Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 4:04 PM

The first tweet I saw was late at night on Thursday, already early morning in Kabul. It was a short, to-the-point burst of information from Sarah-Jane Cunningham, a British-Egyptian woman working in Kabul: "British Council being attacked in #Kabul. Fight ongoing. No reports of casualties yet."
From there it was almost embarrassingly easy to cobble together a real-time update, almost minute-by-minute of a Taliban gun-and-bomb attack in Karteh Parwan district of Kabul against the British Council - a cultural institution where, among other things, many Afghans have learned English. Bilal Sarwary; Jerome Starkey; Erin Cunningham; Massoud Hossaini; and Mustafa Kazemi were just some of the English-speaking reporters posting information via Twitter.
Their minute-to-minute updates -- shots fired; three explosions; smoke coming from building; burning debris; the Americans have arrived! The British are here! -- made it easy to follow along and the re-tweeting of their tweets was soon filling the timelines of people around the world.
And then there were blog posts and pictures and videos thrown up on Youtube. Media outlets had slide shows up before the dust had even settled. Next came the inevitable parsing out of whether Afghan security forces were ready to take on these kinds of attacks on their own without assistance from internationals. We heard from a tailor, we heard from a butcher, we saw the grimacing faces of Afghan police officers as they carted away the body of one of the attackers.
The frenzied pace led one tweeter, @polgrim, to observe "From the looks of it some journos are getting an orgasm live-tweeting the insurgency in Kabul this morning. *tone down the theatrics*." The last thing I tweeted was some five hours after the attack began when a reporter said the area was quiet and cordoned off. Twelve people had been killed.
A few hours later in Jamrud district in Pakistan's Khyber Agency, a suicide bomber standing in the fifth row of the Friday prayer congregation detonated himself killing forty people and injuring scores more. As of Sunday, the death toll stood at 52 and was expected to rise. The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility.
The majority of the casualties were brought to Peshawar. There was no on-the-scene live-tweeting, no accessible English-speaking journalists who could update the world in real time. There was no worldwide re-tweeting. It was mentioned by the international press, of course, but with a dearth of immediate pictures or video or English interviews it didn't really make a splash of any kind except in Pakistan. I shared exactly two news items via Twitter -- one in English and one in Urdu.
Oh, and Hillary Clinton read a statement of condolence.
There was a near-identical suicide bombing of a mosque during Friday prayers in Jamrud district two years ago as well, where again some fifty people were killed. Then as now the coverage was limited to news media within Pakistan. And there have been scores of other attacks since, both big and small. The only ones that really seem to draw much attention are either at military installations or at places where expatriates could be involved. In other words, places that might mean something to "us," the international community.
It's a natural outcome, I suppose, of the difference between cities saturated with foreigners - like Kabul - and one where it's "just locals" - like Peshawar. Obviously, the greater number of reporters in a place writing and reporting in different languages, the more likely we are to get information, both important and trivial. It's like the difference between Libya and Bahrain.
But these two very different reactions by international media, to me, speak to a bigger problem with how we perceive the stories of ordinary Afghans and Pakistanis.
I'm not keeping some kind of macabre scorecard 00 twelve dead Afghans versus 50 dead Pakistanis or one sustained attack versus two blitzes. And it's not even about how well events are covered in either country. There are definitely good foreign reporters doing good work but mostly the coverage in both countries is shallow and almost exclusively focused on conflict -- it's the only thing about these places that seemingly matters.
The part about this imbalance in international reporting that is most problematic for me is the perception of how conflict is playing out in the two countries. In Pakistan, it's seen primarily as a war between the military and the Pakistani Taliban confined to a population-free area known as The FATA -- a place without stories, history or individuals, meaning that violence is inconsequential at a human level. In Afghanistan, the large number of internationals and English-speaking journalists can, and do, provide ongoing eyewitness testimony to the effects of violence on ordinary people. Consider it a secondary outcome of the international presence.
There's also an underlying moral judgment about the violence in Pakistan, that when people die, well, it's a result of Pakistan's own bad policies and you reap what you sow. We see this moralizing in an extreme form with the debate about the use of drones. Estimates of civilian deaths from drone attacks range from zero to hundreds. But we rarely see those casualties and know almost nothing about the people who live there, so it's easy to add the qualifier that while civilian deaths are sad, drones are, nevertheless, important tools in the fight against militancy.
