شبكة الإستخبارات الإسلامية

"They plot and plan but ALLAH also plans and ALLAH is the best of Planners." Qur’an VIII – 30

‘’ويمكرون ويمكر الله والله خير الماكرين ‘’: قال الله عزَّ وجل

سورة الأنفال

رضيت بالله ربا و بالإسلام دينا و بمحمد صلى الله عليه و سلم نبيا رسولا لا إلـه إلا اللـه ... محمد رسـول اللـه

This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.

Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts

Sunday, August 01, 2010

The Real Reasons Why the US and India Demonize Pakistan's ISI

By Shahid R. Siddiqi.
Axis of Logic
Saturday, Jul 31, 2010


Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency, or ISI as it is popularly known, is seen as their nemesis by those who have tried to undermine the security interests of the country one way or the other. It is no wonder then that in past few years the Americans unleashed a strong ISI-bashing campaign, with India following suit.
 
The Americans made no bones about their dislike for this agency, blaming it for working against their interests in Afghanistan. The Indians also see an ISI agent behind every rock in Kashmir and in Afghanistan where they are trying to dig their heels. They do not hesitate to pin on ISI the blame for the freedom struggle in Kashmir or for acts of terrorism by Indian extremists. Until recently the Karzai government dominated by the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance also remained hostile to ISI.  
 
Share:

Friday, March 12, 2010

War on Pakistan: Game Theory Warfare


By Jeff Gates,
www.criminalstates.com

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?


http://criminalstate.com/2010/01/will-israel-assassinate-barack-obama/

Share:

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Destabilizing Pakistan – Operation Breakfast Redux

Operation enduring turmoil

Click on image to see larger version


By Tom Engelhardt and Pratap Chatterje

Almost every day, reports come back from the CIA’s “secret” battlefield in the Pakistani tribal borderlands. Unmanned aerial vehicles – that is, pilotless drones – shoot missiles (18 of them in a single attack on a tiny village last week) or drop bombs and then the news comes in: a certain number of al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders or suspected Arab or Uzbek or Afghan “militants” have died. The numbers are often remarkably precise. Sometimes they are attributed to U.S. sources, sometimes to the Pakistanis; sometimes, it’s hard to tell where the information comes from. In the Pakistani press, on the other hand, the numbers that come back are usually of civilian dead. They, too, tend to be precise.

Don’t let that precision fool you. Here’s the reality: There are no reporters on the ground and none of these figures can be taken as accurate. Let’s just consider the CIA side of things. Any information that comes from American sources (i.e., the CIA) has to be looked at with great wariness. As a start, the CIA’s history is one of deception. There’s no reason to take anything its sources say at face value. They will report just what they think it’s in their interest to report – and the ongoing “success” of their drone strikes is distinctly in their interest.

Then, there’s history. In the present drone wars, as in the CIA’s bloody Phoenix Program in the Vietnam era, the Agency’s operatives, working in distinctly alien terrain, must rely on local sources (or possibly official Pakistani ones) for targeting intelligence. In Vietnam in the 1960s, the Agency’s Phoenix Program – reportedly responsible for the assassination of 20,000 Vietnamese – became, according to historian Marilyn Young, “an extortionist’s paradise, with payoffs as available for denunciation as for protection.” Once again, the CIA is reportedly passing out bags of money and anyone on the ground with a grudge, or the desire to eliminate an enemy, or simply the desire to make some of that money can undoubtedly feed information into the system, watch the drones do their damnedest, and then report back that more “terrorists” are dead. Just assume that at least some of those “militants” dying in Pakistan, and possibly many of them, aren’t who the CIA hopes they are.

Think of it as a foolproof situation, with an emphasis on the “fool.” And then keep in mind that, in December, the CIA’s local brain trust, undoubtedly the same people who were leaking precise news of “successes” in Pakistan, mistook a jihadist double agent from Jordan for an agent of theirs, gathered at an Agency base in Khost, Afghanistan, and let him wipe them out with a suicide bomb. Seven CIA operatives died, including the base chief. This should give us a grim clue as to the accuracy of the CIA’s insights into what’s happening on the ground in Pakistan, or into the real effects of their 24/7 robotic assassination program.

