Zero Tolerance with Syed Haider Imam

چیف صاحب ، حکم کی تعمیل ہو چکی۔ سرکاری مطالعہ پاکستان کی جگہ سیاق و سباق اور مستند حوالوں کی مدد سے اصل "تاریخ پاکستان" لوگوں کے حوالے ہو چکی ہے 🙏🏼 یہ ایک محفوظ ویب سائٹ ہے جہاں دنیا بھر کے ریسرچرز اپنی ریسرچ اپلوڈ کرتے ہیں ۔ اپ کتاب ضرور ڈاؤن کریں punjablahorepakistan.academia.edu/SyedImam

The post containing this document has been viewed over 6 million times, garnered reaction from former top government officials in Pakistan, and has been the subject of heavy coverage in Indian media even while remaining blacked out in military-run Pakistan. Western establishment press has continued running its own blackout of the cipher story since 2023 even after it was publicly verified by the Pakistani government and triggered massive outrage upon being broken. This participation in the coverup has helped the military junta extinguish Pakistani democracy, since, due to the same West-centric framework that led them to become so alarmed over the disapproval of a State Department diplomat, they really do care what the NYT or WAPO etc happens to say about them.

روزنامہ ڈان (19 مئی 2026) میں شائع حمزہ ہارون کے مضمون کے مطابق، پاکستان میں 27ویں آئینی ترمیم آئینی اصلاحات کے بجائے آئین میں بے جا اکھاڑ پچھاڑ کی عکاسی کرتی ہے، جس کا مقصد اداروں پر قبضہ اور مخصوص اختیارات کا استحکام ہے۔ مضمون نگار کا استدلال ہے کہ برطانوی اور امریکی مثالوں کے برعکس، پاکستان میں قانونی طریقہ کار کی آڑ میں آئینی حدود کی پاسداری کی روح کو نظر انداز کیا جا رہا ہے، جو آئین کے وقار کو کمزور کر رہا ہے۔

When will this war of statements end? The United States should first check with Israel, which wants to expand the war in the Gulf by orchestrating false flag operations and makes a mockery of the ceasefire in Lebanon on a daily basis. 1- In a statement, Donald Trump mentioned that the Amir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan appealed to him to halt the planned action against Iran because crucial diplomatic negotiations are currently underway. 2- Tehran has "limited time" to reach an agreement: President Trump hints at another attack on Iran. 3- "Significant progress" has been made in talks between the United States and Iran: JD Vance.

پنجاب میں تین ماہ چھٹیاں: تعلیمی سال 240 کی بجائے ’تقریبا 100‘ دن تک محدود ارشد چودھری پنجاب میں نجی سکول مالکان کا کہنا ہے کہ حکومت سال میں اتنی چھٹیاں دیتی ہے کہ تعلیمی سال 240 دن کی بجائے 90 سے 120 دن تک محدود ہو چکا ہے، جس سے نہ صرف تعلیم کا حرج ہو رہا ہے بلکہ والدین بھی بچوں کی تعلیم کے حوالے سے پریشان ہیں۔ پاکستان اور پنجاب میں موسم خراب ہو، کوئی وبا آئے یا توانائی کا بحران ہو، سب سے پہلے تعلیمی ادارے بند کیے جاتے ہیں۔ ڈومیسٹک انٹیگریٹڈ اکنامک سروے (ایچ آئی ای ایس) 25-2024 کے مطابق پاکستان میں پانچ سے 16 سال کی عمر کے دو کروڑ 80 لاکھ بچے اب بھی تعلیم سے محروم اور سکولوں سے باہر ہیں۔ سروے کے مطابق صرف پنجاب میں 51 فیصد بچے سکول نہیں جاتے۔ صوبے میں خواندگی کی شرح مردوں کے لیے 68 فیصد اور خواتین کے لیے 52.8 فیصد ہے۔ پاکستان کی مجموعی شرح خواندگی 63 فیصد ہے اور عالمی تعلیمی معیار میں 193 ممالک میں 156 ویں نمبر پر ہے۔ بچوں کو تعلیمی اداروں میں ملنے والے تعلیمی معیار کا یہ حال ہے کہ ٹیوشن پڑھانا بھی الگ سے والدین کی ذمہ داری بن چکا ہے۔ حکومت پنجاب سرکاری سکولوں کی نجکاری کر کے انہیں نجی شعبے کے تحت چلانے کی حکمت عملی پر بھی عمل کر رہی ہے۔ کئی سکول نجی شعبے کے حوالے کیے جا چکے ہیں جبکہ مزید دینے پر کام جاری ہے۔

A Letter to the Wall Street Journal: From Bhutto to Imran Khan, Pakistan’s ‘Forbidden Fruit’ and the History of Foreign Intervention Final part Historical Redress: The Supreme Court’s Admission of ErrorA formal, historic redress for this grave judicial injustice finally came nearly 45 years later. In March 2024, the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued its historic opinion in response to a presidential reference. The apex court unanimously acknowledged that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial under the Constitution, formally and publicly admitting to this historical judicial error. Conclusion: The history of Pakistan is testament to the fact that whenever a popular leader attempts to touch the establishment's 'forbidden fruit' or charts an independent foreign policy, the internal and external 'System' unites to make an example out of them using the courts. Wall Street Journal columnists must thoroughly study this bitter history and the Supreme Court’s recent admission before commenting on Imran Khan's case. Newly released documents from Drop Site News reveal that a classified diplomatic cable confirms U.S. officials pressured Pakistan to remove Imran Khan from power, echoing historical foreign interference that ousted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The leaked transcript shows that the U.S. promised improved relations if the no-confidence vote against Khan succeeded, following a pattern of intervention in Pakistani politics.

A Letter to the Wall Street Journal: From Bhutto to Imran Khan, Pakistan’s ‘Forbidden Fruit’ and the History of Foreign Intervention First part Columnists writing for the Wall Street Journal seem to lack a true understanding of Pakistan's complex political history; hence, they boldly write about the country's politics without knowing the underlying realities. You are absolutely right that even before the "Cipher" surfaced, General Qamar Javed Bajwa wanted to oust former Prime Minister Imran Khan. However, one wonders whether these foreign columnists have ever mentioned the alleged election rigging of 2013 and 2018 in their articles. The reality is that Pakistan’s military establishment never wanted power to be transferred to Imran Khan in the first place. To understand Imran Khan’s ouster from power today, it is essential to comprehend the history of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. As the renowned Pakistani journalist Mazhar Abbas aptly puts it: "Bhutto’s hanging established a precedent in the country that whenever a politician steps into a 'specific' territory or leans toward the 'forbidden fruit', the 'System' swings into motion—to the extent that even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s daughter (Benazir Bhutto) could only find the path to the corridors of power open after reaching a compromise."

Good time to reup my WSJ column debunking Drop Site’s claim that America ousted Imran Khan. Anyone who actually follows Pakistani politics knows that Gen. Bajwa had set that train in motion long before the meeting on which Drop Site’s theory rests. wsj.com/opinion/did-th…

A Letter to the Wall Street Journal: From Bhutto to Imran Khan, Pakistan’s ‘Forbidden Fruit’ and the History of Foreign Intervention Fourth part - Further references Hanging for the Nuclear Program and Signs of U.S. Approval Historical documents and literature bear witness to the fact that the overthrow of the Bhutto government was not merely an internal military coup: 1- Insights from Hussain Haqqani's Book: Published in 2005, Hussain Haqqani’s book, 'Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military', hints that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark was questioned regarding his "prior knowledge or approval" of General Zia-ul-Haq’s military coup, tracing the conspiracy back to Washington. 2- Research by Rizwan Hussain: According to Rizwan Hussain’s 2005 book, 'Pakistan and the Emergence of Islamic Militancy in Afghanistan', the PPP consistently maintained that General Zia's military coup enjoyed full American blessings. 3- Echoes from Intellectuals: Haider Khan Nizamani’s book 'The Roots of Rhetoric' (2000) and Rizwan Hussain's work note that many Pakistani intellectuals, researchers, and politicians echoed Bhutto’s stance—believing the U.S. played a pivotal role in stripping him of power. Notably, Bhutto (much like Imran Khan today) avoided naming the superpower directly in his public rhetoric. 4- Benazir Bhutto’s Stance: Pakistan’s English-language daily Dawn reported on May 10, 1998, via its correspondent Nasir Malik, that Benazir Bhutto also admitted her father was sent to the gallows by the 'Superpower' as punishment for acquiring nuclear capability (the atomic bomb) for Pakistan. Out of political pragmatism, however, she too refrained from naming the country openly.

A Letter to the Wall Street Journal: From Bhutto to Imran Khan, Pakistan’s ‘Forbidden Fruit’ and the History of Foreign Intervention Third Part The Opposition’s Ignorance and Exploitation by the Establishment Senator Taj Haider of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) highlights a ironic aspect of that era’s politics. He states: "Later on, Professor Ghafoor (a central leader of Jamaat-e-Islami) told me, 'We had absolutely no clue who was behind sidelining Bhutto from the political scene. We genuinely thought that whatever we were doing was for the benefit of the country and the nation.'" This clearly demonstrates how domestic politicians were unknowingly being used as pawns by the establishment and foreign powers. Bhutto’s 'Judicial Murder' and Confessions of Pressure on Judges The trial orchestrated against Bhutto was deemed highly biased and politically motivated by legal experts worldwide, which is why history remembers it as a "Judicial Murder." The ultimate truth of this judicial execution came to light when Justice Naseem Hasan Shah, one of the Supreme Court judges who delivered the verdict, later admitted on national media that the judges were under immense pressure from the martial law authorities (General Zia-ul-Haq) and that the decision to convict Bhutto was legally flawed.

Bhutto’s Historic Address in the Assembly on American Interference Ref ;- Pakistani Alleges U.S. Plot ( Washington Post) On April 28, 1977, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto delivered a lengthy and historic speech during a joint session of the National Assembly and the Senate. In this address, without naming the United States directly, he characterized it as "an elephant" that never forgets and never forgives. Bhutto made the following key revelations in his speech: 1-Allegations of Foreign Intervention: He openly alleged that foreign powers were heavily active in Pakistan's internal affairs. 2- Funding of the Opposition: He claimed that the U.S. administration was providing millions of dollars in funding to the opposition alliance (Pakistan National Alliance) to overthrow his government. 3- Punishment for Global Policies: Bhutto clarified that Washington wanted to punish him for opposing the U.S. role in the Vietnam War and for openly supporting Arab nations during the Arab-Israeli War. 4- Evidence of the Diplomatic Letter: He waved a diplomatic document on the floor of the Assembly, presenting it as concrete evidence of foreign interference.

"My innocent questions to you are: You cited the Washington Post, which is obviously accurate reporting, but I am informing you about what is actually happening and has been happening inside Pakistan. You mentioned press freedom during Imran Khan’s era, which is obviously correct according to the data, but can you tell me which Army Chief in India calls journalists repeatedly to engineer their mindsets? Who builds a narrative to recognize Israel? Who watches videos of minor YouTubers while shaving in the morning? Have you still not understood the internal situation of Pakistan? I have explained it with full context. Pakistanis understand Pakistan better; the stories of the Washington Post are highly respected, but I will ask again: why hasn't the Washington Post written any article in recent days? PLEASE SHARE WITH US, THANKS

2. Military Dictators (Zia & Musharraf) vs. Recent Military Leadership and Press Conferences There is a clear contrast in how past military rulers and recent military leadership interacted with the media: General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf: Both military dictators were highly confident in facing both global and local media. General Musharraf, in particular, was known for giving long and blunt interviews to international outlets (such as the BBC and CNN) and aggressively answering tough questions from the Indian media. They faced sharp questions from journalists directly during press conferences. Recent Military Leadership: Unlike the past, the current and recent military leadership completely avoids direct, open press conferences or live, unscripted interviews with the international media. Instead of the leadership appearing directly, the establishment's narrative is issued indirectly through DG ISPR press conferences, scripted briefings, or specific anchors. Even during international forums or official US visits, direct and free Q&A sessions with the press have not been seen. 3. Media Management of General Qamar Javed Bajwa During General Bajwa's tenure (2016–2022), a completely new and unconventional model of media management was introduced: Off-the-record Briefings: Instead of appearing directly in front of the camera, General Bajwa routinely invited groups of journalists, anchors, and columnists to GHQ or Corps Commander houses. National, international, and political matters were discussed in these long meetings, but journalists were not allowed to report the conversations directly; they were only given a "line" to follow. Inquiries into Financial and Personal Affairs: According to journalistic circles and senior anchors who attended these meetings, General Bajwa would become highly informal during conversations. He would often ask journalists about their personal well-being, the behavior of media house owners, and their salaries to give the impression that the establishment was aware of their economic struggles and wished to help. This was part of a "Carrot and Stick" policy, where approachability was shown on one side, while strict restrictions were placed on those who crossed the establishment's red lines.