I'm certainly not saying the lack of attention on the stories of regular people is coming only from a lack of will to tell them. There are very real challenges to reporting from volatile areas for both local and foreigner reporters. But the absence of average Pakistanis has allowed a narrative to take hold that Pakistanis, unlike Afghans, are complicit in their own misery.
Time and again, in doing my job, people caught up in extraordinary hardship have said to me, "tell the world." An international media "frenzy" would help, one that aggressively focused on the multiple ways ordinary Pakistanis -- like many ordinary Afghans -- are paying for others' ambitions. Then maybe they could tell the world.
Naheed Mustafa is an award-winning freelance writer and broadcaster based in Toronto, Canada.
WAHEED AFRIDI/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:AFPAK, AFPAK POSTER 3, AFGHANISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL, PAKISTAN, SECURITY, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
this is necessarily important tool twitter for the announcement of what happens in the world today, around the world in real time and promptly exchange information and details in this world in minutesk2around the world.
Whole story can be told in four words - ‘Terrorist State of Pakistan’
Nobody forced Pakistani government to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Pakistan’s democratic government chose to do so of its own free will.
Nobody forced Pakistani Army and Intelligence to create what ex-CIA official Bruce Reidel called ‘this jihadist Frankenstein’ monster in 1990s. Pakistani Army and Intelligence chose to do so with the full financing provided by Pakistan’s democratic governments at the time.
Who is going to break the violence gripping Afghanistan and Pakistan? Pakistani government that brutally murdered the reporter Saleem Shahzad who exposed Pakistani Army/government/ISI‘s terrorist connections?
How can a government break the cycle of violence when that government itself is the epitome of violence?
Pakistan projects sympathetic image as a victim of terror, even as it is, in fact, the creator of terrorism. Pakistan continues to shelter, nurture, support and protect innumerable terrorist outfits on its soil. So Pakistan has invited jihadist violence upon itself.
Gen. Zia planted the Islamist poison seed in 1976 and the tree from that seed is now bearing the toxic fruit. The Army and the ISI and even the civilian democratic leaders will ensure that Pakistan never gives up terrorism as a state policy to blackmail enemies and allies alike. Terrorism has yielded such handsome dividends to Pakistan in the form of international aid. Terrorism has become a second nature to Pakistan, so to speak.
It was Gen. Zia who ushered in a new era of Islamic fundamentalism, bigotry and blasphemy laws in Pakistan targeting minorities, together with nurturing radical, armed Islamic groups, bent on waging jihad across the world. Officers recruited in his era are today three-star Generals and the Pakistani Military is largely motivated by the ideology of the “Quranic Concept of War” articulated by Zia’s protégé Brigadier (later Major General) SK Malik. Describing anyone who stands in the way of jihad as an “aggressor”, Malik held that “the aggressor is always met and destroyed in his own country”.
The malaise of Islamic radicalism runs deep across Pakistan’s entire establishment - civilian and military as well as society.
Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court and an influential Muslim scholars group praised the assassination of the governor who was recommending to reform Pakistan‘s sharia laws.
The Pakistani parliament’s joint session convened on 5/13/11 after Osama’s killing and ended after adopting a unanimous resolution condemning the American raid on the Abbottabad compound in which al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was killed.
Pakistani parliamentarians did not appear to be bothered about Osama living in Abbottabad for the past five years and perhaps in other parts of the country since 9/11.
Osama bin Laden was a hero in Pakistan even prior to his death and remains one now as well.
Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan, wrote in a secret review in 2009 that ‘Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly sponsoring four militant groups - Haqqani‘s HQN, Mullah Omar‘s QST, Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon them for any amount of US money‘, as diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show.
Ambassador Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own State Department and U. S. government.
Whole story in four words - part 2
Adm Mullen had following to say about America’s primary ally in its fight against terrorism, to the foreign news media on 1/13/2011: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it [Pakistan] is the epicenter of terrorism in the world right now. It is absolutely critical that the safe havens in Pakistan get shut down. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without that. It’s not just Haqqani Network anymore, or Al Qaeda or TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), the Afghan Taliban, or LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba), it’s all of them working together.”
It's disgraceful that this massive attack on civilians fighting the Taliban in their area, not just for their own safety or for Pakistan, but on America's and the rest of the worlds behalf didn't even get a mention in most international mainstream press. The eyewitness accounts from those involved in the rescue operations, gathering body parts after the explosion are horrific. It's not like the area is so remote that no foreign crews could get there, or get some details in such a connected age. The narrative that successive US governments have pushed of Pakistan for the last decade has been enormously successful given the above comments (rants). Pakistan is paying such a heavy price.
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE