Its been a while.

The professionals and experts in this area, who have not been appointed for political fealty such as Admiral Blair understand the reality of Iran and its so called nuclear program.

I think Mr. Buchanan whilst I sympathize with your angst about the Jew cranking it up again, as if they had not done enough harm against America and its true interest, we should be quietly pleased that it is six years since the Jew mislead the USA into Iraq, and has not been successful with its full array of antics into tricking America into another war for Israel, since.

Lest we forget after the "euphoria" of 9/11, some circles were talking about attacking several Middle Countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi, Somalia, Sudan.........Only two so far, with Ethiopia playing proxy for the USA in Somalia, and have since gracefully, after two years withdrawn.

So your eloquent, forceful and persuasive arguments, in a small way, is bringing common sense into American global geo-strategy, for had you and the like not argued your position, just think where we might have been.


Return of the War Party

By Patrick J. Buchanan.

“Real men go to Tehran!” brayed the neoconservatives after the success of their propaganda campaign to have America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War victory.

(What does that mean? That the Jewish Neo-cons and their WASP retainers are volunteering for covert combat duty against Iran, along with their much pampered children?

The fruits of the Cold War were enormous and the legacy of the Reagan administration. Probably Bush senior can also take credit, as he was an integral part of that administration. The various wars and war economy since 2001, has distracted America, and most significantly has bankrupted America....taking a begging bowl to China; weakening the American military; reducing the stature of America; reducing the moral standing of America within America..........rapidly becoming a greasy Third World totalitarian state that lies to itself and its people, and the world, in order to build bigger and better lies, whilst maintaining the pretensions and ambitions of empire, NOT so much for America but for little Israel)

Now they are back, in pursuit of what has always been their great goal: an American war on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:

( Mr. Buchanan there is no left right, blue red political paradigm for the Jew. The Jew is a name changing shape shifter. The Jew never left or arrived in January 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009)

On being chosen by Israel’s President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud’s “Bibi” Netanyahu declared, “Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.”

(As I understand it, about 30% of Israelis are of the hardline Likud persuasion, so I do not understand why their politics annually becomes and tilts to the extreme right to the detriment of Israel eventually........where is it all going? Will they attack Gaza again? Will they kill maybe 5,000 next time? What will that achieve for Israel's security? Will they attack Lebanon, and Hezbollah eventually as revenge for 2006? What will that achieve for Israel? Will they attack Iran? What will be the outcome for Israel? Is war with Israel and Iran a self contained affair, or one that spills into the whole of the Middle East, which Israel cannot control?)

Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by the mullahs. “Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say,” said CNN. “Iran has enough uranium to make a bomb,” said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon appeared imminent.

(Jewish media, they control your media Mr. Buchanan, everything)

Asked about Iran’s nukes in his confirmation testimony, CIA Director Leon Panetta blurted, “From all the information I’ve seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

Tuesday, Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a front spawned by the Israeli lobby AIPAC, was given the Iranian portfolio. AIPAC’s top agenda item? A U.S. collision with Iran.


In the neocon Weekly Standard, Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu, urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians on a back burner. Why?

(Jew run rag headed by an ardent Jew)

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies.”

(Lets break that sound bite down into manageable FACTS. Israel birthed Hamas in the 1970's as a counter weight to the PLO. The USA/UK installed and manage the mullahs of Iran......so where is the real threat from?)

The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.

But before we let ourselves be stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.

First, last week’s acknowledgement that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.

To construct a nuclear device, the ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).

There is no evidence Iran has either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz.
And the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain full access to Natanz.

And rather than accelerating production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle. Why?

Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to negotiate with the United States, but without yielding any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear power plants.

For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, none of which signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N. Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do.

Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Bottom line: Neither the United States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear device and has never demonstrated a capacity to weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one.

Why, then, the hype, the hysteria, the clamor for “Action This Day!”? It is to divert America from her true national interests and stampede her into embracing as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.

None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter, defend against or defeat enemies.

But that is no threat to us to justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran that has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American.

Can we Americans say the same?

The Fall of the Mullah's.

Want to get rid of the mullahs safely without killing millions of Iranians, creating regional instability, or the uncertainty, or the loss of lives among Western Servicemen..............Easy!

The Mullahs are corrupt, and their administration is weak, so just collapse the economy, and you will see millions out on the streets protesting against the mullahs and hey presto, the mullahs are gone, over thrown by their own people. You know, its not as if similar things have not been tried before. In 1951---53 the British navy blockaded the Iranians for nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and we had a change of government. In 1978 the British did the same trick, by refusing to sell BPs share of Iranian oil (60% of Iran's oil--exports), which created a financial crisis in Iran, and partly contributed to the "Islamic Revolution" of 1978-79, engineered by the USA/UK.

Another change of government.

But wait the USA/UK engineered the 1978-79 "Islamic Revolution"....why?

Is that why for the last 30 years there have been no serious attempts at over throwing the mullahs by these two countries? These countries must play a double game. On the one hand they don't want the mullah regime to fail/fall, but at the same time these two nations don't want to seem too friendly with Iran, by in the case of America opening diplomatic channels, and having normal relationships with a country which for the last 10 years at least especially since 1997, under Khatami has been desperately trying to normalize relations with America, as recorded, but unreported by the MSM.

But the Iranian mullahs don't understand this; they are after all donkey puppets installed by the USA/UK in 1979.

This is all about the Jews and their fantasy of creating Eretz Israel, which necessitates destroying all major Muslim powers in the Greater Middle East including Iran, Turkey, Egypt and of course Pakistan...........and in the case of Persia fulfilling the fantasy of Purim, another fairy tale of the Jews, which is taken seriously by Jews and can only be fulfilled by a full fledged attack against Iran by preferably the USA, where millions of Iranians must die for the Jewish Purim holocaust against Persians.(repeat, again according to extensive historical studies Esther, Haman, and the whole Purim story does not seem to exist in history, but you have masturbatory Jews locked into a fantasy world where reality blends in with religious fervor and fantasy, with dreams of empire, a Jewish empire from the Nile to the Euphrates, in Iraq.

For Right Wing Jews Purim as a holiday, represents mass killing of civilians....especially Arabs and Persians.

In order to fulfill this long term goal, because you can't just attack a friend out of the blue, someone you have just anointed "Police man of the Gulf", JEWUSA/UK did the following, ostensibly for the Jews:

(1) Toppled the Shah in 1979.
(2) Killed off significant sections of the Iranian elite, especially in the security.
(3) Civil war against the Tudeh left alliance...100,000 killed----further fractured Iranian society, and deprived the mullah of their "intellectual wing."
(4) Conducted a 8 year war against Iraq, with no end in site, 1,000,000 killed in Iran unofficially, including hundreds of thousands of the "sons of Haman".
(5) 30,000 killed in Evin prison in 1988, when it seemed Iraq was gaining the upper hand decisively in the final stages of the Gulf War.
(6) Invasion and take over of American embassy-----52 hostages, 444 days.
(7) Alleged by the West that 100-200 al-Qaeda guests fleeing from Afghanistan in 2001, including senior operatives were in Iran.
(8) Iran is making nuclear weapons and will soon hand them over to Islamic terrorists.
(9) Iran is backing Hamas, Hezbollah and many other terrorist groups.
(10) Iran is backing insurgents in Iraq, against the USA.
(11) Iran is backing insurgents in Afghanistan, against the USA.
(12) Iran is uncivilized, backward and only applies regressive, primitive sharia law------Iranians are backward and primitive, towel heads.
(13) Iran is undiplomatic, and uses negative rhetoric, against the USA, and especially Israel.
(14) Ahmedinejad the Jew is appointed President, and breathes hell and damnation against all, as expected from the puppet state.


What true Persians must do is replace their mullah government with a more balanced one that does not continually pursue anti-Iranian policies. Perhaps somelike Akbar Ganji, who has not been recuited as an agent of JEWUSA/UK, could become president/leader of a free Iran, which allows Iran to follow more rational policies which are good for Iran, and not follow slavishly year in year out covert Israeli policies which inevitably leads to an Israeli attack against on Iran which will have devastating consequences for the country, and the region.

Nobody benefits from this except the Jew, with his Purim fantasies and his masterbation around such things.

In the meantime Iran should prepare for total guerrila warefare, which is defensive, under a decentralise command structure, and self sustaining.

The price of oil internationally should go down to about $18 a barrel, given the global down turn and the slow down of production across the board. If it is $40 a barrel still, this is only becuse of manipulations by speculators in the market based in New York, London and Rotterdam. There are no sound economic reasons, with discoveries of huge reserves in Alaska, Brazil and else where why the price of oil per barrel should remain at the high $40 a barrel.


Yes Sirs, Yes,...... OK yes SSSSSSSir.

The Fox Guarding the Chicken Coop

Dennis Ross and Iran


In October 2008 I presented a paper, entitled “What the Future has in Store for Iran,” at a conference on Middle East Studies. The paper, which was subsequently posted at Payvand.com , examined what the US policy toward Iran might look like if either Barack Obama or John McCain came to office. The conclusion of my essay, stated in its last two lines, was: “In the case of McCain, the war [waged against Iran] might come sooner than later. In Obama’s case, one might see a period of ‘tough’ or ‘aggressive diplomacy’ before hostilities begin.”

My conclusion was based on the argument that the US foreign policy toward the Middle East has become institutionalized and it makes very little difference who is the president. The starting point of the argument was an analysis that appeared in The Jerusalem Post just before the Bush Administration took office, predicting that the US Middle East policy would be made more by the neoconservative forces within the new administration than anyone else. In one essay, on December 8, 2000, The Jerusalem Post wrote that both Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz “are the type of candidates the pro-Israel lobby is pushing.” In another article on January 19, 2001, entitled “All the president’s Middle East men,” The Jerusalem Post expressed how the “Jewish and pro-Israel communities are jumping for joy,” knowing that people like Wolfowitz will be in the new administration. The essay predicted: “What you will have are two institutions grappling for control of policy.” It then added: “It is no secret in Washington–or anywhere else for that matter–that the policies will be determined less by Bush himself and more by his inner circle of advisers.”

The message of the Israeli analysts was clear: the Middle East foreign policy of the US has become institutionalized; and rather than watching the US president, one has to watch the institutions that would make the policy. Given this message, my analysis of what the future has in store for Iran concentrated on a few neoconservative institutions and individuals. In particular, I predicted that if Obama were to be elected, the US policy on Iran would be made mostly by Dennis Ross, the “consultant” to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP or simply Washington Institute), a “think tank” affiliate of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). That prediction has now come true. On February 23, 2009, it became official that Dennis Ross is the “Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Gulf and Southwest Asia.” [1] The title, as will be explained below, is not what Ross had hoped for, but he would still be in a position to influence the US policy toward Iran.

Who is Dennis Ross, what does he advocate, how was he positioned to become the adviser on Iran in the Obama Administration and what will he do to Iran if he gets the chance? Let me briefly review the case.

Dennis Ross is best known as the dishonest broker who led the so-called negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians during the Clinton Administration. He was “Israel’s lawyer,” to use Aaron David Miller’s apt description of the role that Ross’s “negotiating team” played in the Clinton era, particularly in 1999-2000. [2]

Martin Indyk, MOSSAD agent. Some thought that he was MEGA..........or it could be Rahm Immanuel.

Ross, along with Martin Indyk—who was Clinton’s national security advisor and the US Ambassador to Israel—is a cofounder of the Washington Institute. [3] After leaving office in 2000, Ross became the director of the WINEP. Once the 2008 presidential election approached, Ross jockeyed for a position, left his directorship job and became a “Consultant” to the institute.[4] Originally, Ross and Indyk represented one wing of the WINEP, a wing which appeared to be close to the Israeli Labor Party. Another wing, closer to the Likud Party, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, consisted of individuals such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, individuals who played a pivotal role in planning the invasion of Iraq. [5] The difference between the Likud and the Labor wing of the Washington Institute was mostly one of the means employed rather than the end sought. [6] Both wings of the WINEP, similar to Kadima, strove toward a “Greater Israel” (Eretz Yisrael) that includes all or most of “Judea and Samaria.” They both saw Iran’s support for the Palestinian resistance as the biggest obstacle in achieving that goal. As such, the charge that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and posing an “existential threat” to Israel became a convenient tool for “containing” Iran and stopping its support for the Palestinians. [7] What separated the two sides was that the Labor wing believed that sanctions will eventually bring Iran to its knees, cause either a popular uprising to overthrow the Iranian “regime” or make Iran ripe for a US invasion. The Likud wing, however, had very little patience for sanctions. It wanted an immediate result, a series of military attacks against Iran, replacing the Iranian “regime” with a US-Israeli friendly government, as was done in Iraq. With the emergence of the Kadima Party in Israel in 2005, which brought together the likes of the Likud Party member Ariel Sharon and Labor Party member Shimon Peres, the differences between the two wings of the Washington Institute has mostly disappeared. Clinton’s Middle East men, such as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Richard Holbrooke, are hardly distinguishable from Bush’s men, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. But since the latter group is temporarily out of office, the former is filling in. Ross has become the designated senior Israeli lobby man in Obama’s Administration. He has no expertise when it comes to Iran. But he knows that for the cause of Eretz Yisrael Iran must be contained; and given this goal, he knows how to recite, ad nauseum, all the usual lines of Israel and its lobby groups against Iran.

After breaking the back of the Palestinians and pushing for the invasion of Iraq, the Israeli lobby groups concentrated their forces to contain Iran. Given the Iraq fiasco and the neoconservatives falling from grace, the Israeli lobby groups settled on Dennis Ross, “Israel’s lawyer,” to lead the task of containing Iran. Since Ross has no knowledge of Iran, other members of the lobby, particularly their Iran “experts,” have been assisting Ross in his new role. Among these is the ex-Trotskyite, neoconservative Patrick Clawson, WINEP’s “deputy director for research” and an anti-Iran zealot who has been obsessed for decades with the containment of Iran and Iraq. [8] Over the years, with the help of these individuals Ross has developed a strategy to contain Iran. The strategy consists of arguing that: 1) Iran is developing nuclear weapons; 2) Iran is a threat to the US and an existential threat to Israel, and Israel will not tolerate “mullahs with nukes” (Sydney Morning Herald, October 16, 2004); 3) “nuclear deterrent rules that governed relations between the United States and the Soviet Union” do not hold when it comes to Iran, since Iranians, especially their president, are irrational and believe in the “coming of the 12th Imam” (The Washington Post, May 1, 2006); 4) Iran’s nuclear ambitions will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; 5) the Bush Administration’s policy of dealing with Iran did not work, because it did not have enough sticks or carrots; 6) the US should push for a direct, but “tough” or aggressive diplomacy to stop Iran from enriching uranium and supporting “terrorism” (Newsweek, December 8, 2008) [9]; 7) the aggressive diplomacy should include pressuring the Europeans, as well as the Chinese and Russians, to stop trading with Iran; 8) the prohibition of trade should include preventing Iran from importing refined oil products and, ultimately, blockading Iran; and 9) once this tough and aggressive diplomacy fails and Iran does not change its “behavior,” then the US could legitimately launch military attacks against Iran, arguing that the it did everything in its power to resolve the situation peacefully.

The above arguments were summarized on March 13, 2008, in a news report in The Jerusalem Post, entitled “Visiting Obama Middle East adviser: He’d be great for Israel.” According to this report, Mel Levine—a “staunchly pro-Israel” former congressman from Los Angeles and, along with Dennis Ross, “one of Obama’s seven Middle East advisers”—told The Jerusalem Post during a visit to Israel that Obama believes that “the way to stop Iran was with a combination of carrots and sticks.” Levine was further quoted as saying: “He believes that if you use carrots and sticks and engage in multilateral aggressive diplomacy then if you need to use the military option or do anything that needs to be done you are much more likely to get support of allies, more international support and broader American support.” Mr. Levin had cut to the chase and stated clearly what Dennis Ross had been advocating for years, but in a more convoluted and diplomatic language. The “tough” and “aggressive diplomacy,” as Mr. Levin had made clear, was nothing but a series of motions that would set the stage for military action against Iran.

Ross’s arguments are often devoid of any factual content, as I have shown in “What the Future has in Store for Iran.” For example, in June 2008 the Washington Institute published a “Presidential Study Group Reports” entitled “Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge.” [10] One of the two “co-convenors” of the report was Dennis Ross. [11] Subsequently, the advisors to both presidential candidates endorsed the report. [12] As I argued in my October essay, this 6-page WINEP report—which was funded by a foundation supporting neoconservative causes, and was drafted in consultation with the WINEP’s “Israeli counterparts”—contains almost nothing factual and, indeed, in several places contains errors. For example, like much of Ross’s other writings, this report tries to give the reader the false impression that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Yet, anyone familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports knows that after many years of inspection, the IAEA has been unable to show any evidence of diversion of nuclear material in Iran. Or the report claims that the UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its enrichment program have been “unanimous.” As I have stated in my essay, even a cursory look at the news would reveal that this claim is false. For example, the third UN Security Council resolution, Resolution1803, did not pass unanimously. Indonesia abstained during the vote. [13] Furthermore, as most news sources pointed out, “Libya, South Africa and Vietnam joined Indonesia in expressing reservations [about the resolution]” (AFP, March 3, 2008). Ross’s arguments, as I have shown in my October essay, are also often quite illogical. It is, for example, not at all clear why Iran’s nuclear ambitions will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, while Israel’s decades-old possession of nuclear weapons has not led to such an arms race. Similarly, it is not clear why Iranians, who might have certain religious beliefs, are irrational, but Israelis, who justify the existence of Israel on religious grounds, are rational.

After the June 2008 “Presidential Study Group Reports,” which was endorsed by Obama’s and McCain’s advisors, Ross and company wrote the September 2008 “report of an independent task force sponsored by the bipartisan policy center” on “U.S. policy toward Iranian Nuclear Development.” [14] In this report they put forward the same falsehoods and illogical arguments. At the same time a neoconservative campaign was launched, under the title “United Against Nuclear Iran” (UANI), in which Ross played a prominent role as the “Co-Founder and Co-Chairman.” The “Advisory Board” of UANI included, beside Ross, such notable figures as the neoconservative Mark Wallace, the President of UANI, advisor to Sarah Palin and a John Bolton recruit for a position at the UN; R. James Woolsey the neoconservative and member of the advisory board of The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; Henry Sokolski the neoconservative signatory of the “Project for the New American Century signatory”; and Richard C. Holbrooke, another “Co-Founder and Co-Chairman” of UANI. [15] The neoconservative campaign included a slick and scary video advertisement, which is still available on the web. [16] The video started with the message “Stop Terrorism, Stop Human Rights Abuses, Stop Nuclear Iran.” Small prints at the bottom of the message read “Paid for by the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc.” Following the introduction six hands appeared, black and white, joining in a circle around a map of Iran. The viewer was asked to “join the cause” by clicking on the video. If followed, a note would appear that read: “Send a message to the nation that Iran’s nuclear program is unacceptable. Join United Against Nuclear Iran today and receive news updates and event reminders.” Then the viewer was asked for name and email address. This was followed by an ominous video about Iran’s alleged development of nuclear weapons, repeating the same falsehoods and illogical arguments put forward by Dennis Ross and company on behest of the Israeli lobby groups.

After President Obama took office, the media was filled with the news of the impending appointment of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy. Yet the appointment appeared to be postponed. Various explanations appeared in the media for the postponement. Some reasoned that the postponement was at least partly due to Ross’s close ties with Israel. For example, on February 3, 2009, Robert Naiman wrote in the Huffington Post that “allegation of ‘dual loyalty’ is being raised against Dennis Ross.” He further mentioned that Ross is “still chair of the board of the Jerusalem-based ‘Jewish People Policy Planning Institute,’ as indicated by that organization’s website.” [17] Others emphasized the fact that as far as Iran is concerned Ross’s appointment might kill any chance of rapprochement between Iran and the US. For example, The Christian Science Monitor reported on February 5, 2009, that from an Iranian perspective Ross is the “pioneer of the American-Zionist lobby” and under his leadership during the Clinton years the US policy was “not one millimeter different from Israeli policy.” The report quoted a “Western diplomat” as saying: “There is no doubt they [Iranians] are all going to look at Ross as an Israeli proxy.”

Some of the explanations given for the postponement of Ross’s appointment also explain his vague and broad job title, “Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Gulf and Southwest Asia.” Before the end of the 2008 presidential election there were rumors that Ross might be considered for the position of the Secretary of State (Haaretz, October 24, 2008). Once Obama was elected, and Hilary Clinton became Secretary of State, Ross apparently hoped to become at least the “special envoy to Iran.” But given his close ties with Israel and the fact that his containment plans were well known to the Iranians, he had to settle for a less provocative title. Needless to say that the new title, “Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Gulf and Southwest Asia,” is still quite provocative as far as Iran is concerned, since changing the name of the Persian Gulf to simply “Gulf” is offensive to many Iranians.

Whatever the reason for the postponement of Ross’s appointment and change of title, one thing is clear: the sly fox is now guarding the chicken coop. As Mel Levine said about Ross: “He’d be great for Israel.” With the help of Richard Holbrooke, Stuart Levey—Bush’s Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who is now in Obama’s Administration—and all the other “president’s Middle East men,” Dennis Ross might be able to finish the unfinished business of the neoconservatives, the containment of Iraq and Iran. The Israelis and pro-Israel communities must be jumping with joy once again!


A bottomless basket case pit.

There seems to be a double standard here in American foreign policy towards Pakistan, where on the one hand they are fully aware of the linkages between the Pakistan military and extremist Islamic groups, the constant tut tutting of this fact (one reason why the $150 million monthly military installment has been suspended for the last 9 months.....clear information was gleaned that the top echelon of the Pakistan military were in direct contact with the Taliban), and then off loading huge amounts of money unto Pakistan without asking a lot of questions about how that money is subsequently spent(is it being used to kill American servicemen for example? One pertinent inquiry, unless of course you have a Jewish regime in Washington.........then that question becomes moot, and maybe even irrelevant )

One readily thinks of the huge amounts of money pumped into the corrupt and incompetent South Vietnam government when they were fighting Communist terrorists in the 1960's. All of course to no avail in the end, and a humiliating military defeat for the USA (an outcome that was not necessary), when they followed through in direct involvement in that quagmire, from 1964/65.

