Further investigations are underway,” the statement had said. While it is learnt that NSA Ajit Doval strongly took up the issue with his Pakistani counterpart soon after the Pathankot terror seige, there is no official word on what has been the followup of those talks and sharing of information by the Indian security brass. A Pakistan PMO statement, issued a few days after the Pathankot attack, had said, “Considerable progress has been made in the investigations being carried out against terrorist elements reportedly linked to the Pathankot incident. However, a month has passed and New Delhi is still awaiting a response from Islamabad on whether they have found out the actual owners of the mobile numbers which were used by the handlers of the six terrorists who stormed the airbase in Punjab. It is not yet known whether the Pakistani SIT has collected evidence of how the conspiracy for the attack was hatched in that country, sources said.

Reports from Islamabad reveal that it is business is “as usual” for JeM leaders who were allowed to “roam freely”.In the spirit of the cooperative approach, the Pakistani PMO statement had said, it was also decided that in order to carry the process forward, additional information would be required for which the government of Pakistan is considering sending a SIT to Pathankot in consultation with the government of India. In fact, New Delhi had welcomed Pakistan’s keenness to bring to book the Pathankot attackers and also decided to give Islamabad a chance to act.. There is also no information about when would the Pakistani SIT come to India to probe the assault. Official sources here said there is no information on whether any criminal case was registered against the outfit, its chief Maulana Masood Azhar or others responsible for the January 2 terror attack on the strategic airbase.More than a month after the terror attack on the strategic IAF base in Pathankot on January 2, Pakistan has not yet informed India whether it Flexible universal neck for kitchen Manufacturers has taken any action against Jaish-e-Mohammed, believed to be responsible for the terror attack, on the basis of vital leads shared by New Delhi with Islamabad.

The offices of the organisation are also being traced and sealed.However, sources said, as per the information gathered by Indian agencies, business is as usual for JeM, a month after the Pathankot terror attack and the outfit’s leaders and other activists were roaming freely in Pakistan.”“Based on initial investigations in Pakistan, and the information provided, several individuals belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammad have been apprehended.Sources said Pakistan tried to wash off its hand by saying the mobile numbers were unregistered and had been procured on fake identities.Tapped conversations between the terrorists and their Pakistani handlers were also shared with that country, security officials said, adding the government there should take the probe forward by registering a criminal case. “We have not heard from Pakistan since then on its SIT,” sources said

Being an inter-governmental counter-terrorist alliance of Islamic countries, it was essentially forged (on December 15, 2016) by Saudi defence minister Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud for military intervention against the Islamic State (ISIS) and for other counter-terror actions.It does seem to this writer that the entire idea of IMAFT, in the guise of an International Islamic Army, is bound to be self-defeating and suicidal. Second, this certainly didn’t go well with the serving top brass of the Pakistan Army.The key question here is — how will the “objective” to “protect Muslim countries from all terrorist groups and organisations” be achieved? If one sees the reports emanating from the Muslim countries themselves, a grim scenario emerges as at least 12 (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Yemen) of the 41 nations have serious internal and cross-border terrorism issues.

Although both wars were essentially started and fought by, and between, Christians and Christians, they never got the stamp of “religious” or “terror” conflict.In this context, the two World Wars of 1914-1919 and 1939-1945 come to mind. How does IMAFT deal with this? Individually or collectively?Declaring open war or through clandestine or some other means? Can it afford to go for a sustained operation or will it be a one-off or sporadic “quick reaction team” op by specialised “shock troops”?Also, what could be the possible political fallout of IMAFT deployment or action in the internal affairs of sovereign nations notwithstanding their religious bond? Can a war on terror waged by an “International Islamic Army” on Islamic states turn into a civil war-type scenario as it happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria in the aftermath of the US-led international security assistance force deployment and devastation? Will IMAFT go the Western way, leaving a trail of havoc, panic, destruction and a state of permanent war in the guise of fighting terrorism and terrorists to save Islamic states? Do the present Islamic states sincerely believe the best way to tackle terrorist and terrorism is the Western way? By the combined might of the military?

Should not they realise that Wholesale brass faucet aerator Manufacturers whereas the Western-led coalition forces tend to fight their wars (far) away from their home bases, the proposed IMAFT will fight, if they fight at all, as they are likely to be fighting against their own shadow, deep inside their own Islamic territory, they will be inflicting more misery, thereby aggravating and hastening more penury and poverty.Seen from every, angle Raheel Sharif has failed to fulfil his wishes. Hence a religious colour to violence and mayhem-combat organisation would always constitute a serious internal challenge to the heterogeneous command, control, communications and operations room of a force like IMAFT.This extraordinary statement by an incumbent PM about a retired Army chief understandably creates several realistic scenarios. It was simply war. They must have signalled the civilian PM to rein in his comrades-in-arms, and the Prime Minister had no choice but to succumb, and do as the Army brass wished