Featured Post


« Le comble du savoir-faire ne consiste pas à remporter toutes les batailles, mais à soumettre l’armée ennemie sans livrer bataille » (Sun...

Friday, March 12, 2010

War on Pakistan: Game Theory Warfare

By Jeff Gates,

The destabilization of Pakistan began with the December 2007 murder of Benazir Bhutto after Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazi biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that her return was “the only possible way we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.” That advice is consistent with how Israel wages game theory warfare. See:

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf signed his own political death warrant when he announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was essential to resolve conflicts in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Should Barack Obama concede the truth of that long-obvious fact, Zionist extremists may well ensure that his presidency is brought to an abrupt end.

In terms of game theory strategy, it came as no surprise to see the prominent media profile given five young American Muslims when they traveled to Pakistan this month while leaving behind a videotape explaining, “Muslims must do something.” That understandable reaction to emerging events helped fuel the plausibility of Pakistan as a haven for training what mainstream media in the U.S. promoted as “home-grown terrorists” posing an imminent threat to national security. See:

That game theory-predictable reaction emerged soon after President Obama, in effect, endorsed yet another major expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Meanwhile the Israel Lobby-dominated U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly (344 to 36) to condemn the Goldstone Report documenting dozens of Israeli war crimes against Muslims in Gaza.

The report by Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African Jewish jurist, also included evidence of ongoing crimes against humanity. Meanwhile our president remained silent, our U.N. Ambassador supported Israeli efforts to quash the report and our Secretary of State hurled insults at Islamabad.

War crimes and crimes against humanity are key components of the agent provocateur strategy required to ensure the extremism from which this enclave of Jewish extremists claims a need for protection. By providing that protection—with no mention of decades of serial provocations—the U.S. appears guilty by its association with Israel’s notoriously aggressive behavior.

The Way Forward

Pakistanis must acknowledge the obvious: we Americans have lost control over our government. Barack Obama is only the latest U.S. president to enable an agent provocateur strategy that allows Zionists to wage war in plain sight and, to date, with legal and political impunity.

Meanwhile the aggressor continues to portray itself as the perennial victim in need of ever more military assistance. After six decades of nonstop duplicity, our entangled alliance with Jewish religious fanatics has transformed the U.S. into the world’s greatest threat to peace due to our “special relationship” with a brutal enclave of game theory war-planners.

The Ashkenazi dominance of U.S. media ensures that the common source of this geopolitical manipulation remains unknown to Americans though it is widely understood abroad. We need help—from outside the U.S.—to grasp a disturbing fact: the same Zionist operatives who deceived us to invade Iraq for Greater Israel also induced us to pile on debt and debase our currency while profiting on our foreseeable decline.

Americans do not yet grasp that the real risk to national security is an enemy within. The greatest threat to this transnational criminal syndicate is two-fold: transparency and stability. Their continued success relies on sustained chaos, serial mass murders and well-timed crises.

Transparency may emerge from the ongoing Iraq Inquiry in the U.K. Testimony taken by that high profile panel heightens the risk that Israel, not Islam, will be exposed as the global center of terrorism. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair could face war crime charges for his complicity in using false pretenses to order British forces to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Stability also poses a risk. With stability, Americans may realize that the phony intelligence deployed to induce our invasion of Iraq came from a common source with a common motivation. Americans know that something fundamental is amiss.

Ordinary Americans are hurting. A long-deceived U.S. public is looking for answers to how their nation was reduced to such a perilous condition—financially, militarily and diplomatically. How were we transformed from prosperous leaders of the post-WWII era into a global pariah flirting with insecurity and instability while teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?

With access to the real facts, Americans will realize that the real enemy is lodged deep inside our government. And deep inside our own manipulated beliefs about who is friend and who is foe. The true enemy is not the high-profile “assets” (the Clintons, G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, et.al.) but those low-profile operatives who produced their political careers and positioned them for high office as pliable and reliable policy makers.

The stunning subterfuge by which the “Coalition of the Willing” was induced to wage a war for Greater Israel may first work its way to clarity in the U.K. Tony Blair has already conceded that, absent the success of the phony intelligence on WMD, he “would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat.”

With 1.3 million Iraqis dead from war-related causes, a war crimes tribunal must be part of the remedy so that never again is duplicity allowed to operate on such a scale. In game theory terms, the cost of complicity in such conduct must be explicit, severe and foreseeable.

Expect Another Crisis

The risk of exposure, in turn, increases the strategic necessity for yet another well-timed crisis, with Pakistan a vulnerable target for the next regime change. When Americans gain access to the unvarnished facts, we will insist on regime change here. That process will accelerate as voters grasp that this corruption lies deeply imbedded inside both major U.S. political parties as proven by Barack Obama’s rapid ascendancy to the presidency.

