An immediate threat, or a preparatory signal to attack Pakistan in the future?

The WaPo is a mouth piece front for gossip and posturing for sections of the American intelligence community and Jewish elite of the JEWSA. Most of what it writes is pure fiction, but also crucially represents the views and perspectives of certain important people in the JEWSA who through this particular paper articulate and sound out their fundamental policies to the rest of America.

It played a prominent role in the fake drum beat towards war against Iraq.

That Secretary of State Clinton should be threatening Pakistan with unilateral attacks, just as she has been doing for a couple of years Iran and North Korea is no surprise.

NORTH KOREA is belligerent and tough in the face of USA threats, and is backed by China.

IRAN is belligerent and tough in the face of USA threats, and is backed by Syria, Turkey increasingly it seems, and Russia China to an extent.

on the other hand is the proverbial monkey dancing to the American organ grinder. The more the Americans grind their repulsive tune of endless attacks against Pakistani civilians, AND shouting/demanding orders for endless security ops in the NWFP the more the Pakistani monkey dances........lacking the common sense and wit that this is all heading towards ultimate KIAMAT and total disaster for Pakistan

The Pakistani military and Zardari cannot see that the simultaneous attacks by America and the Pakistani military against the Pakistani people is there to weaken the long term cohesion and survival of the Pakistani state.

The USA has been attacking Pakistan slowly especially since 2006, through destabilization and infiltration under the guise of being an essential friend of Pakistan.

The average Pakistani (90%) applying his simple common sense actually know this reality, but the top brass of the Pakistani military trained in the UK/USA can't see this, and..............OR or as with the top politicians of the PPP have simply been bought with big fat Swiss bank accounts. Zardari is protected by mercenary Christian Fundamentalist American forces based in and around Islamabad, not by Pakistani security.

Under International Law, affirmed by cases after cases Pakistan has a duty to aid, shelter, feed and arm the Afghan resistance against any alien occupying power in Afghanistan under the principles of "Self Determination", just as Pakistan did with the Afghan resistance under Soviet occupation 1980--1989. In 9 years of war the Soviet Union never murmured once about Pakistan's training of 85,000 Mujaheddin fighters and 12,000 Jihadis from various Muslim countries, armed and funded by the USA, Israel and the Gulf countries.

The Soviet Union after 9 years of fighting lost 20,000 dead/MIA and 50,000 wounded in Afghanistan.

The USA after 9 years of fighting has lost 1000 dead and about 3000 wounded in Afghanistan..........but is already complaining that it is Pakistan's fault for "not doing enough" or Iran's fault. For good measure as a strategy of pressure and blackmail the USA has also carried out a false flag terror op in NY and blamed it on the TTP, which also regularly claims to carry out terror ops within Pakistan very successfully, unlike the NY fizzle bomb.

The TTP is believed to be an American intelligence front made of ex-Guantanamo detainees who have subsequently been turned, and thus given freedom.

The criminal Kleptocracy of Zardari along with the all powerful military fully and mysteriously cooperates with this fake narrative AGAINST PAKISTAN'S INTERESTS without the slightest bit of murmur or public contradiction............just like trained monkey's to the American organ grinder.

The Pakistani elite and media by aiding the JEWSA with the "al-Qaeda" myth, and sending the same Jehadis into Indian Kashmir since 1989, have turned what was wholly a domestic Afghan resistance movement with very specific local intentions, dominated and run by Pakistan for Pakistan.......have inadvertently conflated the Afghan Taliban through the miscalculated policies of the Pakistan military with international terrorism. The slippery JEWSA is merely exploiting this miscalculation.

I have always argued that the Pakistanis need to disengage from the USA fully, rather than try to maintain the rather paradoxical, unsustainable and one may say deeply dishonest position of being on the one hand an ally of the USA taking billions $ worth of aid, allowing American military personnel and mercenaries into sensitive parts of the country, whilst simultaneously hosting the Taliban Afghan Shura in Quetta, who are directly responsible for the death of American servicemen in Afghanistan.

It can't go on like this.

Pakistan logically needs to eject the Taliban Afghan Shura, even if they are not related to the TTP......... ........even if they clearly have no internationalist pretensions, and therefore highly unlikely to have undertaken the false flag attack in NY recently.

The slippery bankrupt JEWSA is desperate, and is groping around for any excuse to attack Pakistan MORE COMPREHENSIVELY, then the current levels through drone attacks.


U.S. To Plan Pakistan Strike

White House eyes retaliation if Taliban pull off major strike inside U.S.

By GREG MILLER (Hopefully not related to Judith Miller)

"Washington Post --- The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials.

(Thats been the talk since 2004 at least, and is building momentum as more American servicemen and mercenaries swamp Pakistan, and the Zardari government becomes more dependent on USA largess------the actual ultimate objective is of course to secure Pakistan's nukes for Israel {an Israeli objective since the 1970's}, so that in the event of an Israeli nuclear attack against Iran {Israeli nuclear armed submarines are already in the Persian Gulf} Pakistan won't be able to come to the rescue of Iran in any possible way.......as it will have been occupied quietly by the USA .......also an Israeli attack on Iran will obviously have political repercussions on Pakistan, a neighbor.

Also we must remember that Bush in his secret talks with Blair in January 2003 and subsequently leaked by 2 British civil servants, did say that after Iraq, Iran would be invaded, and then Pakistan.......thus the objective has not changed, but the time line has.

