Omar Mateen was still killing and holding on to hostages inside the gay nightclub in Orlanda. Outside, the US media, the Republican presidential presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio were screaming full throttle, trying to connect the incident with the Islamic State (IS). Interestingly, nobody even hinted at the once-household name of al Qaeda. There was an all-out effort to implicate the IS, as if al Qaeda were a spent force despite the fact that the US remains an avowed enemy of the terror outfit. Much before the police began dealing with the aftermath of the massacre inside the club and trying to ascertain possible motives of the shooting, leading US media and political personalities had already started linking the shooting, the worst in US history, to the IS. This also underscored how the media plays a central role in shaping narratives, however misplaced. It began with Wolf Blitzer, the veteran host of CNN’s “The Situation Room”. Hardly a minute into his interview with Afghanistan’s former president Hamid Karzai, Blitzer jumped to a brazenly lopsided question: “What do you think would motivate for one to go out and pledge allegiance to IS?” Mr Karzai dealt with the question prudently. The killer was born to Afghan parents and was raised in the US, and if there was any IS influence, we should look at it from the US perspective, said the former president before Blitzer interjected with another blistering question — do you think the killer had IS supporters based in Afghanistan? Karzai blunted the question by saying even the Afghan Taliban are out there fighting the IS. This came across as the most bizarre sequence of questioning by a senior journalist but it made quite evident the superficial, sloppy, one-way — whether advertent or otherwise — characterisation of issues that the US media usually indulges in. Similarly, former Republican presidential candidate Rubio launched a rant too, saying that common sense tells you that the...

The world has limited sympathy for Pakistan. There have been many documented incidents of this indifference across the globe, but perhaps none that was as pronounced as the dichotomy between the Army Public School attack, which claimed the lives of 132 innocent schoolchildren in Peshawar, and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, France, just three weeks later. Both were horrendous, atrocious attacks of stark violence, worthy of the condemnation they received. But there was a marked difference in how the world reacted to Pakistan’s most shocking terrorism incident (and there have been literally thousands), and how the world reacted to the Charlie Hebdo incident. Perhaps the fault is our own. Despite our tall talk of leaving no room for terrorism, or leaving no space for extremist philosophy, or not allowing our soil to be used by miscreants, we have faced international criticism and embarrassment for allowing the same. Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, just over an hour from the capital, by shadow operatives that were able to violate Pakistani airspace, and escape quietly, unscathed. Mullah Omar allegedly died after receiving treatment in hospitals in Karachi for two years. Mullah Mansoor was apparently killed in a drone strike in Balochistan in May. The list goes on. If we were ignorant of their presence in Pakistan, that makes us foolish. If we knew, and aided or abetted, we were criminals. The impetus for any action to change this has to come from our own internal doctrine, which seems as unclear as ever. The American policy in the region is beginning to get look more stern. The F16 sale issue, debates in political circles about making Pakistan’s aid contingent on forcing Islamabad’s hand against the Haqqani Network, making public statements about Mullah Mansoor’s death long before Pakistan had a chance to react – these are all indicative of a hardening, toughening US stance on Pakistan. If we knew, we are guilty; if we didn’t, we are foolish The US...