I suppose history must repeat itself, but hopefully not after the loss of 4 million local native civilian lives and the death of 80,000 American servicemen eventually, unofficially.


US lines up billions for Pak, ignoring terror links.

By Chidanand Rajghatta of the Times of India.

WASHINGTON: The United States is lining up billions of dollars in new economic and military aid to Pakistan despite reports that Islamabad is using American tax-payer money for deals with the Taliban and accounts of US arms ending up in the hands of the extremists.

(The Taliban is an extension of the Pakistan military, it has been so since 1994 since its creation. SO any arms and funds it gets is directly from the Pakistan military)

Amid an ongoing review of the so-called Af-Pak policy initiated by the Obama administration, Washington, under pressure from influential Senator John Kerry among other lawmakers and lobbyists, is said to be considering a one-time $ 5 billion aid to Pakistan over and above the $ 1.5 billion annual package for ten years currently under review for passage through Congress.

(Lets see, Pakistan will get $15 billion for the next 10 years, as economic aid; will soon continue getting the $1.8 billion annual security aid under Obama, including back payments. On top of that Obama has promised more security aid. Proposals are being made for a one off $5 billion aid package being given to Pakistan to sponsor social programs......and the USA run and based IMF are pumping $7.5 billion under an economic restructuring program..........the Saudis, America's ally are promising another $4 billion if the Pakistanis accept the IMF terms of restructuring the economy. Maybe the WB, and ADB, and China can chip in a few more billion $ to the corrupt regime in Islamabad, headed by a felon who has done prison time for corruption)

Will all this help improve Pakistan's economic and SECURITY situation? In the short term this may be of help for the economy, but not in the medium to long term. You've got criminals running the country, and they are only interested in number one, for all their flowery rhetoric. As to the SECURITY situation, throwing more $ at Pakistan won't help, as long as Zardari the crook, corrupt cretin is in power, backed by the military with their own set of perspectives and agendas (maybe usng American $ to buy peace with the Taliban being one gross contradiction).

What Pakistan requires foremost is a competent government at the helm in Islamabad, and maybe, maybe Nawaz Sharif is that person........a person to be sure who is not another Jinnah, but at least someone who will be more competent administratively and willing to face up to the all powerful Pakistan military, and its set of undeclared anti-state agendas.)

Releasing a report by the think-tank Atlantic Council on Wednesday, Kerry, who is also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is in a position to pilot the aid package, raised the prospect of a total collapse in Pakistan if it was not helped urgently.

(Pakistan is a failed state number 9 from the bottom. Its demise and disintegration has been announced many times..........but it shouldn't fail as long as a competent civilian government is allowed to reign in Islamabad, unmolested by internal and external actors. Though I certainly did not think so earlier, the Pakistan military are the prime agents of destabilization of the state...so they need to be reigned in under a strong civilian government which is confident and competent)

"If we fail, we face a truly frightening prospect: terrorist sanctuary, economic meltdown, and spiraling radicalism, all in a nation with 170 million inhabitants and a full arsenal of nuclear weapons," he said. "The stakes could not be higher, and [this] report could not be more timely."

(Pakistan is a failed state because of the USA interference over several decades. It is not that Pakistanis have or want to fail their state, BUT due to the continued American interference, Pakistan fails. A major part of that failure is due to the military of Pakistan, and their adoption of American sponsored schemes which have a blow back effect on Pakistan: "Operation Cyclone" and "Operation greenbelt" from the late seventies and early eighties, for example, and then the "Operation Taliban" from 1994, and now "GWOT" with "Operation anti-Taliban"...............)

The 27-page report calls for "a total of $4-5 billion above the (Biden)-Kerry-Lugar proposals and beyond the IMF and other loans from the US. and other sources," for Pakistan. Of this, it recommends, about $3 billion should go to the economic and social sectors directly. About $1 billion of fresh or redirected funds would go to security forces -- both military and law enforcement.

US government reports in recent times have detailed how Pakistan has misused billions in aid for a military build-up against India instead of using it for the intended war on terror. Audits have also detailed million of dollars in fraudulent claims by the Pakistani military. Reimbursement to Pakistan have been halted for several months because of this but are set to resume soon after the Obama administration has given a green signal pending further audits.

(We really don't know what military transfers take place between the USA, and Pakistan. A whole covert black market has evolved between these two countries, covering everything from nuclear material, and parts to conventional arms. The trade between the two countries entered the black market after the 1965 war, when America officially to appease India, imposed an embargo against selling arms to Pakistan, BUT through countries such as Iran under the Shah, West Germany(ATGW system---establishment of an underground production line, near Wah with American approval,and the source of Pakistan's numerous rocket/missile projects later, started earnestly in the early sixties with foreign Western help MBB, and the reason why Pakistan is ahead in terms of missiles technology compared to India......Pakistani missiles are better technically, and that certainly has NOTHING to do with North Korea. German security under American direct control since 1945, 80,000 American servicemen stationed there ) and of course South Vietnam war stockpiles (1965--73), Pakistan continued to receive huge quantities of American arms. Since the demise of the Shah and South Vietnam, the Gulf countries, Turkey and others have been covert sources of American technology for the Pakistan military machine............in that sense the current $1.8 billion annual military/security aid is misleading.

In addition we must ask what is the nature of this military and economic aid? What is it really intended for? Does the USA really want the Pakistan military to defeat the Taliban? One thinks not....if one thinks along the line that the Taliban and the Pakistan military are one and the same, and the USA, with their considerable involvement through the ISI (works as an annex of American intelligence) clearly know this to be the fact.

Therefore it is more likely that the economic and military aid is to grease the wheels of power in the Civilian political/military structure of Pakistan so that they toe the American geostrategic agenda which is:

(i) Continue with the "al-Qaeda" myth. OBLs not dead, but still alive in Pakistan commanding a huge network of terrorists around the world, and is a threat especially to Amerca/UK/Israel....coincidently.

(ii) That the Taliban are an independent entity which is a credible military force which might take over Afghanistan (8,000 lightly armed Taliban vs 300,000 Afghan security including 80,000 Coalition forces with full aircover-----Baloney!!!) and they might usurp power in Pakistan (5,000---10,000 lightly armed Pakistan Taliban vs 1,100,000 Pakistan security forces), with its nuclear arsenal........so we need more Western soldiers in that area, right? AND more military and economic aid for Pakistan.

(iii) Most bizarrely, if you are a Pakistani national, but not bizarre if you have served in the Pakistani military and were involved in ALL those American Operations mentioned above.......................as it is unfolding, that ALL so called Islamic terrorism in mainland India comes from Pakistan, and India should attack Pakistan and teach them a lesson, once and for all Jai Ram!!! Lets have the two brownies get into a good punch up, involving millions of men on both sides in South Asia, and maybe including nuclear exchanges.

Besides Suja Pasha's offer to visit India and help investigations initially, the Pakistan military have been eerily silent about rebutting the allegations from India. Now that could be an indication of culpability, guilt by ommission, or it could be that they are under strict orders from America not to expose the conventional narrative set by the Indian media that 10 men on a boat from Karachi, hijacked a Indian.................)