I have no dog in the fight between Drop Site and the Munir/Sharif dispensation in Pakistan, and have criticized the website’s sensationalism in its reporting on Imran Khan’s ouster in 2022. I agree with the claim that this is probably linked to their need to garner clicks. That said, no fair-minded person can fault Drop Site for relying on anonymous sources in its reporting on Pakistan. The army has effectively shut down any semblance of independent journalism in that country. (That Imran Khan tried to do the same thing when he was in power is a separate story.) In other words, if you want to report on controversial topics such as the imprisonment of Khan, the suppression of protests, or the plainly rigged 2024 elections, you will struggle to find people in positions of power or authority in Pakistan who will speak to you on the record. This is not an indictment of Drop Site. It’s an indictment of Pakistan. My view: Drop Site is directionally correct in its coverage of Pakistan. There is no doubt that the U.S. did not try to prevent the ouster of Khan, though this is different from the website’s exaggerated claims about the U.S. playing a central role in his ouster. There is also no doubt that Munir has brought the political class and media to heel, and arguably made Pakistan less free than at any time in the 21st century. (Some Pakistanis would argue that even Zia was less despotic than Munir, but that too is a separate debate.) There is no doubt that many Pakistanis feel that Khan has been badly wronged, and that he would easily win a fair election. In an ideal world, the international media would cover Pakistani politics dispassionately, without the activist lens that Drop Site brings to the story. You should be able to see Imran Khan as heroically brave and a natural leader of men, but also as a deeply illiberal politician who had no trouble collaborating with the army to crush his opponents, and who jeopardized Pakistan’s strategic interests. You should be able to view Munir as a ruthless military despot who has done incalculable harm to the democratic project in Pakistan—or what remained of it when he arrived on the scene—but has also guided Pakistani foreign policy with more deftness than Khan could muster. This is not a morality tale of Good v. Evil. It’s subcontinental Game of Thrones. Khan is the hapless Ned Stark. Munir is a cross between Little Finger and Stannis Baratheon—a deadly combination. Just because Drop Site comes across as clearly pro-Khan, and seeks to connect dots that a more careful publication would not connect with such certainty, does not mean that all its reporting on Pakistan is automatically false. Partisan activists are not as reliable as old-fashioned journalists, but even activists can sometimes give you a glimpse of the truth. Those who seek to delegitimize all of Drop Site’s reporting on Pakistan are equally partisan, just partisans for a different camp. This story is all shades of gray. Beware of those who sell it to you in black and white.

"Come, let me take you on a tour of Pakistan." Media Funding and Advertising: Nawaz Sharif vs. Imran Khan In Pakistani journalism, state advertisements have historically been used as a tool to control or reward media houses: Media Policy of Nawaz Sharif (PML-N): 1- It is an established fact that PML-N governments used heavy state funds for media management. According to official records and audit reports submitted to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the media cell supervised by Maryam Nawaz issued billions of rupees in state advertisements to favored channels and newspapers. The objective of this policy was to build a positive image of the government and suppress criticism through economic pressure. 2- Media Policy of Imran Khan (PTI): Upon taking power, Imran Khan completely reversed this policy. He introduced a historic 70% to 80% cut in the state advertising budget and withheld the old outstanding dues of media houses. The Khan administration maintained that they would not use public tax money to enrich private media owners. 3- The Difference in Unnecessary Promotion: The PTI government used minimal state funds for personal or unnecessary self-promotion on traditional media. Instead, they relied heavily on social media and digital media wings, which were far more cost-effective and provided a direct route to the public. However, traditional media labeled this budget cut as an economic assault on press freedom, causing a severe financial crisis in the industry.