But there’s a deeper, more dangerous level of deception in Washington’s widening war in the region: self-deception. The CIA drone program, which the Agency’s Director Leon Panetta has called “the only game in town” when it comes to dismantling al-Qaeda, is just symptomatic of such self-deception. While the CIA and the U.S. military have been expending enormous effort studying the Afghan and Pakistani situations and consulting experts, and while the White House has conducted an extensive series of seminars-cum-policy-debates on both countries, you can count on one thing: none of them have spent significant time studying or thinking about us.

As a result, the seeming cleanliness and effectiveness of the drone-war solution undoubtedly only reinforces a sense in Washington that the world’s last great military power can still control this war – that it can organize, order, prod, wheedle, and bribe both the Afghans and Pakistanis into doing what’s best, and if that doesn’t work, simply continue raining down the missiles and bombs. Beware Washington’s deep-seated belief that it controls events; that it is, however precariously, in the saddle; that, as Afghan War commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal recently put it, there is a “corner” to “turn” out there, even if we haven’t quite turned it yet.

In fact, Washington is not in the saddle and that corner, if there, if turned, will have its own unpleasant surprises. Washington is, in this sense, as oblivious as those CIA operatives were as they waited for “their” Jordanian agent to give them supposedly vital information on the al-Qaeda leadership in the Pakistani tribal areas. Like their drones, the Americans in charge of this war are desperately far from the ground, and they don’t even seem to know it. It’s this that makes the analogy drawn by TomDispatch regular and author of Halliburton’s Army Pratap Chatterjee so unnerving. It’s time for Washington to examine not what we know about them, but what we don’t know about ourselves. Tom

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/
Share:

Monday, January 25, 2010

What Robert Gates Didn’t Say – And The US Media Hides – About Blackwater In Pakistan

War criminals Netanyahu and his slave Robert Gates


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—US Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted during an interview with a Pakistani TV station that Blackwater now ‘Xe International’ and DynCorp are operating in Pakistan. Immediately after the statement, Pentagon tried to put a spin on his words.

But US meddling inside Pakistan –by posting private US defense contractors under diplomatic cover of the US embassy – is a reality for most Pakistanis. Some of these Americans have been caught disguised as Taliban right in the heart of Islamabad. Some Pakistanis were manhandled by some of these American militiamen on the streets of at least two Pakistani cities in recent months.

Since Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan despite all the US direct and indirect misinformation, these US covert operators were arrested on several occasions.

The mainstream US media continues to keep the good American people and the world opinion in the dark about this. But this is probably one of the biggest untold stories in America’s war on terror. This is about the United States trying to put boots on the ground inside Pakistan through the help of a pro-US government in Islamabad that shares or at least key figures in it the US objective of containing and limiting the ability of Pakistan’s military to influence the country’s foreign policy. This is about Pakistan wanting to keep an independent foreign policy versus Pakistan blindly serving US policy on Afghanistan, India and China.

Mr. Gates tried to put a gloss on this US covert meddling when he said, ‘Well, they’re Blackwater and DynCorp operating as individual companies here in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.’

Not true. The truth is that the issue is so serious that, according to Pakistani investigators, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson is a suspect in a case of bribes amounting to little over US $ 270,000 paid by DynCorp in 2009 to senior officials at the federal Interior Ministry in Pakistan. The money went in exchange for allowing illegal weapons into Pakistan to be used by private US defense contractors without informing the country’s security departments and intelligence agencies. Ms. Patterson personally lobbied Pakistani officials for this concession to DynCorp. She even wrote a letter to Pakistani officials, followed by a letter by her Deputy Head of Mission Mr. Gerald Feierstein, asking Pakistani Interior Ministry officials to issue permits for weapons to be used by DynCorp in the ‘entire territory of Pakistan.’ The US ambassador is directly linked to the probe, which has resulted in the arrest of a key aide to Pakistan’s Minister of State for the Interior. But the government of President Zardari will not dare allow Pakistani investigators to pursue the US Ambassador’s role in the scandal. A key question in the probe is how the US Embassy and DynCorp allowed the cargo of illegal weapons into Pakistan. According to one lead, a huge cache of weapons reached a Pakistani tribal leader on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, who in turn wrote to the Interior Ministry announcing he was ‘gifting’ the weapons to a Pakistani subcontractor of DynCorp.