More recent accounts from Pakistan have described how high end US military equipment is ending up with extremists through arms bazaars in the country's frontier. Earlier this week, reports from Pakistan detailed $ 6 million paid through back channels to the Taliban in the latest truce in Swat with more in the pipeline.

(The Pakistan military would not normally sell off state of the art sophisticated equipment into the Frontier arms bazaar; generally they release second hand old equipment into such arms bazaars....for personal gain. There isn't any clear indication that the Afghan Taliban or the TPP are using anything sophisticated in their
"operations" against the Coalition forces in Afghanistan, and Pakistan military. The Taliban tactics are very primitive, and have been so since 2001, they haven't changed.

They don't have any air cover, and don't posses any light SAMs.....you would think that if they were a serious resistance force fighting many years with experience, that they would have been supplied by such things from their Pakistani military source, at least by now......so the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the Hologram al-Qaeda exists as "Controlled Opposition" for the benefit of American geostrategy in the region, and don't constitute a serious fighting force.........The 8,000 armed with AK-47 are taking over Afghanistan!!!!!!!!!Send in more troops. The TPP are going to take over Pakistan!!!!!!!!!!)

Reports of enhanced American aid to a suspect ally at a time of economic woes in the US has caused consternation in strategic circles.

(Plus it does not meet the common sense test)

"Not only is the United States paying the Pakistani government to abdicate territory to the Taliban, we get to fund the Taliban as well," said Bill Roggio, an expert in the war on terror, questioning the Kerry-Lugar proposal aimed to tripling military aid to Pakistan.

(One wonders to what end is all this..........)

"It's time for the US. government to ask if it is getting a good return on its investment. Considering that more than $3.8 billion of $5 billion of US. aid to Pakistan has gone unaccounted for and the Taliban is being funded by the US, perhaps the answer is no," Roggio, who runs the blog Long War Journal, added.

Kerry made no mention of any Pakistani transgression in his alarming presentation as he pushed for increased aid amid intense Pakistani lobbying in Washington. Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, its Army chief Pervez Ashraf Kiyani, and the ISI Director-General Shuja Pasha have been in intense consultations with US interlocutors this week to seek a bail-out for Islamabad, warning that a meltdown in Pakistan can affect the neighborhood and the whole world.

(If more proof is required as to who runs Pakistan and where all the Pakistani pigs go with their begging bowls..............to see how quickly they can fall over themselves, to see which of them can sell Pakistan the quickest and cheapest)

Although the Atlantic Council report has several recommendations to temper Pakistan's militaristic outlook, its embrace of extremism, and the need to promote peace with India, the proposed aid is not contingent on Islamabad living up to any benchmarks.

(Empty rhetoric........)

The report largely glosses over the Mumbai attack, in which 159 people including six Americans died, while empathizing with Islamabad for its predicament in initiating action against those who plotted the carnage.

"Pakistan must clearly do more to neutralize and control terrorist organizations operating on its soil and hence must meet some demands it believes are harsh and too biased towards Indian preferences," it says on the Mumbai attack, but adds, "Giving Pakistan leeway to do so on its own timetable may be a way out and prevent the government from being seen as doing so at India's bidding."

Is the Congress being gullible and falling prey to USA's double game (Ditto NDA/BJP...........traditionally more pro-israel and USA, remember?)

(Indeed so, it is a pathetic sight to see India fawning over the USA. A fake competitive scenario is being created where Pakistan military wise competes with India, which is wholly unrealistic, and unwarranted........(i)America's wooing of India into Afghanistan, and a call for Indian military personnel into Afghanistan. (ii) Covert ops by India into Pakistan from Afghanistan, under American encouagement. (iii) The nuclear deal signed recently. (iv) Promise to make India into a "Great Power"..........these are all designed to slight Pakistan directly, by the USA, BUT the Ullu Bacha's in the Pakistan military will read them as pure Indian slights, which have nothing to do with America and their Jewish schemes in the region.


Conflicts blatantly against India's interests, unless you are a fawning Indian, with American initiatives in Pakistan:

(i) $15 billion offered over the next 10 years.
(ii) $1.8 billion annual military aid, with that being topped up with more security aid presumably under a different name and initiative........no questions asked.
(iii) $5 billion one off payment, under proposals.
(iv) $4 billion promise given by Saudi, America's client state.
(v) $7.5 billion restructuring program for the Pkistan economy.
(vi) The basing of American military in 4 Pakistani bases, and the drone attacks from these bases.
(vii) The vitual control and direction of the Pakistan military/intelligence structure through huge formal and covert military aid from the USA, most of which.....$4---$5 billion is unaccounted for.
(VIII) Looking the other way, and making superficial complaints against Pakistan viz the real help given to the country, and how Pakistan security manages and runs the various insurgency networks and bases, some of which are then used against India in Kashmir specifically. American first and foremost pretends that they don't know about these facilities, and further they are powerless in doing anything about it. Again this is false gven the HUGE amount of aid that America gives to Pakistan, and second gven the fact that the Pakistan military and security have very close linkages with American military and security....a relationship built up over several decades, so its a bit disengenious for America to say they do not have a clue what the Pakistan military is up to covert wise, and that they can't control it.

JEWUSA is playing both nations for suckers, and the assholes in both countries to an extent are falling for it.


The Pakistan army "deal" with the Taliban in Swat Valley.

NO, a single state religion be it the Church of England or Eastern Orthodox, or Wahabi Islam or Shintoism does not automatically lead to extremist elements taking over a country...............there are other sometimes more complex factors which allow extremist religious elements taking over a country, and they are usually always to do with politics, and the lust for power, and not so much to do with religious fervor.

Single-faith nation is an open invitation to Taliban.

By MJ Akbar, Columnist for the Times of India.

Breast-beating has its dangers. You could lacerate yourself while the assassin laughs all the way to the graveyard. The international lamentation over the negotiated surrender of Swat in Pakistan to what might broadly be called the Taliban is high on moaning and low on illumination.

(Blogger---Yes the news from that area is highly managed by Pak authorities, so we really don't know what is going on, except that one Geo journalist, not liberal by any means was killed presumably by the Taliban to warn off other journo's from Pakistan venturing into that area and asking too many questions.............but yes, on the whole the "peace deal' has been correctly condemned for differing reasons around the world. It does not make sense why the Pakistan authorities should make peace with the Taliban, on their terms {establishing Sharia law} in Pakistan proper, so close to Peshawar, Taxila/Wah (where strategic munition works are located) and Islamabad. FATA is a different matter.

One hears from the media that the Pakistan central govenment gave the Swat Taliban money to buy peace....which sounds ridiclous; I mean is the Pakistan government proposing throwing scarce central funds at the Taliban each time they press the Pakistan government militarily----sets a bad precedent doesn't it?

Why do so many TTP hide their faces when the media is around. I mean if you are TTP, willing to die for your cause, surely you would be proud to show your young manly face to the Pakistani and international public, ................unless a lot of them happen to be regular Pakistani military personnel as well.

The Pakistan Foreign Secretary made a Freudian slip when he said no al-Qaeda would be allowed into Swat..........so I suppose the news item from Swat will be in about a month that the al-Qaeda have started concentrating in the "Safe Haven" of Swat.........Mashallah! Will the "Pakistan government" allow the Americans to attack Swat with drone attacks from the Pakistani bases in Baluchistan......maybe the Americans mistake Peshawar for Swat, or how about Taxila or Wah or even Islamabad..........why not Yaar? The Americans attack Islamabad thinking it was Swat......)