At present, ordinary Americans simply do not know the scope of the current criminality. Americans are not stupid; we’re just badly misinformed—and purposefully so. Our system of informed choice steadily atrophied as a transnational criminal syndicate steadily gained dominance in mainstream media. The depth of this corruption suggests the potential for a dramatic change in U.S. politics as Americans identify its common source.

The U.S. and Pakistan share a common enemy in those who are adept at displacing facts with what a targeted population can be deceived to believe. To prevail in this sophisticated form of Information Age warfare, we must fight as allies to rid our nations from the influence of those who would have us hate each other in order to advance their extremist agenda.

As Americans and Pakistanis learn how modern-day warfare is waged in plain sight—by way of deception—they will see for themselves the source of this treachery. With that knowledge will come the resolve required to prevail. See:

Beliefs: The Power Behind Unending War

Next in the series: The Israel/India Alliance

In April 2009, Tel Aviv signed a $1.1 billion agreement to provide New Delhi an advanced tactical air defense system developed by Raytheon, a U.S. defense contractor. That agreement confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had earlier announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….”

In May 2009, Israel delivered to India the first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) shifting the balance of conventional weapons in the region by giving India air dominance over Pakistan.

Israel has overtaken Russia as India’s chief arms supplier as New Delhi announced $50 billion in defense modernization outlays from 2007 to 2012. The fast emerging fact patterns suggest there is far more implied for Pakistan in this “special defense relationship” than meets the eye.

In August 2008, Ashkenazim General David Kezerashvili returned to his native Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Tel Aviv-provided arms and military training provided by Israel Defense Forces. That crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) pledged to resolve the six-decade Israel-Palestine conflict.

Little was reported in mainstream media about the Israeli interest in a pipeline across Georgia meant to move Caspian oil through Turkey and on to Eurasia with Tel Aviv a profit-extracting intermediary undercutting Russia’s oil industry. Nor did mainstream media report on the self-reinforcing nature of serial well-timed crises that emerged in a compressed time frame.

For example, on August 7, 2008, the ruling coalition led by Asif Ali Zarderi called for a no-confidence vote in Parliament on president Pervez Musharraf just as he was scheduled to depart for the Summer Olympics in Beijing. On August 8, heavy fighting erupted overnight in South Ossetia while the heads of state of both Russia and the U.S. were in Beijing.

What other crises were then unfolding? But for pro-Israeli influence inside the U.S. government, would our State Department have backed the corrupt Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, leading to record-level poppy production involving Karzai’s brother? Is the heroin epidemic presently eroding Russian society traceable to Israel’s fabled game theory war-planners who are infamous for disabling their targets from the inside out?

Three months after the crisis in Georgia, a terrorist attack in Mumbai renewed fears of nuclear tension between India and Pakistan. When the Mumbai attackers struck a hostel managed by Chabad Lubavitch, an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from New York, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced from Tel Aviv: “Our world is under attack.”

See: “Israel and 9-11”

By early December, Jewish journalists were arguing that Israel must “fortify the security of Jewish institutions worldwide.” In the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security continued its policy of dispersing U.S. taxpayer funds to protect synagogues and Jewish community centers.

Pre-Staged Plausibility

Soon after “India’s 9-11” was found to include personnel recruited from Pakistan’s western tribal region, President Zardari announced an agreement with Taliban tribal chiefs to allow Sharia law to govern a swath of the North West Frontier Province where Al Qaeda members reportedly reside.

The perception of Pakistani cooperation with “Islamic extremists” created the impression of enhanced insecurity and vulnerability for the U.S. and its allies. That perceived threat was widely reported by mainstream media as proof of the imminent perils of “militant Islam.”

With religious extremists portrayed as operating freely in a nuclear-armed Islamic state, Tel Aviv gained traction for its claim that a nuclear-Islamic Tehran posed an “existential threat” to the Jewish state. Meanwhile Israel’s election of an ultra-nationalist governing coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu further delayed resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

More delay ensured more extremism and gained more media traction for those marketing a perpetual “global war on terrorism” and its thematic counterpart, The Clash of Civilizations. After the assault in Mumbai, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni argued: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.” By its exclusion, Pakistan was implicated as harboring terrorists.

Few Americans understand that Pakistan is dominantly Sunni and, unlike Iran’s Shi’a, abhors theocratic rule and the religious extremism common to Al Qaeda as well as the assorted strains of fundamentalism found among the Taliban. Game theory war planning suggests that Pakistan, not India, was the target of India’s 9-11. As with our 9-11, the strategic objective was not the event itself but the anticipated reaction—and the reactions to that reaction.

