Via http://www.facebook.com/fightfirewithbeauty (Callligrapher @ deviantART)

I did a detailed search for the various spellings of the Prophet’s name and found seven groups in support of the controversial page that encouraged users to draw Muhammad.  A total of nearly 5,000 people had “Liked” the various pages.  On the other hand, there were almost double the number of groups in protest with more than 34,000 supporters.

In the spirit of full disclosure:  I did not individually check to see if people had “Liked” multiple groups or if each supporter was in fact a real live person (if you are so inclined and have the time, be my guest).  But I think it’s interesting that in its efforts to block the so-called “objectionable” pages on Facebook, the Pakistani government actually is blocking more pages that sympathize with its position.

The day before leaving Islamabad, I interviewed several young Pakistanis in the market about a variety of issues, including the Internet restrictions.  They were all very supportive of the Facebook ban and wanted the website to restrict any material that they considered offensive to Muslims.  However, they disagreed that YouTube should be totally banned because they said it had some good material on it.

Authorities unblocked YouTube this evening in Pakistan.  My colleagues there say they spoke earlier in the day with Wahaj-us-Siraj, a representative with the Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan.  He said he was surprised with the dramatic increase during the past week in user complaints about the restrictions on YouTube.

The popular video-sharing site is a prime example of the double-edged sword of the Internet.  For instance, you can view Koranic lessons on YouTube that explain and promote Islam as a religion of peace, or you can view the videos of Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American who preaches violence against Americans in the name of Islam.  Both sides are present for the user to decide on whether to watch or not.

I discussed that double-edged sword analogy with the young Pakistanis in the market.  I applied it to Facebook by telling them about a Karachi-based non-governmental organization that solicits donations of blood to help alleviate hospital shortages.  A representative with the group told VOA that they collect at least 6,000 units of blood each month.  The group uses Facebook because it is popular in Pakistan, and it provides a cheap form of advertising.  In fact, the group faced criticism for speaking publicly against the Facebook ban, saying people can use Facebook for noble pursuits and that an advertising alternative would take a long time and people need blood now.  My interviewees for the most part still strongly supported the Facebook ban, and one even said that the NGO in Karachi should find other online means to promote its cause.

In my searching of Facebook, I discovered a group that takes a different approach against “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.”  The group is called “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day – May 20th, 2010:  The Response!!!,” and it boasted 807 supporters at the time of this posting.  The group advocates drawing the Prophet’s name in calligraphy, and its page description had this to say:

…I have no intention of boycotting Facebook on May the 20th. Instead I intend to do exactly what the title of the page says, and draw the Prophet… The Prophet’s name has always been a favourite for Islamic artists of any era, and it is my suggestion that if these people want to draw the Prophet, then let us give them what they want, but on our terms, using our art. And I suggest we one up them; we will draw the Prophet indeed; we will sketch his teachings on the canvas of our lives; and paint his pursuit for justice with common sense, logic and rationality. We will show the world just a glimmer of his persona, because whilst it is perhaps true that nothing will ever aspire to the true splendour of his nature, there is certainly no harm in trying. Let us indulge the whims of the ignorant, and at the same time find joy in the creation of beauty.

A non-Muslim friend of mine in the United States said that as an outsider looking in, it looks like the Pakistani government acted prematurely in issuing its blanket ban on Facebook.  She said she believed the government didn’t give people enough credit to make their own response, and in the end, missed out on an opportunity to see freedom of expression in action.  What do you think?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

The U.S. deputy chief of mission in Pakistan, Gerald Feierstein,  told reporters today in Islamabad that the United States “strongly believes” Osama bin Laden is alive and in Pakistan.

Feierstein said Washington thinks bin Laden is operating from Pakistan’s tribal areas near the Afghan border.

Click here for the story.

This could explain why there has been an increased number of suspected U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Feierstein also said the United States believes fugitive Afghan Taliban leader Mohammad Omar is in the southern province of Baluchistan, possibly hiding in the capital of Quetta.

Again, the Pakistani government denies all the allegations, but Feierstein’s comments do reaffirm my post from yesterday.

My question is: What are Pakistanis supposed to take from this?

On Wednesday, the U.S. Congress approved legislation that triples non-military aid to Pakistan during the next five years.  That means starting next year, the Pakistani government will receive $1.5 billion annually for various development projects, including efforts to improve education, democratic institutions, human rights and conditions for women and children.  That’s a pretty strong signal from Washington.

But at the same time, the U.S. officials on the ground here are telling the local media that Baluchistan, specifically Quetta, is “high on Washington’s list.”  That angers the Pakistani government, as well as its people.  And the people are already angry at drone attacks in North Waziristan.

I wonder if Washington will unify its message.  The Pakistani people definitely want to know.

rewardsforjustice.net

Three suspected U.S. missile strikes hit Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal regions from late Tuesday through Wednesday.  Pakistani officials say the attacks killed at least 18 militants.

The first strike targeted a Pakistani Taliban commander’s house in South Waziristan.  The other two hit suspected Afghan Taliban locations in North Waziristan.

Click here for the story.

What’s the difference between the Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban?  First of all, they are organizationally distinct from each other.  But most importantly, analysts say the Afghan Taliban only fights in Afghanistan, while its Pakistani version is believed to only operate in Pakistan against the state.  Some analysts use this reasoning to say that Pakistan gives the Afghan Taliban a free pass.

This leads us to U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson’s recent comments about the United States shifting its gaze to Pakistan’s southwestern province of Baluchistan.  She told The Washington Post that:

“In the past, we focused on al-Qaida because they were a threat to us.  The Quetta Shura mattered less to us because we had no troops in the region.  Now our troops are there on the other side of the border, and the Quetta Shura is high on Washington’s list.”

U.S. officials believe the Quetta Shura is a council of exiled Afghan Taliban leaders headed by Mohammad Omar and based in the Pakistani city of Quetta (a charge Pakistan and even the Afghan Taliban deny).  The troops Patterson is referring to are the coalition forces stationed across the border in Taliban-controlled southern Afghanistan.

All the local papers led with this interview today.  Whether or not the United States is actually planning to launch drone attacks in Baluchistan (or even a full-scale ground invasion), this is not helping to dissuade the Pakistani people from their anti-America mindset.  Especially after many Pakistanis view U.S. missile attacks in the northwest as an affront to their country’s sovereignty.

Also, Baluchistan is a powder keg already with fuel shortages and a strong desire to secede from the federal government.  Just one U.S. missile could be the spark that sets off a massive chain reaction.