There is a symmetrical irony. Benazir Bhutto handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Her husband Asif Zardari might have laid the foundation stone of Talibanistan inside Pakistan by accepting Sufi Mohammad's Tehrik-e-Nifz-e-Shariat Mohammadi as the law for the former princely state of Swat. This demand was first heard in November 1994, the month in which Kandahar fell to the Taliban.

( There is no irony, only stupidity and a general desire to please the Americans that led "liberal" Benazir Bhutto, brought up in the exclusive champagne circuit of Oxbridge and later Harvard?, who should openly back the medieval Taliban from 1994. The Clinton administration initiated the idea; the Arab Gulf funded it; the Pak military made it into a reality...........so your assertion, "Benazir Bhutto handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban" is short on detail and does not explain why she officially as PM OK'ed the idea in the first place. As to her husband, one should have limited expectations from Mr. 10%, or possibly Mr. 100% by now....as he gets richer the Pakistan economy must naturally falter........he is an out and out criminal who has done prison time, with a gangster mentality......does the guy have any education, or any sense of public duty? In all events was the Swat Peace deal the work of Zardari (unlikely), or the outcome of the army, and Zardari merely nodded to the idea?)

Many questions demand answers. The Pakistani army has an estimated strength of 12,000 in the region of Swat. Why was it unable, or unwilling, to subdue an insurgent force of some 3,000? The Pakistani army is not a pushover. Why was it pushed over in Swat? Is the Pakistani soldier increasingly unwilling to confront an ideology it implicitly sympathises with? How much of such sympathy is shared by the middle-ranking officer, who entered the force during the seminal leadership of General Zia ul Haq? To what extent has Ziaism become the secret doctrine of sections of the Pakistani forces?

(unofficially the Pakistan military number closer to 800,000, and paramilitary forces of 300,000.......so why should such a huge military machine have any problems dealing with 3,000 AK-47 armed Taliban who are very poorly trained by modern military standards, poorly led, poorly organized, poor tactics, poor logistics; they can simply be surrounded and squeezed with just 30,000 men...and so on?

The Taliban in Swat could have been easily dealt with, using heavy artillery, mortar, helicopters and jet fighters, backed by more troops. MJ Akbar says a lack of will by the rank and file........I think that's a misrepresentation of the Pakistan military, simply because of the culture of the Pakistan military is rooted in the British Raj {I derisively refer to it as the RAJ PUNJAB POLICE FORCE......in terms of how it fights, and against whom it engages against in its bloodiest wars},

In 1971 the Pak military had no problems killing 3,000,000 East Pakistanis backed by mass rape; there were no Islamic sense of justice present back then which might have created mass mutiny in the ranks of the Pakistan army, and the specter of killing essentially fellow Muslims. There was no Mutiny in the ranks when the Pakistan military engaged in a bitter counter insurgency operation in Baluchistan 1973---1977, that possibly killed 100,000 people. There was no Mutiny in the ranks when the then Brigadier Zia Ul Haq organized the military campaign to squash the Palestinian uprising in Jordan in 1970. Ditto anti-insurgency ops in Oman, and the reason why Saudi Arabia keeps a good number of Pakistani troops in sacred Saudi soil to ostensibly protect the Saudi Royal family.........So MJ Akbar the Pak military generally obeys its officers, and do not have any record of mutinying against the officers, senior top brass or junior.

Clearly something else must explain the peculiar peace deal in such a sensitive area, so close to Islamabad. And we can speculate. That's what blogs are for!


1. The Pakistan Taliban (TTP) is a tool of the Pakistan military, who originally created the Taliban, and the current Taliban "upsurge" in inverted commas is an initiative by the Pak military to get back into power, by threatening the civilian government of Asif Zardari, by stationing the Taliban so close to Islamabad..........OR put it another way, the country is in chaos, and what we need is another strong military government to bring order.


2. The Pakistan Taliban is there mainly to destabilize Pakistan for America, so that America can say that Pakistan is a HAVEN for terrorists, and that the country will soon be run by Islamic fundamentalists who will one day control the country's nuclear bombs.......so be very scared children cus Uncle Sam might have to save the world again, and invade the country in the future. This scenario would mean that Kiyani Chief of Armed Forces and Suja Pasha head of ISI are working for America against Pakistan's interests, because to maneuver the Taliban into the present situation which the Taliban enjoys within Pakistan---legitimacy and status where they have negotiated and won on equal terms with the Pakistan military, ........would require extensive Pakistan military backing, especially from the top brass for such an occurrence/nonsense.)

What price will Pakistan's polity pay as the last civilian hope degenerates into a national heartbreak? The legacy of Benazir, the charismatic romantic, has been usurped by a semi-literate authoritarian who has seized executive power through a virtual coup against his own government. Zardari was elected to a ceremonial office, not an executive one. His principal achievement so far has been to make the era of Pervez Musharraf seem like a golden age. If she had been in charge, Benazir may have been able to mobilise her country's youth by lifting the economy and offering a liberal horizon. Zardari's ineffectual rule, wafting along compromise and mismanagement, can only create the space for a theocratic impulse that has been waiting to find its moment ever since Pakistan was born. Musharraf doubled the GDP of an insecure economy. Under Zardari, Pakistan is dwindling into a "basket case", a term Henry Kissinger coined for the eastern half of united Pakistan. While Bangladesh is leaving that stigma behind, Pakistan is entering the vortex of the begging bowl.

( Zardari is incompetent and that is universally excepted, in fact the talk in Islamabad is the sheer indecision and lack of government/governance in Islamabad.........the man is corrupt, incompetent, but he lusts after power because that is an easy avenue to make himself rich. That is why the Pakistan military like him.....to them it does not matter that Zardari is destroying the country, at a critical time in history; what matters to them is that ordinary Pakistanis have yet another poor civilian government under their experience viz the Pakistan military)

Military chaos opened the door for the Taliban in Kabul. Could economic chaos open the door in Islamabad? Has Pakistan begun to realise that faith-based nationalism is not synonymous with peace?

(Pakistan's military backing and personnel guidance helped the Taliban gain ascendancy in Afghanistan, with covert backing from America. Then ask yourself why would that would be? Who gains? The Taliban is essentially a Pashtun organization, and since they represent only 15% of the overall Pakistani population ethnically, normally and logically it will be difficult for the Taliban to appeal to the rest of the Pakistani population. Pashtuns are generally more puritanically Islam wise due to their socio-economic background and levels of literacy. On the other hand the rest of Pakistan is more mystical in terms of relating to Islam.....Sufis, Pirs etc....so again hard to see how economic hardship simply flips a whole complex society with their Millennial old beliefs so quickly, unless hostile external entities such as the USA, working with the Pakistan military create such a situation...........IRAN 1979)

The Frontier and North Punjab (I disagree that the Punjab, Kasab not withstanding, is a hotbed of Talibanism, any part of it....but obviously you have got your individual fruit cakes....for me the Taliban is an ethnic phenomenon, NOT a religious phenomenon that cuts across and appeals to a wide section of Pakistani society), the principal catchment areas of the Taliban, have had a Muslim majority for perhaps a thousand years. (The Pashtuns were ardent Hindus once, a mere 1000 years ago-----they are directly related to fair skinned Brahmins, Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars..........and so on) It is not widely known that Mahmud of Ghazni's territories extended to what is roughly the line of the Indo-Pak border today. (This fact is not lost on terrorists who want to use Pakistan as a base from which to launch assaults on the heart of India..........................rather a general comment that justifies all so called Islamic terrorism in India? I doubt Kasab imagined himself as Mahmud of Ghazni...a Turk from Central Asia) But this area was never a single-faith entity. Hindus and later Sikhs created, along with Muslims, a dynamic shared culture that blossomed through partnership. The presence of the other also became an antidote to puritanism of any hue.

(FULLY on board and agreed that "we" are stronger and better together as a people living in South Asia with our differences.....that is what makes South Asia GREAT........I therefore deplore the politics of the Taliban, even if its a tool of USA imperialism...those who participate in it should know better. I Fully applaud the secular nature of India, and hope MF Hussian can come back to India and live peacefully there again, soon)

The region was ruled successively by Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. No ruler, not even Ghazni, drove Hindus and Sikhs out. It was only after 1947 that the region became a single-faith hegemony, and from that point a breeding ground for theocratic militancy.

(1947 and the sad occurrences of that event was unique. To be sure Muslim armies fought Hindu armies led by their respective Rajas, but the full extent of the demographic shift, isolation from Partition for ordinary civilians, and the ensuing dogma in Pakistan especially after 1965, and later under Zia ul Haq never existed between ordinary people in South Asia before.

Pakistan was the megalomaniac creation of Mohammed Jinnah, who knew he would not last very long to fully see his dream being created, but through his egotism he persisted in creating the moth eaten failed state, with the active backing of the British..........It started in 1940 when the Muslim league drafted a constitution, and from there developed a grass roots organisation for the first time (before that specific date it was a talking shop for privileged Muslim nobility and notables wholly disconnected with the Muslim masses) As the Muslim League developed, the majority of the top echelon of the Congress were locked up from 1942, with the "Quit India" Movement. The Muslim League thus with covert British Raj guidance became a legitimate force in Indian politics, which could articulate its position with mass appeal............for me all this could not have been done by Jinnah himself or his close cadres like Laiqat Ali Khan, in such a short time (1940--1946). That there must have been some sort of institutional backing from Britain to translate the Muslim League into a reasoably cohesive force by 1946, to the point where Jinnah was negotiating quite confidently with Gandhi and Nehru.

Jinnah was an excellent Barrister, and thus a good speaker, but a political genius like Gandhi, with his vision? I never thought so. He was a stiff starched plodder, not given to inspiration, as most natural freedom leaders of that era. Thus to me he was a functionary for the British Raj, who played out his role to the end.

The British official files related to independence and Partition, and the creation of Pakistan will be released in the year 2022, the longest release date for British state papers. Normally they are released within 30 years. They must contain controversial information for them to be released at such a late date. Obviously when they are released they will be sanitized for public consumption, but one speculates whether Jinnah was a British agent. All those long years in Billaat, London, during the critical years of the independence movement; His penchant for ham sandwiches, and alcohol; his speeches to his Muslim audiences in immaculate Oxbridge English mostly; his deference to British Raj law, and the need to avoid any sanction, in contrast to the many occasions when Congress leaders were imprisoned by the Raj, in the course of serving the greater cause.

His general demeanor of a man who was quite cold and reserved, who showed no overt fondness for Muslims. ....Do we have any pictures of him mixing with the illiterate Garib Muslim masses from the 1920's through to the 1940's, smiling and relishing the moment and opportunity to fulfil his mission for his people? We have plenty of those for Gandhi and Nehru, and they are genuine. Do we have any pictures of him praying at a Mosque with his fellow Muslim congregation?

This is the man who founded the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ......descendants of Brahmin Hindus from Gujarat. )

The power of a minority is rarely acknowledged by those who seek to turn it into an enemy. A minority is the yeast that enables the national flour to rise. Hindus and Sikhs were the yeast of the North West Frontier and Pakistani Punjab just as much as Indian Muslims are the yeast of Hindu-majority India. Their existence was a daily lesson in co-existence. Their absence has shifted the gears of social evolution and driven the people into rancid and arid territory.

(Rather a convoluted way of arguing the truism that an open plural society, which is democratic, with free speech and liberal in outlook has a better chance of improving the lives of ALL its people, rather than a closed dictatorial authoritarian society ruled by people who think they know everything and have the answers for everything, under one predominating dogmatic guiding state religion)

Will the answers be more optimistic than the questions? That too remains a question.


Another great decision by the Pak military.


The Pakistan military have a great track record of making great decisions, strategic or otherwise that always work out best for them, and of course Pakistan in the long term.

(i) In 1965 they were committed to war against India, a nation more powerful than Pakistan even in those days. The Pakistani military committed to war with 1 weeks of spares for a military machine that heavily relied on American arms, obtained under a 1954 security agreement (as an anti-Communist bulwork). Within 2 weeks of the 1965 war with India the Pakistan military, ceased to function for lack of spares (and an American arms embargo), whilst India merely was getting warmed up after two weeks of war, and had the war continued would have scored a outright victory against Pakistan, with the easy capture of Lahore, and many other key cities in the Western Wing.

In fact the Indians could have annexed East Pakistan, with its mere 20,000---30,000 Pakistani troops stationed there. The war exposed the weaknesses of the Pakistani state, which eventually led to the breakup of the country, after the Americans destabilized the Ayub Khan military regime after the war..........Field Marshal Ayub Khan had not consulted the war matter with the Americans and thus had displeased them, and so the Americans toppled his regime eventually.


(ii) Initiating a genocidal war against over half the population, in East Pakistan in 1971, where Pakistan clearly lost with the capture of 93,000 Pakistani prisoners, and perhaps 10,000 casualties..........the Pakistani military clearly had other options in East Pakistan(they should have let the incompetent Mujib make a fool of himself in East Pakistan, and there after reinstate central control after a few years), but they thought genociding 3,000,000 of their own population, with mass rapes would solve the problem. That somehow coexistence and Pakistani sovereignty could be guaranteed by the brute force of a nation, over 1,000 miles away surrounded by India...........The Einsteins in the Pakistani top military certainly thought so.


(iii) The Jewish dominated Clinton administration brought an idea that perhaps Pakistan should create, back, arm, train, provide logistics, command and control, insert ISI personnel in order to create the Taliban, with Gulf money to bring stability to a civil war racked Afghanistan, and thus give Pakistan strategic depth against India.

Now any reasonable Pakistani with metric qualifications or otherwise might ask why on earth America, dominated by Jews, would offer Pakistan such an idea (most Pakistanis for good reason are suspicious of American actions in the region).

But you see the Pakistan military especially the top brass, aren't like every other Pakistani, since they are Einsteins. They know better. Tickle them, flatter their ego's in America.

And so since 1994---2001, the Taliban with considerable Pakistani guidance consolidate Afghanistan, and bring some kind of order in that country, except for a small part. There are some problems with this scenario, which the Einsteins in the Pakistani military don't foresee:

(i) The Taliban is not liked by everybody, least of all Iran, Russia and India......so Pakistan, Third World failed state Pakistan is engaged in an expensive proxy war in Afghanistan against those three nations through the Northern Alliance, where upon previously Iran, Russia and India had not shown that much interest in Afghan affairs. Only when Pakistan overtly backs the extremist Taliban do these nations become interested, or to put it another away, when the Einsteins in the Pak military make another great decision (overtly backing the Taliban with open American encouragement), it arouses negative reaction from three powerful nations, which has certain consequences for Pakistan medium to long term in Afghanistan.

(ii) The Taliban aren't the most intelligent people in Afghanistan....they are extremists; they are illiterate stupid people who are wedded to a type of Islam which is extremely primitive. If you have a Taliban government based in Kabul, looking to spread their theology to other parts of the region, wouldn't they pose a threat to Pakistan as well? Wasn't that also thought about? Why couldn't moderate Afghans be used to unite Afghanistan FOR Pakistan........instead of constantly backing the most extremists fundies........Haqqani, Hekmatyar and later the Taliban. Why not normal Afghans, moderate balanced Afghans....why back colorful cartoon characters drawn from some Hollywood movie? Whose interests do such policy serve?

(iii) The Pakistan top brass are still soldiering on with the notion that somehow the Americans soon will leave Afghanistan, and the Taliban will once again be needed to control Afghanistan for Pakistan, and there after block out other nations such as Iran, Russia and especially INDIA. How truly wrong such an assumption is; so wrong. The Americans aren't leaving Afghanistan any time soon, in fact they are increasing their numbers from 8,500 in 2001 to nearly 60,000 by the end of this year, and we can see a combined Occupation force of 100,000 massing in Afghanistan this year alone. The profits from narcotics is yielding great profits for the criminal elements in American society.........another good reason to stay.

Rather than retiring the Americans are increasing their numbers in Afghanistan, and this constitutes a direct threat to Pakistan, from Afghanistan and from within Pakistan. In creating this threat the Pakistan top brass have assisted the Americans, by sustaining the Taliban covertly and maintaining the "al-Qaeda" myth.

The signing of the peace deal between the TTP of Pakistan recently in Swat with the Pakistan military is thus in the above strategic scenario a mistake, since it legitimates the Taliban in Pakistani territory proper, which becomes a base not too far from Peshawar, Taxila, Wah and Islamabad to increase and build their numbers, and consolidate their position.

Which in turn helps the Americans create the propaganda that Pakistan is a failed state (which it is, with American help) which will fall into the hands of the Taliban (unlikely----it is an ethnic Pashtun organization, representing at best 15% of Pakistanis), and thus America must intervene within Pakistan, the initial steps of which have already taken place incrementally with the drone attacks against the "al-Qaeda" and Afghan Taliban based allegedly in FATA, from Pakistani military bases. And now the Americans are talking about fighting the Pakistan Taliban for Pakistan presumably.........Whilst the Pakistani military make peace with the TTP. Who is making these policies in Pakistan, Mickey Mouse?



Truce Deals Move Forward in Pakistan

By Antiwar.com

After considerable negotiation the Swat Valley chapter of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) agreed to a permanent ceasefire in the war-torn region. The move seemed to solidify the agreement last week between the government and the powerful cleric Sufi Muhammad, founder of the Tehreek-e Nafaz-e Shariat-e Mohammadi (TNSM) to enforce Islamic law in Malakand, a broad region in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) that includes the Swat Valley.

The TTP has a national umbrella organization which has said it would support the local chapter with whatever decision they made on the matter. The success of the Malakand pact has led the Bajauri chapter of the TTP to once again offer a ceasefire on the condition that the long-standing military operations in the agency halt. The Bajaur TTP has attempted ceasefires in the past, but the Pakistani government has never abided by them. Bajaur Agency is the northernmost part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), bordering both Afghanistan and Malakand.

And while the move toward peace has been a great relief to locals, it has ruffled many feathers on the international scene. The United States has already made clear its objections to the deal, now neighboring India - with whom the Pakistani government has seen rising tensions since the Mumbai terrorist attack of November, is condemning it as well.

Pranab Mukherjee, the External Affairs Minister of India, said the peace underscored that Pakistan remains in denial over the issue of cross-border terrorism. Mukherjee added that the deal was a matter of “deep concern” for his government and that no compromise with any Taliban organization should be tolerated.


The Americans, the Pak military and ISI working covertly through the Pak/Afghan Taliban

The ISI is made up entirely from personnel from the Pakistan military, headed by the Pakistan military, is an intelligence annex of the Pakistan military (military intelligence), and operates on the orders of the top military brass of the Pakistan military; Kiyani and Suja Pasha current head of ISI.

The Pakistan military in turn operates on the orders of the Americans, as do the ISI.......so the story below of the ISI doing things behind the Americans without their full knowledge is misinformation/disinformation from America.

The Afghan and Pak Taliban------ISI/Pak military-----American intelligence are working from the same book; they are not so much fighting each other as cooperating covertly to create a certain narrative that fulfills American geostrategy in that area.

Lest we forget it was in 1994, that the Americans first under the Clinton Administration who approached Benazir Bhutto, then prime minister, to create the Taliban from Pakistan, using the ISI. Then in 1996 Osama Bin Laden was invited to Afghanistan from the Sudan, and slowly through Pakistan assistence the al-Qaeda myth was created. Then as now ISI/Pak military directly and totally ran the Taliban operation using Gulf funds, and American guidance, and advice. Nothings changed.

So we have this story from American that the ISI/Pak military are covertly directing the Taliban to the detriment of the USA......NOT....in the full spectrum of history of how the Taliban was created from 1994.

But obviously somewhere in the future the American military will engage the Pakistan military and this is the running narrative and justification, building up to that eventually.


US launched air attack inside Pak after verifying ISI-Taliban link: Book

By Times of India.

NEW DELHI: The US national security agency (NSA) has intercepted messages to indicate that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence was in "complete coordination" with the Taliban, according to a US journalist.

New York Times' White House correspondent David E Sanger has claimed in his latest book that the US decision to launch air attacks inside Pakistan's western borders was taken after "one such high-level conversation was intercepted" in which a speaker said the Taliban was a "strategic asset" for Pakistan.

Excerpts of the book 'The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the challenges to American power' were published by Pakistani newspaper The News.

The daily said former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf called a press conference recently to "repeatedly deny" allegations in the book that he had held a series of parleys with slain PPP leader Benazir Bhutto about her security, following which she returned to Pakistan.

The book also claimed that NSA had intercepted messages indicating ISI officers of helping Taliban in planning a big bomb attack in Afghanistan although the target was unclear.

After some days, Kandahar jail was attacked by Taliban and hundreds of their militants were freed, it said, adding that the US decision to invade Pakistani territories was taken "after CIA reached a conclusion that the ISI was absolutely in complete coordination with the Taliban".

According to the Pakistani daily, Sanger also wrote that the telephones of all senior army officers, including its chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, were bugged by NSA and CIA.

The author "claims that American intelligence agencies were intercepting telephonic conversations of army officers and the decision to attack Pakistan through drones was taken after one such high-level conversation was intercepted claiming the Taliban as a 'strategic asset' for Pakistan", it said.

The US scribe "seemed to have been given direct access to the secret record of several meetings held at the White House before George Bush left on January 20," the daily said.

The book said NSA had picked up intercepts like someone giving advance warning of what was coming to Taliban when the Pakistan Army was getting ready to hit places in tribal areas.

According to 'The News', the book also claimed that the Americans were in "full knowledge of the facts on the ground and they started attacking territories inside Pakistan as they thought the Pakistan army and intelligence agencies were no more interested in fighting the Taliban."

It also speaks of a two-star general as saying that supporting Taliban was absolutely necessary as "Indians will rein when Americans pull out".

The Pakistani daily said it had sought a detailed response from the Inter Services Public Relations to its report and promised to give it "equal and similar space".