In signing the pipeline deal with Iran after 16 years of hard negotiation, perhaps Pakistan is signaling that it does not want to obediently wait in the queue, after Iran is attacked to be occupied by the USA eventually.......though the security cooperation with Iran is superficial and Kiyani has no linkages with his counterparts in Iran. Common sense again tells us that since both countries are on the "list" of to do and attack by the USA that both countries should fully cooperate in the security sphere. This is natural survival instinct, not even high politics and sophisticated strategizing.

OF course there will be counter measures to create schism between the two....such as Shia/Sunni animosity, but the two must act clearly for their mutual interests )

Ties between the alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and elements of the Pakistani Taliban have sharpened the Obama administration's need for retaliatory options, the officials said.

(Disinformation-----There are no ties; TTP have not taken credit, realizing even as American intelligence fronts the very serious nature for them {being attacked by the Pakistan military and the American military simultaneously} should such acts be traced back to them......Shahzad's sheer amateurish and inexplicable action in NY suggests he had no training in Pakistan under the TTP, and the TTP have not claimed him as their own......the TTP understands that their job for the USA is to destabilize Pakistan which they have successfully done since 2006...........NOT conduct attacks against the USA, which logistically as puppets of the USA they are wholly incapable of doing, but as OBL found out in 2001 which he subsequently denied to the Pakistani media, the American's often have a habit of changing the job description of their created puppets without telling their puppets.......

Warning to Kiyani

Warning to Zardari

But as Musharaf found out in 2007-8, as Zia ul Haq found out, as Ayub Khan found out eventually..."Friends not Masters")

They stressed that a U.S. reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient.

(The American security state is so huge consuming perhaps as much as $1.5 trillion each year, and so sophisticated according to Chalmers Johnson {ex-CIA analyst} that it simply is not possible for two bit organizations such as the TTP to conduct terror ops in the USA. The TTP it must be repeated again and again is an American intelligence front created out of ex-Guantanamo detainees to attack Pakistani targets within Pakistan, and thus squeeze Pakistan towards the USA's way of thinking...............nearly ALL the big and medium terror ops in the USA are conducted by the USA government for specific agenda's.......introducing MRE security laws which give the state greater powers, and puts potential foreign targets on their back foot....Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and so on)

"Planning has been reinvigorated in the wake of Times Square," one of the officials said..............(this has been ongoing since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and when the Clinton's came to power in 1993.......2010)

'(Con)Fusion centers' (centers for destabilization of Pakistan)

At the same time, the administration is trying to deepen ties to Pakistan's intelligence officials in a bid to head off any attack by militant groups. The United States and Pakistan have recently established a joint military intelligence center on the outskirts of the northwestern city of Peshawar, and are in negotiations to set up another one near Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Afghan Taliban is based, according to the U.S. military officials. They and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding U.S. military and intelligence activities in Pakistan.

(The ISI was created by the departing British Raj, as its primary instrument of influence in its former colony.......so London saab was its initial master, so that in the early 1950's it destabilized civilian governments and paved the way for eventual military takeover of Pakistan in 1958, with Washington's blessing.

With increased American military and economic aid $4 billion 1950--1969, naturally the USA became the master of the ISI.

At present the USA is the absolute master of the ISI, as the USA bankrolls most of its operations.


The ISI runs the Afghan Taliban for the USA, but not the Pakistan Taliban which is run directly by the USA.

In internet lingo the Afghan Taliban are known as "ineffective Controlled Opposition".....by the USA, and that is why THEY HAVE A SAFE HAVEN IN QUETTA DIRECTLY UNDER THE NOSES OF THE Americans for 9 uninterrupted years.

Further for the Pakistani people to win real freedom, and avoid being a perennial nuisance to her neighbors {India, Afghanistan, Iran}........ALL USA Western aid,..... military and economic must be severed.

For the Pakistani people to win real freedom, and avoid being a perennial nuisance to her neighbors......ALL senior figures within government must be trained in Pakistan and not sent on refresher course to London and the USA, where they develop their official mindset and lingo........Gilani, Kiyani, Haqqani, Zardari.......fine Iranian sounding names....how about acting like the actual people?

For the Pakistani people to win real freedom, and avoid being a perennial nuisance to her neighbors......Pakistan needs to disengage from the American led security operations within Pakistan)

The "fusion centers" are meant to bolster Pakistani military operations by providing direct access to U.S. intelligence, including real-time video surveillance from drones controlled by the U.S. Special Operations Command, the officials said. But in an acknowledgment of the continuing mistrust between the two governments, the officials added that both sides also see the centers as a way to keep a closer eye on one another, as well as to monitor military operations and intelligence activities in insurgent areas.

Obama said during his campaign for the presidency that he would be willing to order strikes in Pakistan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a television interview after the Times Square attempt that "if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."

Obama dispatched his national security adviser, James L. Jones, and CIA Director Leon Panetta to Islamabad this month to deliver a similar message to Pakistani officials, including President Asif Ali Zardari and the military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani.

Jones and Panetta also presented evidence gathered by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies that Shahzad received significant support from the Pakistani Taliban.

Retaliatory blows (major intrusion into Pakistani sovereign territory)

The U.S. options for potential retaliatory action rely mainly on air and missile strikes, but could also employ small teams of U.S. Special Operations troops already positioned along the border with Afghanistan. One of the senior military officials said plans for military strikes in Pakistan have been revised significantly over the past several years, moving away from a "large, punitive response" to more measured plans meant to deliver retaliatory blows against specific militant groups.

The official added that there is a broad consensus in the U.S. military that airstrikes would at best erode the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and risk an irreparable rupture in the U.S. relationship with Pakistan.

"The general feeling is that we need to be circumspect in how we respond so we don't destroy the relationships we've built" with the Pakistani military, the second official said.

U.S. Special Operations teams in Afghanistan have pushed for years to have wider latitude to carry out raids across the border, arguing that CIA drone strikes do not yield prisoners or other opportunities to gather intelligence. But a 2008 U.S. helicopter raid against a target in Pakistan prompted protests from officials in Islamabad who oppose allowing U.S. soldiers to operate within their country.

The CIA has the authority to designate and strike targets in Pakistan without case-by-case approval from the White House. U.S. military forces are currently authorized to carry out unilateral strikes in Pakistan only if solid intelligence were to surface on any of three high-value targets: al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Taliban chief Mohammad Omar. But even in those cases, the military would need higher-level approval.

"The bottom line is you have to have information about targets to do something [and] we have a process that remains cumbersome," said one of the senior military officials. "If something happens, we have to confirm who did it and where it came from. People want to be as precise as possible to be punitive."

U.S. spy agencies have engaged in a major buildup inside Pakistan over the past year. The CIA has increased the pace of drone strikes against al-Qaeda affiliates, a campaign supported by the arrival of new surveillance and eavesdropping technology deployed by the National Security Agency.

The fusion centers are part of a parallel U.S. military effort to intensify the pressure on the Taliban and other groups accused of directing insurgent attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. officials said that the sharing of intelligence goes both ways and that targets are monitored in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Delicate trade off

In the Peshawar fusion cell, which was set up within the last several months, Pakistanis have access to "full-motion video from different platforms," including unarmed surveillance drones, one official said.

The fusion centers also serve a broader U.S. aim: making the Pakistanis more dependent on U.S. intelligence, and less likely to curtail Predator drone patrols or other programs that draw significant public opposition.

To Pakistan, the fusion centers offer a glimpse of U.S. capabilities, as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military operations across the border. "They find out much more about what we know," one of the senior U.S. military officials said. "What we get is physical presence -- to see what they are actually doing versus what they say they're doing."

That delicate arrangement will be tested if the two sides reach agreement on the fusion center near Quetta. The city has served for nearly a decade as a sanctuary for Taliban leaders who fled Afghanistan in 2001 and have long-standing ties to Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.

U.S. officials said that the two sides have done preliminary work searching for a suitable site for the center but that the effort is proceeding at a pace that one official described as "typical Pakistani glacial speed." Despite the increased cooperation, U.S. officials say they continue to be frustrated over Pakistan's slow pace in issuing visas to American military and civilian officials.

One senior U.S. military official said the center would be used to track the Afghan Taliban leadership council, known as the Quetta shura. But other officials said the main mission would be to support the U.S. military effort across the border in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where a major U.S. military push is planned.


The more Pakistan entangles itself with the JEWSA in security and at all other levels, the more problems will multiply as the JEWSA tries out its base instincts and ego against ordinary Pakistanis in the service of Israel.


The Final Solution which 60% of Kashmiris want.


A comprehensive survey by a very reputable London based organization, Chattam House, has just delivered the results of what many of us already suspected and knew..............most Kashmiris and people in Jammu also presumably, want a comprehensive final settlement, which recognizes the current LoC as the International border between India and Pakistan, and normalizes and de-militarizes the border so that people can come and go reasonably freely between Pak Kashmir and the Indian part of Kashmir (normal coexistence).

Sounds logical, rational and pragmatic. So whats the problem?

The problem are the so called leaders, and bureaucrats of both countries.

In Pakistan's case the powerful military who have dominated Pakistan since its creation see the dispute of Kashmir as an "opportunity" to rally the country behind them, and also as a justification for the current bloated size of the Pak military way beyond the means of the country (Unofficially: 800,000 military, 300,000 paramilitary, and 1,000,000 reserves, spending 5-8% of actual GDP on defense and security).

The civilian politicians and especially the PPP would probably like some form of accommodation with India, but lack the power and credibility to deliver peace with India over such an significant issue. President Zardari bhen and his coterie of criminals lacks total credibility within Pakistan and are propped up by American mercenary forces.....going through the motion of peace with India for public consumption mainly.

Nawaz Sharif came close to reaching peace with India, but MOSSAD Musharaf launched a wholly illegal war in Kargil to undercut that significant effort. Final peace with India would have given Sharif enormous political prestige, and real solid economic and political benefits but MOSSAD Musharaf didn't want him, a civilian politician, getting that enormous bonus.

One also suspects that since Pakistan is a failed state due to the machinations of the USA, and Pakistan officially is a client puppet state of the USA, then in this realpolitik the USA is also a significant contributing factor for the lack of progress over Kashmir, on the Pakistani side at least, operating in the background in Islamabad. The USA's role in 26/11 would suggest that on the contrary it is far from interested in peace between India and Pakistan.

On the Indian side we have a corrupt sluggish slow Indian bureaucracy which lacks imagination and drive, and a political elite which is wholly incompetent controlling through the Union budget barely 10% of the real Indian economy (red + black economy $3,800 billion by PPP). Governance in India is appallingly poor, never mind the oft repeated cliche that it is the largest democracy in the world. Such inept ramshackle governments sitting in Delhi lack the will, coherence and drive to achieve final peace with Pakistan, even though the opportunities for India to make a break through are ample, and stares at them daily.

"Listen you post-colonial coolie chaudis, set up a task force headed by a professor of international relations to pick point by point how to bring peace with Pakistan finally, after 63 years, and calculate how much in $ billions aid must be given to Pakistan to buy that final peace. The Zardari government requires hard cash. India has FCR of $280 billion, and the PPP real economy is $3,800 billion 2010........a few $ billions should do the trick. If you have to borrow a few billion from the 55 Indian billionaires then do so....Ambani the 2nd richest guy in the world who is spending $2 billion on his new Penthouse????!!!!!"


Just 2% of people in J&K want to join Pak:

For those who still think a plebiscite will tilt the status of Kashmir and that most Kashmiris yearn to wave the Pakistani green, there are now numbers for the first time to contradict these claims.

(RSS sympathizers in India making a big deal about a few Indian Muslim waving the Pakistani flag hardly reflects the reality of the silent majority, though obviously makes good headlines for the RSS media)

A survey carried out across both Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, that its author claims is the first ever of its kind, shows that only 2% of the respondents on the Indian side favour joining Pakistan and most such views were confined to Srinagar and Budgam districts. In six of the districts surveyed late last year by researchers from the London-based thinktank Chatham House, not a single person favoured annexation with Pakistan, a notion that remains the bedrock for the hardline separate campaign in Kashmir.

(Lets face it who wants to live and be part of failed state Pakistan (9) which is going through a few problems now, and in the process of being swamped by mercenary Christian fundie forces running amok in the country)

However, the study by Robert Bradrock, a scholar from London's Kings College, that involved interviewing 3,774 people in both parts of Kashmir in September-October 2009 showed that 44% of people on the Pakistani side favoured independence, compared to 43% in Indian Kashmir.

(Not a realistic option or solution)

Bradrock says in the 37-page report on the survey that this would put an end for all times to come to the plebiscite route as a possible way to resolve Kashmir, since the only two options envisaged under the UN resolutions proposing plebiscite in 1948/49 were for the whole of Kashmir to join either India or Pakistan; azadi was not an option. But in the Valley, the mood for azadi still remained strong, with 75%-95% respondents favouring that as a final resolution.

(Not practical, pragmatic)

The poll showed no support either for joint sovereignty or for maintaining status quo. However, more than 58% of those surveyed were prepared to accept the Line of Control as a permanent border if it could be liberalized for greater people-to-people contact and trade. Only 8% voted against making the LoC a permanent boundary, with the highest level of opposition in Anantnag district, the report said.

Few people in Kashmir, compared to many more in PoK, believed that violence was likely to resolve the Kashmir issue.

In J&K, only 20% thought that militant violence would help solve the problem, compared to nearly 40% who thought it was coming in the way of a resolution. In PoK, 37% of those surveyed held the view that violence was a possible route to resolution.

That both the state legislative elections in 2008 and the Lok Sabha elections in 2009 had helped bring about a change in mindsets was seen in the increasingly high turnouts that Kashmir has posted in recent years.

The survey too demonstrated that trend, with more than half the respondents saying the elections had improved chances for peace.

"The results aren't surprising at all. I feel they re-emphasize the need to look beyond traditional positions and evaluate the contours of a solution grounded in today's realities," said Sajjad Lone, a former ally of the Hurriyat who unsuccessfully contested the 2009 election.

Peoples Democratic Party chief spokesman Naeem Akhtar said the azadi aspirations must be factored into any solution.

"It can't be wished away and has to be configured into the future strategy on Kashmir. We've always been pleading to provide an alternative to the azadi sentiment."


The Heroin Taliban truth of Afghanistan


On the one hand you feel a sense of gleeful Aryan superiority when you read this article below. On the other hand a touch of melancholy that the Greatest Nation on earth should be reduced to this.

Japan is rich and successful, with high living standards and very low crime. Rarely does one hear about Japanese corporations or Japanese state entities resorting to questionable practices to achieve business success. Germany beyond the BND is a very successful country, exporting more than the USA. One does not hear about German enterprises committing mass crime in order to maintain Germany's leading position as the power house of Europe and a nation noted for its excellence in many areas.

Sweden is...........

Norway is.............

Denmark is..........

New Zealand is......

Austria is...............

As we delve deeper, with the aid of on-going wars which expose the "weaknesses" of states, we find that the main state pillars of the USA are wholly and totally corrupt. I mean Papa Doc Duvalier and the Ton Ton Makoot banana republic corrupt. What is to become of the USA eventually? What is to become of the world as a result of that?

From one of the best alternative reporters.


Kurt Nimmo

“It’s near-impossible to find anyone in Afghanistan who doesn’t believe the US are funding the Taliban: and it’s the highly educated Afghan professionals, those employed by ISAF, USAID, international media organizations – and even advising US diplomats – who seem the most convinced,” reports the Guardian today. “The US has an interest in prolonging the conflict so as to stay in Afghanistan for the long term,” said one Afghan.

(Lets qualify clarify that shall we.....a few well connected Jews and their Military Industrial Congress Complex minions have an interest in prolonging the "Afghan war".....10,000 Taliban armed with AK-47 vs 300,000 Western troops and mercenaries with state of the art modern 21st century warefare equipment.