Incidents like this and others raised alarm bells inside Pakistani security departments and the intelligence community. In effect, key figures in President Zardari’s government were found to have given approval for the entry of a large number of US citizens into Pakistan for ‘official US government business’ without explaining what that is. When Pakistani authorities tried to get to the bottom of how private US defense contractors ended up inside Pakistan in large numbers and what they were exactly doing here, US officials and media launched what appears to be a media trial of Pakistan, accusing the country of ‘harassing’ US diplomats and denying visas to them because of alleged anti-Americanism.

The unwillingness of the Zardari government to confront Washington and Pakistan’s generally weak media outreach skills allowed Washington to paint this as a case of anti-Americanism fueled by war on terror.

‘Conspiracy theories’ is another label that US officials and media have increasingly used recently as a cover to hide serious violations of diplomatic norms and sovereignty involving undercover private US operatives inside Pakistan.

This is how the Wall Street Journal tried to delegitimize serious Pakistani concerns raised during Mr. Gates’ visit in a report filed from Islamabad whose opening line read as follows, “U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is overseeing wars with Sunni militants in Iraq and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. In Pakistan, he’s facing a different foe: the pervasive conspiracy theories that fuel widespread anti-American feelings here.”

The truth is that there are no conspiracy theories but real events, reported and documented, that raise questions over US political, diplomtic, and covert meddling inside Pakistan. Here is a list:

1. NUCLEAR ESPIONAGE: In July 2009, four US ‘diplomats’ were arrested inside the maximum security perimeter around Pakistan’s premier nuclear facility at Kahuta. They failed to tell Pakistani investigators what they were doing there and how they managed to slip through the security checkpoints in the area. US Embassy intervened to rescue the four ‘diplomats’ after almost three hours in detention, citing diplomatic immunity. President Zardari’s government refused to let Pakistani security authorities press charges.

2. SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT: On Oct. 6, 2009, Pakistani police arrested two Dutch diplomats roaming the streets of Islamabad without a number plate carrying advanced weapons. Pakistani police were surprised when security personnel from the US Embassy reached the scene to rescue the Dutch. The Americans used their contacts within the Zardari government to get everyone released. Later, Pakistan Foreign Office summoned US and Dutch diplomats for a private meeting over the incident. But the Pakistani government refused to demand a public explanation from US and Dutch diplomats despite recommendations from police and security officials.

3. FACILITATING INDIAN ACTIVITIES: In this high profile case in May 2009, a US diplomat arranged a small meeting between an Indian diplomat and several senior Pakistani federal government officials at a private house. The invited Pakistanis worked in civilian positions, including one with access to Prime Minister’s Office. It appeared that the US diplomat was basically facilitating the Indian to meet senior officials who otherwise would be inaccessible for him. Pakistan Foreign Office took serious exception to the meeting, publicly reprimanded the Pakistani officials who attended the meeting but stopped short of seeking explanation from the US embassy. According to Pakistani investigators, for a US diplomat to indulge in facilitating possible espionage linked to an Indian diplomat was a matter of grave concern. It also fit with the US policy of exercising tremendous pressure on the pro-US government in Islamabad to give concessions to India at the expense of Pakistani strategic interests.

4. COVERT US MILITIAS IN THE HEART OF PAKISTAN: In September 2009, undercover US agents were found to have recruited a total of 100 former elite Pakistani military commandos to create rapid-intervention teams for unknown purposes. A hundred more were under training at a secret facility camouflaged as a workshop on the outskirts of the Pakistani capital when it was raided by Pakistani police. It turned out that DynCorp was training the men. US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson brought DynCorp to Pakistan by telling Pakistani officials that the private defense contractor would provide security to embassy buildings. But she never explained why DynCorp was secretly raising private militias on Pakistani soil without informing the Pakistani government or military or the intelligence agencies. Some of those who were under training at the time of the raid said that DynCorp focused on recruiting retired officers who had links and contacts within the Pakistani military and could glean information from their sources. See video and pictures

5. PUSHY US DIPLOMATS: The US Embassy in Islamabad has made it its business to mount pressure on owners of Pakistani newspapers to curtail or expel columnists and commentators critical of US policy. Specially targeted are those who expose how the US Embassy is meddling in Pakistani affairs and expanding the US footprint inside Pakistan. Last year, Ambassador Patterson sent a letter to one of the largest Pakistani media groups accusing a columnist of endangering American lives and succeeded in pushing her out. The US Embassy is also recruiting opinion makers within the Pakistani media, academia and military in order to promote the US agenda even at the cost of Pakistani interests, dismissing critics as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and accusing them of anti-Americanism. A senior Pakistani journalist Syed Talat Hussain exposed US activities in the following words,

“Pro-American lobby in Pakistan is growing in direct proportion to the scaling up of suspicions about the US. The main task of this lobby is to reduce the complexity of the US’s objectives towards Pakistan to romantic levels of trust (…) A motley crew of former diplomats, retired generals, socialites, slick civil society begums, self-styled analysts, businessmen, journalists, and now also lawyers — they are the darlings of the US embassy staff. They are the instruments of positive outreach and public diplomacy that US diplomats are so keen to expand in Pakistan.”


