand against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Americans has been financing and arming the organisation in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Egypt. They have also terrorised the minorities out of these countries so as the fragmentation of the Middle East becomes an accomplished fact. Such fragmentation will divide the region into small sectarian and ethnic entities in perpetual strife. It will weaken the resistance of the Arabs against Israel, America’s thorn in the side of the Middle East.

The Americans cannot afford to have democratic regimes in the resource-rich developing countries. If the people are empowered the Americans and their economic institutions won’t be able to bully the rulers into signing on the dotted line of IMF and WTO agreements. Where will they get their cheap outsourcing from, their oil, their raw material, and their food?

I was in Lebanon in 2006 visiting my ailing father when Israel invaded, destroyed, and killed in the southern part of the country. Condoleezza Rice brazenly announced from Israel that the pains of Lebanon are the “birth pangs” of the new Middle East. Rice’s New Middle East is a greater Middle East that will stretch till Asia Minor. It also includes a New Pakistan, a smaller Pakistan. It is a quest to control the diminishing natural resources.

The destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure incurred a death toll of more than a thousand civilian, 30 percent of which were children, the displacement of one quarter of the Lebanese population, a devastating oil spill that spread over a distance of 170 kilometres, the damage to two world heritages, Tyre and Byblos, and an economic loss of over $1.5 billion dollars. To Rice that was the beginning of a “creative destruction.” This war is known as the Israel-Hezbollah war in which an organic Lebanese organisation, Hezbollah, aborted the birth of the “new Middle East.” With support from their Syrian and Iranian neighbours, the Lebanese people were able to successfully resist the Israeli aggression. My father lived another day to watch his people accomplish what the armies of the Arabs could not in more than six decades of Arab Israeli conflict.

Pakistan is as much affected by what happens in Syria, as Syria is in Pakistan. Supporting the writ of the Syrian government on its territories is also supporting our own sovereignty. Today Pakistan and Syria are suffering aggression because their people have been denied the right to govern themselves since their independence. The popular leaders, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Hafiz al-Assad took the fight against imperial hegemony upon themselves. The people were indeed behind them. But history is loud and clear today that the fight against injustice is neither one man’s fight nor one nation’s, it is the fight of the whole human race. Give people freedom and they will defend it.

The News (Pakistan) and Stop NATO

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid...

The writer is the chairperson of PPP-Shaheed Bhutto 

Photo: Pakistan girls, Independence Day - August 14, 2012