Americans who die for a lost fake cause don't benefit

The weak crumbling American economy does not benefit

The thousands of new addicts in the streets of the USA as a result of the American military imported Afghan heroin don't benefit)

It does not take a lot of research to prove the Taliban — and al-Qaeda — were fabricated by the CIA in league with Pakistani and Saudi Arabian intelligence.

Zadari: Taliban Created By C.I.A. And I.S.I.

Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari said the Taliban was created by CIA and ISI. Naturally, this story was all but ignored by the corporate media in the U.S.

In the Middle East and Europe the media has reported this fact for some time now. But in the United States the corporate media retells the official fantasy ad nauseam and millions of people by it hook, line, and sinker.

In 1998, top Rockefeller minion Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted the Taliban was created by the United States. “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” said a testy Brzezinski when pushed by Le Nouvel Observateur.

Brzezinski’s Afghan Mujahideen organized to fight the Soviets and displace their puppet Mohammad Najibullah — subsequently murdered by the Taliban — eventually splintered into the Taliban. “In 1994, a new group, the Taliban (Pashtun for ’students’), emerged on the scene. Its members came from madrassas set up by the Pakistani government along the border and funded by the U.S., Britain, and the Saudis, where they had received theological indoctrination and military training,” writes Phil Gasper, a professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur University.

The creation of the Taliban was “actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA,” according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. “The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban.”

The CIA and Taliban work together

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen documents the special relationship between the CIA, ISI, and the Taliban.

The CIA also used “humanitarian” front organizations such as the Committee for a Free Afghanistan to fund and train the Mujahideen and eventually the Taliban. The CIA also spent millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings for Afghan schoolchildren.

“We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us,” writes Rep. Ron Paul. “In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today’s brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today’s dollars.”

After the Taliban killed thousands and captured Kabul in 1996, the U.S. said it didn’t have a problem with their over-the-top religious fanaticism. State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw “nothing objectionable” in the Taliban’s plans to impose strict Islamic law (see Joel Mowbray, Dangerous diplomacy: how the State Department threatens America’s security, p. 62). Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: “The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan.”

“The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil corporations], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that,” said another U.S. diplomat in 1997 (see Timothy Mitchell, McJihad: Islam in the U.S. Global Order).

“The reference to oil and pipelines explains everything,” explains Gasper. “Since the collapse of the USSR at the end of 1991, U.S. oil companies and their friends in the State Department have been salivating at the prospect of gaining access to the huge oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics bordering the Caspian Sea and in Central Asia. These have been estimated as worth $4 trillion.”

The master criminal organization Enron gave the Taliban bribes as part of a “no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan” in order to supply one of its power plants in India. Enron executives privately meet with Taliban officials in Texas in 1997 and the fanatics were “given the red-carpet treatment.” It is said Enron secretly employed CIA agents to carry out its dealings overseas.

“Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11,” Ron Paul continues. “Already in 2001 the U.S. has provided $125 million in so-called humanitarian aid to the country, making us the world’s single largest donor to Afghanistan.”

This marriage of convenience came to an abrupt end shortly after September 11, 2001, when the United States invaded Afghanistan supposedly in response to the Taliban sheltering another CIA asset, Osama bin Laden. As it turns out, however, the U.S. planned to invade Afghanistan prior to September 11, 2001, when cave-dwelling Arabs changed the laws of physics.

Soon thereafter, in late December, 2002, an oil pipeline deal was penned in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, with installed Afghan puppet and former Unocal employee Hamid Karzai in attendance (Karzai joined the struggle against the Soviets in 1982 and became director of operations of the Afghan National Liberation Front, a CIA front).

Ahmed Wali Karzai, Hamid’s brother and a key player in the country’s opium trade, also works for the CIA. “The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House,” the New York Times reported on October 27, 2009.

As the Guardian reported, most Afghans know “America’s war strategy” is a joke and only the American people are fooled and also fleeced.

For years the corporate media has told us the Taliban fund their insurgency with profits from a huge opium industry. But even Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Bilderberger Richard Holbrooke, admits this is not the case. “In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” said Holbrooke last year. “That is simply not true.”

In fact, before “everything changed,” the Taliban banned opium cultivation in Afghanistan, an effort the corporate media characterized as an effort to run up prices.

However, after the defeat of the Taliban, the drug trade, under the supervision of the CIA, would once again blossom.

Wayne Madsen Reports CIA Control of Afghanistan's Opium Fields

Wayne Madsen tells Alex Jones about U.S. control of Afghanistan’s opium fields.

“After five years of the U.S. occupation, Afghanistan’s drug production had swelled to unprecedented proportions,” writes Alfred W. McCoy, a professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “In August 2007, the U.N. reported that the country’s record opium crop covered almost 500,000 acres, an area larger than all the coca fields in Latin America. From a modest 185 tons at the start of American intervention in 2001, Afghanistan now produced 8,200 tons of opium, a remarkable 53% of the country’s GDP and 93% of global heroin supply.”

In April, Fox News ran a brazen propaganda piece on Afghanistan’s opium trade claiming the U.S. military allows peasants to grow opium out of respect for their cultural traditions.