Advised by legions of Ashkenazim, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s October 2009 mission to Pakistan was a diplomatic disaster. Right on cue, a terrorist attack in Peshwar killed dozens just as she arrived in Islamabad. Abrasive, arrogant and aloof, our top diplomat reinforced Pakistani concerns that their nation is surrounded by hostile forces.

Clinton’s behavior fueled fears that the government of Pakistan is being set up for portrayal as a “failed state” by ultra-nationalist Jewish advisers to a nation—the U.S.—it has long considered a friend. When Barack Obama hosted the prime minister of India for his first state dinner, the anxiety level in Pakistan was heightened—particularly among those familiar with the dominance of Ashkenazi advisers in the Obama White House.

Societal Conflict—By Consensus

Meanwhile, India’s oligarchs continued to amass wealth and influence at a record pace as the caste system maintained its stranglehold on Hindu society. By 2007, India’s 40 billionaires had amassed a combined wealth of $351 billion, up from a combined wealth of $170 billion just since 2006. Though New Delhi cites the success of its high-tech sector and its “Bollywood” film industry as signs of a burgeoning middle class, the reality is far from reassuring.

As in Russia where the wealth from privatization migrated to a small cadre of dominantly Ashkenazi oligarchs, a similar oligarch-ization is ongoing in India. While maintaining a vast underclass of “untouchables” mired in grinding poverty, India’s policy making elite gravitated to an economic model that traces its U.S. roots to the University of Chicago where Barack Obama taught for 11 years while he was being groomed for political office.

The “Chicago Model” advances in plain sight behind an implied assumption that financial freedom is an appropriate proxy for personal freedom. Despite facts confirming that wealth and income are concentrating at record rates worldwide, this “consensus” model insists that nations vest their faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets.

As that finance-fixated mindset morphed into the “Washington” consensus, the U.S.-dominated international financial institutions imbedded this narrow worldview in law worldwide. As with ordinary Russians, ordinary Indians see their rising prosperity dominated by an caste oligarchy that steadily amasses outsized wealth along with disproportionate political influence.

As wealth concentrates, democracies become unworkable; as income concentrates, markets become unsustainable. Those profiled in Guilt By Association and the forthcoming Criminal State series are skilled in displacing facts with what targeted populations can be deceived to believe. Today’s money-myopic “consensus” traces its roots to a subculture within a subculture within a subculture whose belief in the unbridled pursuit of money preempts all other values.

The India-Israel alliance has inflicted on the economy of India the same paradigm that is systematically disabling the U.S. economy—from the inside out—while creating record gaps in wealth and income. Pakistan has an opportunity to resist the embrace of this flawed model and, by so doing, inspire other nations—including the U.S.—to devise a sensible path forward.

Next in the series: When Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?

To assassinate an American president with impunity requires pre-staging. For Israel to succeed would require an Evil Doer on whom the deed could plausibly be blamed. The emerging fact patterns suggest that such pre-staging is well underway and that a Pakistani could be the perceived culprit. The recent history of Evil Doer branding offers insight into what to expect.

Over the course of several years, Saddam Hussein, a brutal tyrant, morphed from a loyal and valued U.S. ally to the leader of a state portrayed as a member of the Axis of Evil ready and able to deploy weapons of mass destruction on a moment’s notice. Though that depiction was a lie; a plausible lie sufficed in the creation of a credible Evil Doer to help justify the invasion of Iraq.

Similarly, the Taliban in all its many forms have long been religious fundamentalists with an intolerant streak exceeded only by their ferocity in defense of their severe version of Islam. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, they were celebrated as the fierce Mujahideen and heralded as heroic freedom fighters by President Ronald Reagan.

In the run-up to the provocation of 9-11, that positive “branding” abruptly changed when, six months prior to that mass murder, Afghanistan’s ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan were destroyed. When the Taliban took responsibility, they were rebranded worldwide as certifiably evil for what mainstream media portrayed as a “cultural holocaust.” When staging such power-of-association operations, timing is everything. By 9-11, the Taliban were seen as world-class Evil Doers.

A similar pre-staging is underway in the U.S as manipulated impressions become the mental building blocks to create a plausible culprit from an Islamic nation. Keep in mind that repeated reports of Iraqi WMD created a generally accepted “consensus” truth—regardless of the facts.

In a similar fashion, oft-repeated reports of the threat of Iranian WMD have steadily created the impression of a nuclear weapons capability with no basis in fact. But facts are not the point when pre-staging an Evil Doer. The point is what a targeted population can be induced to believe.

Five Muslim students in the U.S. traveled to Pakistan in mid-December, setting off a flurry of reports about the threat of “homegrown terrorism.” Every report mentioned the recent shootings at Fort Hood, Texas by a Muslim psychiatrist. A series of other incidents helped enhance the plausibility of a violent event traceable to the requisite Islamic Evil Doer.

The Justice Department announced this month that the trial of a 9-11 suspect will be held in Manhattan, with a second trial in nearby Brooklyn. In explaining the projected $150 million cost, local officials likened the extensive security to what is required for a New Year’s Eve celebration—only lasting for months. These trials are akin to a high profile publicity campaign certain to keep Americans on edge while enhancing the plausibility of “Islamic” violence.

Insecurity, Plausibility & Accessibility

Yet how could an assassin reach the most closely guarded president of modern times? The plausibility of a security breach has already been pre-staged. At the first state dinner by Obama, two aspiring contestants for a reality television show foiled White House security to come within handshake distance of the president. Though no one has yet conceded how that could have happened, both the president and the First Lady have an Ashkenazi chief of staff.

Bodyguards were protecting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when in November 1995 a Likud Party member shot him at close range. Assassin Yigal Amir invoked a concept from ultra-orthodox Judaism to justify his murder of Rabin as a threat to Jews living in the settlements. Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu led a series of rallies that Rabin described as provoking violence. Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister in June 1996 and immediately sought to inhibit implementation of the Oslo land-for-peace process agreed to by Rabin.

That same year, Richard Perle led a Jewish-American team to prepare for Netanyahu a new policy titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). Then a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, Perle became its chairman in 2001. The central theme of A Clean Break: Israel should halt the return of Palestinian land and instead pursue an aggressive strategy that included as a priority the removal of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Should pro-Israeli extremists detect an inclination by Barack Obama to endorse a return of Palestinian land to the Palestinians, the likelihood of his assassination will greatly increase. For his death to appear plausibly due to an Islamic source requires pre-staging akin to what is now ongoing. To displace facts with what the public can be induced to believe requires a period of mental preparation in order to make misdirection believable.

In July 2006, for instance, authors Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi published Minutemen claiming that Hezbollah terrorists are sneaking across the Mexican border and plotting another 9-11. Minutemen was launched at Ground Zero, the site of the 9-11 attack, 14 days after Israel invaded Lebanon—in pursuit of Hezbollah. Had the U.S. suffered another attack, Iran-backed Hezbollah would have been the perceived culprit, providing a plausible rationale attack Iran.

Corsi remains a prolific source of prepare-the-minds publications, including Atomic Iran released in early 2005 and calling for either the U.S. or Israel to preemptively bomb the “mad mullahs of Iran.” His latest release is The Obama Nation. With a first print run of 475,000, his attack on the presidential contender immediately topped The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list. Should Obama be murdered, Corsi’s book will provide an incremental component of plausibility that the assassin was opposed not to his changed policies on Israel but to his “socialism.”

An Agenda in Need of a Crisis

Other recent incidents enhance the plausibility that an assassin could enter the U.S. from abroad. Homeland Security conceded this month that a sensitive transportation security screening manual was posted on the Internet. The ordering of more troops to Afghanistan enhances the plausibility that extremists will be driven across the border into Pakistan, only to travel from there to the U.S.

Obama’s Nobel Prize associated him with peace laureate Martin Luther King Jr. Were Obama also to die at the hands of an assassin, his “brand” has now been sufficiently enhanced that he would become an iconic figure. If Zionist extremists fail to provoke a crisis in the Middle East or South Asia, the murder of America’s first Black president would suffice as an attention-diverting crisis—particularly if those who produced his candidacy use his death to catalyze hatred between whites and blacks in the same way that they now market hatred for Muslims.

So long as Barack Obama continues to serve Israeli interests, he will continue to live a charmed life. Should he hint that justice—say for the Palestinians—is a worthy goal, the pre-staging is in place to eliminate that threat. Likewise should he seek to shut down the ongoing oligarch-ization of America and the steady piling on of disabling debt.

Should his death provoke race riots, the Department of Homeland Security is prepared to protect the agent provocateurs—under the guise of defending the perpetrators from anti-Semitism.

Would Israel assassinate a U.S. president? What kind of world would we now inhabit if Senator William Fulbright and Attorney General Robert Kennedy had succeeded in 1962 in forcing the Israel Lobby to register as a foreign agent? How would the world be different if John F. Kennedy had succeeded in 1963 in forcing international inspections of Israel’s nuclear facility?

When Robert Kennedy announced for the presidency in 1968, Tel Aviv did not know if he would revive JFK’s campaign to prevent Israel from igniting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Nor did anyone know if he and Fulbright would again seek transparency for Israeli operations disguised as domestic lobbying.

When RFK was murdered in June 1968, the gunman was Palestinian. That lesson should not be lost on Pakistan. In dealing with Washington, Islamabad should also recall Senator Fulbright’s candid assessment in 1973: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” He was gone by 1974, thirty-five influence-imbedding years ago.

See: At What Cost the Israel Lobby?


No comments: