By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ahmed Shareef Chaudhry, Pakistan’s current Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), is the son of UN-designated terrorist Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, who also aided Osama bin Laden. Chaudhry, a three-star general, regularly justifies Pakistan’s actions, including its history of sponsoring terrorism. Mahmood, despite being celebrated in Pakistan for his nuclear work, founded the banned extremist organization Ummah Tameer-e-Nau and allegedly shared nuclear knowledge with al-Qaeda. This familial connection highlights the deep-seated issue of Pakistan’s support for terrorism and its implications for regional stability.
Read the original article here
Ahmed Shareef Chaudhry, the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), is the son of Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, a UN-designated terrorist. This fact, reported by Firstpost, raises serious questions about nepotism within the Pakistani military and its relationship with terrorist organizations. The UN and US sanctions against Mahmood, the founder of the banned terrorist group Ummah Tameer-e-Nau (UTN), are well-documented and easily verifiable.
The connection between Chaudhry and his father’s terrorist activities casts a long shadow over the Pakistani military’s image. It fuels the perception that there’s little distinction between the army and terrorist organizations, blurring the lines between legitimate military operations and acts of terrorism. This isn’t a new accusation; the Pakistani military’s alleged ties to terrorist groups have been a recurring theme in international discussions for years.
The lack of public outrage or demand for proof from within Pakistan itself is striking. The silence is deafening, considering the gravity of the allegations. One might expect a significant public reaction demanding transparency and accountability, but such a response seems notably absent. This absence of public scrutiny further strengthens the perception of a problematic relationship between the military and extremist elements.
The situation is compounded by the continued financial support Pakistan receives from international organizations like the IMF. This financial aid, despite the country’s problematic history and alleged support for terrorism, raises questions about the effectiveness of international sanctions and the priorities of global financial institutions. It fuels the argument that the international community has, for decades, shown a concerning level of leniency towards Pakistan.
The ongoing funding, coupled with past US support for Pakistan, paints a complex picture of geopolitical relationships. Some argue that this support, extending back to even before the Bangladesh genocide, is partially responsible for the current situation. By supporting Pakistan, the argument continues, the US unwittingly contributed to the creation of a state where ties between the military and terrorism are deeply entrenched.
Critics point to various instances of Pakistan’s actions that seem to indicate a troubling relationship with terrorism. The ISPR chief’s alleged actions – such as a missile strike on Afghanistan and attempts to blame India, incidents met with Afghan rejection – further reinforce this narrative. This behavior, critics argue, is indicative of a mindset where terrorism is not only tolerated but perhaps even strategically employed. The very real implications of this situation are disturbing.
The comparison between Chaudhry and other UN-designated terrorists like Hafiz Saeed highlights the problematic nature of the situation. Both are accused of being linked to terrorism; the only difference being that Chaudhry holds a high military rank. This, critics argue, represents the pinnacle of the problem: the most successful terrorists rise through the ranks of the Pakistani military.
This complex scenario raises fundamental questions about Pakistan’s governance, its relationship with the international community, and its commitment to counter-terrorism efforts. The lack of accountability and the continued international financial support only serve to fuel the criticisms and skepticism surrounding Pakistan’s policies and actions. The situation isn’t simply a matter of nepotism; it represents a deeply rooted issue that requires thorough investigation and decisive action to address. The continued existence of a nuclear-armed state with such close ties to terrorism poses a significant threat to regional and global stability. Addressing this requires not just critical examination, but a fundamental shift in international strategy regarding Pakistan.