6. HARASSING PAKISTANIS: Private US security contractors, or militiamen, have been involved in at least three incidents registered by the Pakistani police where armed Americans physically assaulted unarmed ordinary Pakistanis in public places. In one case, the nephew of a senior member of President Zardari’s own government was manhandled and locked up in the toilet of a gas station by men described as armed military-looking civilian Americans.

7. RESISTING POLICE CHECKS: In at least five incidents, US ‘diplomats’ disguised as Taliban, complete with beards and Pashto language skills, were stopped at several police checkpoints in Islamabad and Peshawar. In some cases, these American ‘diplomats’ tried to speed through police barriers. In one recent case, this resulted in a brief police chase, where a Pakistani officer dragged the US ‘diplomats’ back to the police picket and forced the Americans to apologize to Pakistani police officers. Again, no charges were pressed because these private US agents carried diplomatic passports.

8. ENGINEERING DOMESTIC POLITICS: As recently as December 2009, US ambassador in Islamabad was found meeting senior Pakistani politicians at private homes of mutual friends in unannounced meetings restricted to 3 to 4 persons. The ambassador asked her guests to publicly support the embattled pro-US President Zardari. US diplomats in Islamabad and officials in Washington have been blatantly interfering in Pakistani politics. In addition to helping form the incumbent coalition government in Islamabad, made up of pro-US parties, US officials have been busy trying to save both Mr. Zardari and his key political adviser and ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani. US officials in Washington have been briefing sympathetic US journalists about this. In one case, columnist Trudy Rubin had this to say while discussing Pakistan in an article published last month:

“Here is the first piece of good news: Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari seems to have weathered a campaign by opponents, including the military, to force him out of office. Zardari has deep flaws, but his ouster would have hampered efforts to fight the jihadis. So would the removal, now averted, of Pakistan’s effective ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, whom the Pakistani military had unfairly blamed for conditions that Congress imposed on aid to Pakistan.”


9. BRIBES AND ILLEGAL WEAPONS: This case is stunning because of the direct involvement of US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson in lobbying for DynCorp. The company ended up bribing Interior Ministry officials to smuggle banned weapons into Pakistan and then went on to raise private militias and hire retired Pakistani military officers to run rapid deployment teams and possibly even spy on the Pakistani military.

10. DEMONIZATION OF PAKISTAN: Since 2007, US officials and US media has systematically demonized Pakistan worldwide, creating false alarm over Pakistan’s strategic arsenal. US officials and media have also pushed to bracket Pakistan along with Iraq and Afghanistan in order to justify a possible military intervention. When Pakistan resisted US meddling recently, the US media again went on rampage, accusing Pakistan of ‘anti-Americanism’ and harassment of US diplomats. Additionally, there has been a marked increase of lectures and studies by US think-tanks inviting unknown separatist individuals and groups to speak and fan ethnic separatism inside Pakistan and theorize on the breakup of the country.

11. ABETTING TERROR INSIDE PAKISTAN: The suspicions about why DynCorp was secretly raising private militias inside the federal Pakistani capital almost turned real when a suspect in the attack on the Pakistani military headquarters in October 2009 was allegedly found to have been recruited by DynCorp. In a second case, another suspected DynCorp recruit was found involved in assassinating a senior Pakistani military officer as he drove to work. In other words, two Pakistani employees of a US defense contractor engaged by the US embassy have been linked to two terrorist attacks on the Pakistani military. Add to this that Pakistan’s military and intelligence are a favorite punching bag for the United States and its allies, like India and Britain, and the picture of what the US is doing in Pakistan becomes even more disturbing.

These points explain how ill-motivated the US complaints about delaying visas and alleged anti-Americanism in Pakistan are. This is what US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Mr. Holbrooke and Mr. Gates are loath to share with the American people and the world public opinion.
© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

International Analyst Network http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/what-robert-gates-didn%E2%80%99t-say-and-the-us-media-hides-about-blackwater-in-pakistan/
Share:

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Pakistan: Who Owns the Next Generation?

In ‘The War Against Terror’ Pakistan stands shoulder to shoulder with the US, cooperating against a common foe. Yet whilst the battle rages outside Pakistan’s borders, a new battle has flared up from within. Those forces that the government sought to counter have found fertile ground in the hinterland that is the North West Frontier Province, and from this the seeds of civil war are now being sown.

Into this landscape comes a new crisis that some would say is even more deadly than any of the above. This crisis is the war being waged for the hearts and minds of Pakistan’s youth. It is commonly said that to judge a people one just needs to look at its next generation as it is from here that the hopes and aspirations of a country lie.

The British, although visibly a spent "Raj" power, still seem to have their finger on the pulse, as a recent British Council survey shows. It pulls no punches when it identifies the next generation of Pakistanis as the last chance for Western democracy to take hold in this region.

The ‘Next Generation Report’ published this week is an interview-based study of the views and opinions of 1500 Pakistanis aged from 18-29 years old. The age range of the report is particularly pertinent as half of Pakistan’s population is aged under 20 years old, with two-thirds still to reach their 30th birthday. The report terms this population bulge as Pakistan’s ‘demographic dividend’ and makes the claim that because of this Pakistan finds itself at a crossroads: harnessing this generation presents a great opportunity while ignoring it will lead to disaster.

One main finding that the majority of newspapers seem to have seized upon is the revelation that three-quarters of respondents identified themselves foremost as Muslims, with just 14% describing themselves primarily as a citizen of Pakistan. Only a third believes that democracy is the best system of governance, with one third supporting sharia law. When asked about which organisations they trust, 60% of those interviewed had faith in the military and around 50% had similar trust in madrassahs. To top this all off, only a mere 15% felt that Pakistan is headed in the right direction.

All this hardly seems surprising taking into account the state of affairs in Pakistan. With a continuous stream of double talking hypocrisy, the US speaks of ‘democratization’ and nation building whilst simultaneously breaching the borders of sovereign states with casual disregard and supporting fraudulent election results. Why then be surprised when this translates into disillusionment with democracy.

Similarly when one has grown up with a resigned acceptance that one’s elected officials will inevitably embezzle public funds and one only remembers those civil servants, police officers and state officials who aren’t corrupt; it is hardly astonishing when this translates into 60% of youth only trusting the military as the only federal organisation that works.

Indeed when one reflects on these and other widespread stories of government corruption, societal disintegration and senseless violence, one wonders why even 15% of the youth feel that Pakistan is ‘headed in the right direction’ – unless they didn’t understand the interviewer correctly or else feel that ‘the right direction’ is to become the most corrupt, dysfunctional nation on Earth.

However this is all just window dressing to cover up what the main ‘worrying’ finding of the report is – that the vast majority of Pakistani youth feel that they are Muslims first and Pakistanis second. Is this not reasonable when one faces the harshness of poverty and a complete lack of social justice with skyrocketing rates of suicide amongst poor farmers and the unemployed, families abandoning or even killing their children because they can’t bear watching them slowly starve to death. It is hardly astonishing that people would embrace a Creator that promises to mete out justice and reward faith with peace for eternity.

What is remarkable to me is that in spite of the crushing poverty, grinding injustice and lack of opportunity which characterize Pakistan, Allah has preserved the faith of the Pakistani youth to give them courage and succor in their moments of despair.

One would feel that this faith is something worth celebrating and preserving but this seems not to be the case and therein lies the nub of the issue. To the average Western foreign policy maker the combination of a Muslim country equipped with nuclear weapons, a majority population with an abiding trust in the military, and a predominantly Muslim identity is abhorrent to say the least.

So what to do to ‘contain’ the Muslim bogeyman slowly reaching maturity in Pakistan? There seems to be a feeling that the way to save Pakistan is a concurrent need for both ‘nation building’ and ‘Imaan destroying’.

One can see it in the choice of presenter that the British Council used to launch its report, namely Fasi Zaka a Pakistani journalist and Director of Media at the British Council in Pakistan. Zaka writes and hosts ‘The Fasi Zaka Show’ which is the most popular radio shows in Pakistan especially with 16 to 25 year olds. Zaka has stringently avoided any outward confrontation with Islam but when one hears his show it is imbued with innuendo and sly humour with Islam and Muslims being the butt of the joke more often than not.

Whilst Zaka slithers out of any direct quarrel with Islam, the same cannot be said of another hit Pakistani media personality Ali Saleem.


Ali Saleem is the first openly homosexual TV host in Pakistan’s history. His show was first aired in 2005 and features Saleem dressed as a woman interviewing celebrities with his dialogue peppered with smutty one liners and double entendre. The result is a hit show that government officials, celebrities and other famous people fight to get on to.

What’s the problem with that you may ask? A slightly risqué TV show is nothing to be perturbed by. Leaving aside any discussion of why one should definitely be perturbed by a coquettish cross dressing bisexual hosting a prime time TV show in a country built by the blood sacrifice of millions of Muslims, I would point out that once boundaries are pushed, it is inevitable that they will be pushed again...and again.

Read what Saleem says about his relaunched show that will screen from this autumn:

'What's happening in Pakistan is that society is becoming more polarised," he says. "There's one set of people inclined towards a hardline vision and another reacting to this madness by having raves on the beach and popping pills. I want to help people develop tolerance. We have revamped the entire show and it is now going to be more thematic and address issues of sexuality, Pakistani hunks, legalising alcohol and having pubs and bars.'

This push for a more decadent Pakistan is eerily analogous to the RAND corporation’s 2008 report titled ‘Civil Democratic Islam’ by Cheryl Benard. ‘Civil Democratic Islam’ should be compulsory reading for every Muslim (please reread this excellent Jumah Pulse by Husain Al-Qadi about the RAND corporation’s manifesto for Muslim Women.) As for its ideas about Muslim youth, the RAND document speaks specifically of the modernisation of Islam especially by harnessing the youth and has as one of its recommendations to,-

‘Position secularism and modernisation as a counterculture option for disaffected Islamic youth’

And this gem which seems particularly pertinent to Fasi Zaka,-


‘Use popular regional media, such as radio, to introduce the thoughts and practices of modernist Muslims to broaden the international view of what Islam means and can mean.’

There appears that in Pakistan there is a battle going on. Not the obvious one involving truck bombs, the army and terrified civilians but rather an insidious battle for the very heart of the youth.

When one reads the opinions of the abhorrent Ali Saleem as well as reports of the corrupt antics of government officials one can’t help but recall the image of millions of Muslims in pre-Partition India, attending demonstrations chanting: ‘Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha illallah’ (What is the meaning of Pakistan? There is none worthy of worship but Allah).

How disappointed they would be at this current state of affairs.


http://www.ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=529:pakistan-who-owns-the-next-generation&catid=22:jumahpulses&Itemid=130
Share:

Thursday, November 19, 2009

ARE BLACKWATER MERCENARIES RESPONSIBLE FOR FALSE FLAG BOMBINGS IN ORDER TO UNLEASH CIVIL WAR IN PAKISTAN?

ISLAMIC RESISTANCE CONFIRMS THAT ISRAELIS, BRITISH, AMERICAN, INDIAN, ISI AND BLACKWATER, XE ARE BEHIND TERRORISM in Afghanistan and Pakistan, targeting only innocents to unleash civil wars



Yesterday I wrote of media reports saying that the Obama administration had written to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, ‘saying he expects the Pakistani leader to rally political and national security institutions in a united campaign against extremists’. It now seems that Blackwater, the US mercenary company, may well have been responsible for a series of bombings aimed specifically at civilians in an effort to alienate the Pakistani people from the Taliban.


In a recent video, Taliban spokesman, Azam Tariq, denied that the Taliban were responsible for a suicide bombing at the International Islamic University in Islamabad on 20 October 2009, and the massive car-bombing that indiscriminately killed scores of civilians at a market in Peshawar, a bombing that coincided with a visit by Hillary Clinton to Pakistan, on 28 October 2009.
What gives Tariq’s statement credibility is the fact that, first, the Taliban, as can be seen in the video, are quite happy to claim responsibility for those bombings that were against police and security facilities which they see as legitimate targets. Second, it would not at all be in the Taliban’s interest to indiscriminately murder the very people, particularly in Peshawar where most of the people are Pashtun, that offer the Taliban most support and from whom the Taliban draw new recruits.Tariq claims that Blackwater mercenaries working in conjunction with Pakistani security, the ISI, are responsible for the bombings.
According to a report in the Pakistani online newspaper ‘The Nation’, some 202 Blackwater mercenaries arrived in Pakistan on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 on a flight out of Heathrow, London, though the report did not mention the purpose of their being in Pakistan saying only that authorities at Islamabad airport had allowed the men into Pakistan without any of the normal checks for visas, etc. The same report also noted that ex-Army Chief of Staff, Mirza Aslam Beg, had claimed “that former President Pervez Musharraf had given Blackwater the green signal to carry out its terrorist operations in the cities of Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Quetta”.
Many Blackwater employees are currently accommodated at the Pearl Continental luxury hotel in Peshawar, a building which has been earmarked for purchase by the US government for use as a future US consulate. They are in Peshawar “to provide security for a US-backed aid project in the area”, though what kind of ’aid’ they are providing ‘security’ for has not been specified.As well as bombings, it seems Blackwater operatives have also recently been involved in the targeted killings of several Pakistani military officers; presumably these were officers who had been discovered to have had sympathies or ties with the Taliban.
Looking at the broader picture, one might ask; what would be the purpose of pushing Pakistan toward civil war? The answer is simple: Once having pushed Pakistan to the brink of such a crisis, the situation would be so critical that it would provide an ideal opportunity for the US to step in to support a pro-US government in Pakistan and also to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
I would also provide the opportunity for the US to overtly fight the Taliban on Pakistani soil.Obviously, the US military are unable to undertake any of these tasks – yet, but Blackwater mercenaries, already in Pakistan providing security to a ‘US-backed aid project’, are already in a position to ruthlessly and covertly exploit an already potentially lethal political situation between the Pakistan government and the Taliban.A very senior Australian defence public servant who I spoke to about the situation between the Taliban and Pakistan told me that ‘in a year or so Pakistan will be Australia’s, and the West’s, biggest headache but that there were plans to deal with it’.That was in October of last year.
Share:

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

What is Israel's Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?

When waging war “by way of deception,” the motto of the Israeli Mossad, well-timed crises play a critical agenda-setting role by displacing facts with what a target population can be deceived to believe. Thus the force-multiplier effect when staged crises are reinforced with pre-staged intelligence. In combination, the two often prove persuasive.

That duplicity was on display when U.S. lawmakers were induced to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 9-11. That crisis alone, however, was insufficient. Military mobilization required a “consensus” belief in Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons, Iraqi meetings in Prague, and so forth. Though all were false, those “facts” proved sufficient to induce an invasion of Iraq.
Such agent provocateur operations typically include collateral incidents as pre-staging for the intended main event. Ongoing incidents suggest a follow-on operation is underway. Recent history suggests we’ll see an orgy of evidence that plausibly indicts a pre-staged Evil Doer. Though Iran is an obvious candidate, Pakistan is also a possibility where outside forces have been destabilizing this nuclear Islamic nation with a series of violent incidents.

Will it be coincidence if the next war—like the last—is consistent with the expansive goals of Jewish nationalists?

The Indo-Israel Alliance

December 2007 saw the murder of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazim biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that her return was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.”

President Pervez Musharraf had announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was essential to the resolution of conflicts in Iraq and neighboring Afghanistan. That comment made him a target for Tel Aviv.

During Bhutto’s two terms as prime minister, Pakistani support for the Taliban—then celebrated as the freedom-fighting Mujahadin—enabled her to wield influence in Afghanistan while also catalyzing conflicts in Kashmir. By fueling tension with India, she also fueled an Indo-Israel alliance as Tel Aviv provided New Delhi an emergency shipment of artillery shells during a conflict over the Kirpal region of Kashmir.

In January 2009, Israel delivered to India the first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning & Control Systems (AWACS) shifting the balance of conventional weapons in the region. That sale confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had earlier announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….” That became apparent in April when Israel signed a $1.1 billion agreement to provide India an advanced tactical air defense system developed by Raytheon, a U.S. defense contractor.

In August 2008, Ashkenazim General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Israeli arms and training. 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 Israel-Palestine conflict.

Little was said about the Israeli interest in a pipeline across Georgia meant to move Caspian oil through Turkey and on to Eurasia, using Israel as an intermediary while undermining Russia’s oil industry.

More Game Theory Warfare?

Bhutto’s murder ensured a crisis that replaced Musharaff with Asif Ali Zardari, her notoriously corrupt husband. By Washington’s alliance with Zardari, the U.S. could be portrayed as extending its corrupting influence in the region.

On August 7, 2008, the Zadari-led ruling coalition called for a no-confidence vote in Parliament against Musharraf just as he was departing for the Summer Olympics in Beijing. On August 8, heavy fighting erupted overnight in South Ossetia. As with many of the recent incidents in Pakistan, this violent event involved armed separatists.

But for pro-Israeli influence inside the U.S. government, would our State Department have installed in office the corrupt Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, leading to record-level poppy production? Is the heroin epidemic presently eroding Russian society traceable to Israel’s infamous game theory war-planners? [See “How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare” and “Israel and 9-11” .]

In late November 2008, a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India’s financial center, renewed fears of nuclear tension between India and Pakistan. When the 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.” By early December, Israeli journalists urged that we “fortify the security of Jewish institutions worldwide.”

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

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

With the Taliban and Al Qaeda portrayed as operating freely in a nuclear-armed Islamic state, Tel Aviv gained traction for its claim that a nuclear Tehran posed an “existential threat” to the Jewish state. Meanwhile Israel’s election of an ultra-nationalist/ultra-orthodox coalition further delayed resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

More delay is destined to evoke more extremism and gain more traction for those marketing the “global war on terrorism.” Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni argued after the assault in Mumbai: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.”
In announcing that list, Islamabad was indicted by its exclusion even though Pakistan is dominantly Sunni and, unlike Iran’s Shi’a , abhors theocratic rule. The fact patterns suggest that Pakistan, not India, was the target of the murderous terrorism in Mumbai.

Advised by legions of Ashkenazim, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent mission to Islamabad was a diplomatic disaster. Abrasive and arrogant, America’s top diplomat reinforced Pakistani concerns that it is surrounded by hostile forces and that the nation is being set up to fail by Jewish nationalist advisers to a nation it considered an ally.

In a climate of heightened tensions, Clinton undermined U.S. interests, boosted the Israeli case for a global war on “Islamo-fascism” and lent credence to the Clash of Civilizations.

Destabilization as a Prequel to Domination

As Afghanistan and Pakistan join other nations being destabilized by outside forces, key questions must be answered:

Was India’s 9-11 a form of geopolitical misdirection meant to serve both the tactical goals of Muslim extremists and the strategic goals of Jewish nationalists? Who benefits—within Pakistan—from humiliation at the hands of India and the U.S.?
With Bhutto’s murder and Musharraf’s departure, the crisis in Mumbai drew Pakistani forces to the Indian border and away from the western tribal region. Was that the geostrategic goal of these well-timed crises? What role, if any, did Israel play?

Is delay in ending the occupation of Palestine part of an agent provocateur strategy? Was the latest assault on Gaza part of this strategy?

Each of these crises incrementally advanced the expansionist agenda of Colonial Zionists. Do these collateral incidents trace their origin to a common source?

Is that source again using serial events to pre-stage a main event?

The public has an intuitive grasp of the source of this oft-recurring behavior. An October 2003 poll of 7,500 respondents in member nations of the European Union found that Israel was considered the greatest threat to world peace.

Is terrorism limited to “Islamo-fascists”? Are mass murders also deployed—from the shadows—as a strategy of geopolitical manipulation by those who Ashkenazim philosopher Hannah Arendt described as “Jewish fascists”?

Author, educator, attorney, merchant banker and adviser to policy-makers worldwide and U.S. Veteran

Jeff was counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (1980-87) working for Democrat Russell Long, son of Louisiana Governor and U.S. Senator Huey P. Long. Specialist in employee benefits law—pensions, 401(k) plans, stock options, employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), et.al. Tax-qualified employee benefit plans accounted for $17 trillion in assets (April 2007) and more than half the funds in the hands of institutional investors. As of 2007, ESOPs were in place in 11,500 firms nationwide, covering 10% of the U.S. workforce and holding $800 billion in assets.

Law practice w/ former Senators Russell Long, Democrat of Louisiana and Paul Laxalt, Republican of Nevada, chairman of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns.


http://www.opinion-maker.org/navigation.do?mode=showArticles&id=1037
Share:

Blog Archive

Support


Definition List

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Unordered List