"Come, let me take you on a tour of Pakistan." Imran Khan’s Approach to Facing the Media in Contrast to Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi Imran Khan’s approach to interacting with local and international media was distinctly different from that of Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi: Imran Khan: He was always available for press conferences and live interviews. He gave detailed interviews to international media outlets (such as the BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and Jonathan Swan on HBO). However, when dealing with the local media, he would often label his fierce journalist critics as "Lifafa" (corrupt/bribed) or opposition agents, adopting an aggressive stance toward their questions. Narendra Modi: Since becoming Prime Minister in 2014, Modi has not held a single traditional, open press conference where journalists are allowed to ask free and unscripted questions. He strictly prefers one-sided narratives (such as his radio show 'Mann Ki Baat') or pre-arranged, scripted interviews. Nawaz Sharif: While he did conduct traditional press conferences, he was not very active before the international media. Furthermore, he often relied on written notes (slips of paper) when addressing sensitive diplomatic or domestic affairs.

As a researcher, the authentic, historical, and fact-based answer with strong references: 1. Pakistan's Ranking in the Press Freedom Index According to the annual Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Pakistan's ranking during various government tenures was as follows: Nawaz Sharif Era (2013–2018): In 2013, Pakistan was ranked at 159, which marginally improved to 139 in 2017 and 2018. Imran Khan Era (2018–2022): After 2018, Pakistan's ranking consistently declined, dropping to 142 in 2019, 145 in 2020, and reaching 157 by early 2022. Shehbaz Sharif / PDM and Interim Era (2022–2024): In 2023, Pakistan's ranking improved to 150, but it dropped again to 152 in 2024. Current Ranking (2025-2026): In 2025, Pakistan fell further to 158, while according to the recent 2026 report, Pakistan shows a slight improvement, currently standing at the 153rd position. "My innocent question to you is: while it is true that the Press Freedom Index worsened significantly during Imran Khan's tenure, for which his hybrid regime was responsible, have the conditions concerning media freedom in Pakistan improved now, or have they deteriorated further? Let me show you with the help of data." Press Freedom Index: Pakistan’s ranking remains dismal at 153rd position. This is driven by harsh digital laws, the installation of an internet firewall, and unprecedented censorship enforced through treason charges on social media. 1- Targeted Killings: Since the assassination of Arshad Sharif, at least 12 journalists have been killed or fell victim to targeted violence, including names like Khalil Jibran, Imtiaz Mir, and AD Shar. 2- Forced Exile: Due to fear, anti-terrorism charges, and treason cases, more than 30 prominent journalists (including Sabir Shakir, Moeed Pirzada, and Wajahat Saeed Khan) were forced to flee the country, and were even sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2026. 3- Mass Unemployment: Pressure from the establishment combined with the economic crisis has led to severe downsizing across channels, such as the recent layoffs at Suno News. Dozens of anchors have been forced off-air, leaving more than 2,500 journalists and media workers unemployed. WHY WASHINGTON POST AND ASSOCIATES ARE KEEPING A BLIND EYE NOW?

Washington's Testimony and the Envoy under Scrutiny: Donald Lu’s Sworn Statement Before the U.S. Congress The testimony of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 20, 2024, was not merely a diplomatic defense; it was the definitive turning point in this international controversy where Washington went on the record under oath for the first time. Amidst intense chanting of "Liar, Liar!" by Imran Khan’s supporters echoing through the committee hall, Lu rejected the entire cipher narrative, labeling it a "complete falsehood" and a fabricated conspiracy theory Dawn, Geo TV. He further disclosed that because of these allegations, he and his family had been receiving continuous death threats over the preceding two years, forcing U.S. security agencies to intervene The Hill., Dawn. From an investigative standpoint, the most sensitive aspect of this testimony came when Lu asserted that he had personally scrutinized the leaked text of the alleged diplomatic cable, maintaining that the document contained no evidence of an American conspiracy to alter Pakistan's government Dawn. To fortify his position, he cited Pakistan’s then-Ambassador to Washington, Asad Majeed Khan, stating that the envoy himself had admitted before Pakistani investigative bodies that no U.S. pressure for a regime change existed during that meeting However, rather than resolving the contradictions between Washington and Islamabad, this testimony deepened them. When 'Drop Site News' subsequently published the verbatim transcript of the original cipher on May 17, 2026, it became evident to the world how diplomatically Lu had maneuvered around the truth before the committee, given that his statement—"all will be forgiven if the no-confidence vote succeeds"—stood as a matter of explicit record. #CipherCase #DonaldLu #ImranKhan #DropSiteNews #PakistanPolitics #USCongress #CableI0678

Behind-the-Scenes Threats and American Dictation: The Core Sentences of the Cyber That Toppled a Government Contained within this highly classified diplomatic document (Cable I-0678) are the exact words spoken by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu, which ultimately shook the political and constitutional fabric of Pakistan. These crucial and highly controversial sentences, masked under the garb of diplomacy, are detailed below: The Condition of Forgiveness Upon the Success of the No-Confidence Motion: "I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister (Imran Khan) succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a miasmic, personal decision of the Prime Minister". "Dawn." The Threat to Isolate Pakistan in Case the No-Confidence Motion Fails: "Otherwise (if the motion fails), I think it will be tough going ahead. Europe will also join us in isolating Pakistan, and it will be a very difficult time for Pakistan" Severe American Resentment Over Pakistan's Neutrality on the Russia-Ukraine War: "People here (in Washington) cannot understand why Pakistan took such an aggressively neutral position right at the moment when Russia attacked Ukraine ." #CipherCase #DonaldLu #ImranKhan #DropSiteNews #PakistanPolitics #USCongress #CableI0678

This is not a separate story, but rather a continuation of the same story. No journalist can understand Pakistan better than Pakistanis just by reading a few books. Now, I am giving references. 1- The Pakistani military establishment (specifically under Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa and then-ISI Chief Lt Gen Faiz Hameed) pressured Geo News to take Hamid Mir off air in late May 2021. 2- In July 2020, another prominent journalist, Matiullah Jan, was abducted by unknown gunmen in police uniforms. He was blindfolded, gagged, bound and assaulted for 12 hours before being released. This happened during Imran Khan's tenure as Prime Minister (2018–2022). Geo News suspended Mir's popular show Capital Talk indefinitely starting around May 31, 2021, after he gave a fiery speech at a protest rally supporting journalist Asad Ali Toor (who had been attacked). In that speech, Mir criticized the military/ISI for attacks on journalists, media censorship, and related issues. " In short, it was not a direct order from Imran Khan's civilian government but military pressure on the media house while Khan was PM. This reflects Pakistan's well-known civil-military dynamics, where the establishment often influences media decisions". Hamid Mir: Groups condemn Pakistan TV host suspension - BBC Pakistani journalist Mir ‘taken off air’ after military outburst - Al Jazeera @grok Please verify my content.

Quote "The army has effectively shut down any semblance of independent journalism in that country. (That Imran Khan tried to do the same thing when he was in power is a separate story.)" Unquote My clarification on this point: 1- Just as a hybrid system is in place in Pakistan today, Imran Khan’s government was also brought in under the same hybrid system — because the military has long held control over both the election process and the judiciary. 2- Imran Khan entered politics for two main reasons: accountability and justice. He openly stated that General Bajwa and the army were using corruption cases purely for political purposes. Therefore, among the many failures during his government under this hybrid system, several shortcomings were not due to Imran Khan himself, but rather the military establishment. 3- Just as the PECA laws have been enforced today, an attempt was made to enforce them during Imran Khan’s tenure as well. However, PTI strongly resisted and prevented their full implementation. This proves that PECA was originally a military-proposed law. 4- Regarding the forced abductions, restrictions, and dismissals of journalists during Imran Khan’s time: Journalist Matiullah Jan was abducted and Hamid Mir was taken off air. These were two very high-profile cases. Both journalists later publicly stated that Imran Khan was not involved in either incident. These same journalists can testify to this again even today. In short: The original statement is based on ignorance. At first glance it may sound plausible, but it does not match Pakistan’s ground realities, nor does it respect the proper context. Keep in mind that while international media reports according to its own biases and limitations, the kind of concrete evidence that Drop Site has now placed before the world often takes years to emerge — by which time most people have already forgotten the history.

Crude oil prices are highly volatile today due to conflicting forces: escalating geopolitical rhetoric from the U.S. and an infrastructure attack pushed prices up overnight, while hopes of a sanctions waiver and progress toward an eventual cease-fire deal subsequently pulled prices down.

@business Several Indian newspapers (e.g., The Hindu, Times of India, India TV, Outlook India) reported in mid-April 2026 on a Pakistani military contingent of around 13,000 troops plus 10–18 fighter jets arriving in Saudi Arabia. Why it took so long for Reuters to publish this story?

Pakistan has deployed around 8,000 troops, fighter jets and an air defense system to Saudi Arabia under a mutual defense agreement, Reuters reported. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…