In fact, the CIA has long used profits from opium to finance its covert operations. In March 2002, a U.S. foreign intelligence official speaking on the condition of anonymity told NewsMax of the CIA’s record of involvement with the international drug trade. The official said: “The CIA did almost the identical thing during the Vietnam War, which had catastrophic consequences — the increase in the heroin trade in the USA beginning in the 1970’s is directly attributable to the CIA. The CIA has been complicit in the global drug trade for years, so I guess they just want to carry on their favorite business.”

In 2008, Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, accused the Pentagon of acting as a mule for the CIA’s drug business. A Russian television report from Afghanistan said that drugs from Afghanistan were hauled by American transport aircraft to the U.S. airbases Ganci in Kyrgyzstan and Incirlik in Turkey. One of the best-informed Russian journalists on Central Asia, Arkady Dubnov, quoted anonymous Afghan sources as saying that “85 per cent of all drugs produced in southern and southeastern provinces are shipped abroad by U.S. aviation,” according to Vladimir Radyuhin.

In order to continue the CIA’s favorite business enterprise and extend the occupation indefinitely, the U.S. supports its official enemy in Afghanistan. “It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting,” Aram Roston wrote for the Nation on November 11, 2009. “US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts — hundreds of millions of dollars — consists of payments to insurgents.”

Roston “uncovered a tangled web of former military and CIA officials, relatives of the Afghanistan president and Defense Minister and various other shady characters who act as a pipeline from the U.S. Treasury to the Taliban,” write Jon Soltz and Richard Allen Smith for Vet Voice.

The occupation of Afghanistan is not about freedom and democracy for the Afghan people. It is about producing heroin and maintaining a military foothold in Asia.


Congress showers Taliban “insurgents” with cash.

On May 20, a Senate committee approved another $33.5 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. “The action by the Senate Appropriations Committee is the first step toward congressional approval of the extra war spending that President Barack Obama requested in February to support his surge of 30,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan,” Reuters reported. The money comes on top of about $130 billion that Congress already approved for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars through September 30 of this year.

Not only will the money help support an effort to flood American streets with deadly heroin — and thus turn heavy profits for the money launderers on Wall Street — it will also add to the preposterous debt owed to bankers. In the end, we not only pay for the misery of drug addiction (and the war on drugs, including the prison industrial complex) but the effort to reduce America to a nation of slaves indebted for generations to come to a cabal of international bankers.


Axis of evil: ISRAEL

Comment by Mike Rivero, about Israel's attempt to sell nuke bombs to Aparthied South Africa
At WhatReallyHappened.com

There is no longer any "ambiguity" about Israel's nuclear weapons. They have them, and indeed have so many they are looking to sell some of them off!

Israel is a nuclear power. They do not need a constant influx of American tax dollars and weapons to defend themselves, and indeed every single military adventure by Israel has been offensive in nature!

The US Government can no longer continue to pretend it does not know Israel has nuclear weapons. And that means that every single penny of American taxpayer money sent to Israel since 1976 is a theft from the American people because under both the 1976 Symington Amendment to the 1961 Foreign Appropriations act and the Glenn Act, the US Government may not send foreign aide to any nations that possess and traffic in nuclear weapons that have not signed the NNPT and submit to IAEA inspections.

At the very least, the US Congress must immediately halt all funding to Israel until Israel is in compliance with the NNPT and IAEA or answer just whose interests they serve sitting in those US Taxpayer funded offices!

Meanwhile, there is one aspect of this story that the Guardian neglected. Israel has been caught trying to sell nuclear weapons to the Apartheid regime in South Africa. The obvious question that must be asked now is, who else did Israel sell nuclear weapons to? And given that the US Nuclear secrets stolen by Jonathon Pollard and given to Israel were then given by Israel to US ENEMIES, has Israel sold nuclear weapons to nations that do not like the United States?


Libertarianism dominated by neo-liberals Fronts?


Yes I advocated for Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential elections, because whilst he did not seem perfect, fundamentally what he was saying made more sense compared to the standard stock of policies offered by Obama who I knew would change when actually elected, and McCain who I thought was too unstable emotionally, and thus definitely should not have been the next American President at such a sensitive time.

Ron Paul seemed sincere and didn't have the flamboyant political hyperbole of many a Capitol Hill politicians. He comes on Youtube regularly, or Alex Jones and so forth and says the right sensible things about the Fed, fiscal responsibility, the American debt, trade about American foreign policy and much much more.

But this writer in the article posted below is suggesting, as with his son "Ayn" Rand Paul......if Paul senior would have been elected he would have done an Obama, but with greater sincerity. He is in fact an essential part of the American establishment........providing controlled opposition view points to that youthful middle America fraction which is truly disillusioned with the two party system.

Upon reflection Ron Paul seemed such a weak fragile person (too old, like McCain), one wonders what he would have actually achieved if elected as President. Not sour grapes.

With allegations of the Zionist control of the Tea Party Movement, with crypto-Jewess Sarah Palin fronting it regularly with Jew controlled Fox News openly promoting it, and now it seems Ron Pauls dynasty politics is rooted in neo-liberalism by another name.....who else is there in America that can save the country from the abyss and actually represent the basic interests of the average American from endless war; endless hours of work; endless government regulation without the commensurate increase in public services and an endless all powerful police state that make basic liberties in the country meaningless.

How does one create in America a powerful grassroots anti-establishment party which is not subsequently subverted, infiltrated and guided by slippery Jews for their tribal causes?

How does one create a powerful grassroots party which is not subverted by the FBI and subsequently labelled as terrorists, through agent provocateur speeches and actions.

The Presidential campaign funds amassed by Ron Paul that doesn't have to be given back, that which has not been spent, right?


Originally by Scott Creighton

Rand Paul’s ”business first” philosophy is showing through… he said Barack Obama’s criticism of BP for its handling of the Gulf oil spill “sounded un-American”

‘I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business’. Huffington Post

Rand Paul’s libertarian education (apparently shaped by the Lewis Powell memo ) is starting to show through…

(Rand) Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are “always someone’s fault” and added, sometimes accidents just happen. MSNBC

So, to Rand Paul, it’s “un-American” to find fault with a business that has been deliberately skirting their responsibilities and containment procedure costs and as a direct result of these cost saving practices, their preventable oil spill promises to grow into the largest ecological disaster in our history.

An independent researcher investigating the Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident has released preliminary findings, based on accounts from rig employees and others, that the accident was the result of a series of mistakes and flawed decisions, which had compromised safety.

… ”This disaster was preventable,” Bea writes, “had existing progressive guidelines and practices been followed.”

… Bea also says “drilling and well completion operations did not meet industry standards.” NBC

Opps. Guess Rand was wrong about that one… someone should ask Rand if it’s “un-American” for someone to do an independent investigation and does the fact that BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum factor into Rand’s “un-American” comment at all? Does Rand Paul think it’s “un-American” to find fault (where it belongs) with a FOREIGN business?

You get that Rand? Maybe you should rethink that whole… “its un-American to criticise business” thing. Or at least that “sometimes accidents just happen” line. You’re hemorrhaging credibility Rand and your ”Friedman” side is showing. Is it really possible to be an anti-establishment corporatist?

But I guess Rand Paul may have something there; perhaps our forefathers wouldn’t have given a shit if businesses all across America decimated our entire east coast for nothing more than the love of a few dollars and then put up “Whites Only” signs in their windows. Maybe that is what the Founding Fathers really wanted America to become. Maybe that really is “Liberty”.

Of course I come from a different school of thought as far as what I think our Founding Fathers had hoped for in America. I also think our moral structure as a society may have evolved a little since then. But that is just me and I am not looking to line my pockets with corporate “campaign contributions” either… so maybe that factors somehow. Who knows. Personally, I kinda remember how ben Franklin and other Patriots were rebelling against the privately owed Bank of England when we first decided to part ways with the English. That would be a “business”, you know.

But what I find most odd is that a libertarian like Rand Paul is all about “personal responsiblity” when it comes to dismantling the social safety net – he feels that retirement savings should be left to the individual (privatizing social security) and that unemployment insurance and Medicare should pretty much be abolished because it is ultimately the responsibility of the individual to look out for themselves… but when it comes to big business Rand Paul and the libertarians (“neoliberals/neocons”?)seems to think that it’s “unAmerican” to even start to hold them responsible (not that Obama is doing ANYTHING OF THE SORT with BP)

(Rand Paul’s America ”hold people responsible to the point where they can starve in the streets and leave big business alone to the point were they can destroy our beaches and wildlife”… does that about sum it up? He’ll fit right in congress won’t he?)

So is this latest quip of his just an out of context misquote or is it a glimpse into the melting down of another candidate who is pretending to be one thing, but he keeps letting his truer nature slip out? I suppose if Rand wants some big time donation money from BP, hell, he just got it. But what about his anti-establishment facade that it took him and his daddy and Alex Jones so long to craft? Is that going bye-bye now that Rand is getting closer to sucking at the teet of his oligarchical birthright?

Who is Rand Paul? What does he really stand for?

Let’s see…

In the now infamous interview, Rand Paul couldn’t bring himself to say that Woolworth’s lunch counter shouldn’t have been segregated…

RACHEL MADDOW: Should—Woolworth lunch counters should have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.

RAND PAUL: What I think would happen—what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe that any private property should discriminate either, and I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to. But what you have to answer, when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to brind up, but if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants. And then, do you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants? Democracy NOW!

(“Guns in Woolworths”?! What the hell does that have to do with the question? This interview was painful to watch… by the way, that “abstract, obscure converstation” he mentions just happens to be the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

This latest set of Rand Paul pearls of libertarian wisdom are evident in his past as well. From a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News

“The Daily News ignores,” wrote (Rand) Paul, “as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.”

… “A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination,” wrote Paul, “even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities.” Washington Post

In a world of spiraling “public/private partnerships”, where the government (and therefore the role government plays in our everyday lives) is being consumed by the privately owned corporations, Rand (Ann Rand?) Paul’s libertarian ideology (where “freedom” is primarily focused on the “freedom” of completely deregulated business to do exactly as they wish to do; as the “market” dictates) is a dangerous and potentially explosively regressive concept.

The most obvious of these issues was brought up recently as Rand Paul seems poised to win a seat in the senate simply because he is Ron Paul’s son (can you say “Oligarchy“? “is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious hegemony.”) and it deals primarily with his idea that private business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they wish, as is evidenced by Rand Paul’s 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News shown above.

Now, to be fair, Rand Paul’s spin doctors have come up with an answer to the growing criticism he is facing; he says he does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

Aside from the fact that wasn’t the question, Rand Paul (like most lying politicians) decided to answer the question he would rather have been asked rather than dealing with the one in front of him. Yes, Rand Paul believes that in a “free society” business has the right to discriminate against anyone they choose.

Why is that so destructive in this day and age and especially when it comes from someone like Rand Paul? Because, Rand Paul also believes in the privatization of most government services… like education. Rand Paul has a very interesting view of education… he wants to eliminate the Department of Education in favor of homeschooling.

Rand Paul’s website has this up under his “education” position…

As the Federal Government has increased the size and budget of the Department of Education, test scores and scholastic performance have markedly dropped. More money, more bureaucracy, and more government intervention are eroding this nation’s educational standards. Meanwhile, home-schooled children continue to excel as evidenced by their test scores and rapidly growing admission rate into some of the nation’s most prestigious educational institutions.

Rand proposes to restore the parental right to be responsible in educating children. He supports reduced taxes so that parents can allocate more of their own funds to homeschooling, if they so desire. He seeks to prevent the Department of Education from regulating homeschooling and will fight to keep the Federal Government’s hands out of this promising alternative to conventional education. Rand recognizes the potential and scholarly prowess of homeschooling and will ensure that homeschoolers are allowed the freedom to compete alongside those who attend public and private schools. Rand Paul

The debate surround homeschooling is too vast for me to jump into at this time. But effectively what homeschooling actually does is that it perpetuates the class system. Let’s face it; some parents are more qualified than some teachers to provide a real education to their children, and as far as I know, homeschooling is allowed in many states in this country already, were the parents to choose that route. However, the flip side of that is a bit more grim; not ALL parents are better suited to educate young people. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. How many parents can teach trigonometry, algebra, world history, a foreign language… to their children?

Without a doubt, the children of the educated classes will certainly have an advantage over those born to lower and working class parents. This kind of advantage is exactly what one might expect to find a privileged son in a oligarchal system to advocate. Keep the ignorant… ignorant. Keep the privileged… privileged.

Now I can’t say much about Rand Paul’s philosophy on privatization other than I know he supports it. If he supports a completely privatized education system run by privately owned businesses, does that mean he would support the idea of those institutions being able to discriminate at will? That is the exact kind of answer people have been looking to get out of him since this whole thing started and he simply refuses to delve into it.

So in order to try to understand where he is coming from I decided to spend a little of my investigational energies looking into that thing called “Libertarianism”. I had previously thought they were the epitome of the neoliberal agenda.

I was right.

You see, like when Obama pretended to be a “progressive” and a “liberal” running for the White House, I figured that Rand and his Daddy both decided that they would never win any seat of power running on the Libertarian ticket, so, like Obama, they pretended to be something else… republicans. That being the case, I figured I should take a look and see just what that Libertarian thing really stands for. You’re gonna love this.

1.Right now the Libertarian Party (the party of “Principle”) is chaired by Bill Redpath… a man who got his MBA from… wait for it… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)

2.Right now the Libertarian Party Secretary is Bill Sullentrup… a man who got his MBA from … wait for it… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)

3. Jim Powell is Senior Fellow at a libertarian the Cato Institute with which he has been associated since 1988 and he went to school at… the University of Chicago (home of the Milton Friedman neoliberal agenda)

(anybody see a pattern developing here?)

4. The CATO Institute is the libertarian (little “L”) think tank in Washington. It was founded in 1977 as a direct consequence of the Lewis Powell Memo (called “Attack of American Free Enterprise System”) The memo itself laid out a surprisingly libertarian viewpoint about how American businesses were under attack…

The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.

… Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.

There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.

Powell, 1971

The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy. Reclaiming Democracy

The CATO Institute supported the Bush administration on these issues: “most notably health care , Social Security, global warming, tax policy, and immigration, Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives” on these issues.

The Cato Institute established its Project on Social Security Privatization in 1995, renaming it the Project on Social Security Choice in 2002.

The libertarian CATO Institute was founded by Charles Koch who is the brother of the Libertarian Party’s 1980 vice presidential candidate, David Koch. In 2008, Charles Koch was listed on the Forbes 400 as having a personal net worth of $17 billion. His brother, David Koch, is even wealthier and “is New York’s second wealthiest resident, after Michael Bloomberg.”

The Koch’s of the libertarian CATO Institute and the Libertarian Party didn’t build their own fortunes; the inherited them from their oil baron father, Fred Koch. What they inherited was nothing short of the second largest privately own company in America, Koch Industries. “Koch Industries also is well-known for its long-time sponsorship of free-market foundations and causes“ … no shit…

5. The libertarian movement itself…

“Additionally, various political parties and factions have worked to develop the goals of libertarianism, and numerous writers and intellectuals have become public figures within the American libertarian movement by laying out broad philosophical tenets underlying libertarianism, as well as specific strategies aimed at effecting practical changes toward libertarianism. Examples include:”

  • Ayn Rand, who rejected libertarianism herself, played a substantial role in libertarianism.
  • Milton Friedman, along with other Chicago school economists.
  • Murray Rothbard, along with other Austrian school economists.

You notice how they have Milton Friedman stuck in there? He’s the founder of the neoliberal IMF type “Shock therapy” style of economic “reforms” that we are facing right now. Isn’t it odd how he is so closely associated with the “libertarian” philosophy? I thought he was a “neocon”?

“In the 1980s, pro-property libertarianism grew substantially more popular and gained considerable influence in Republican administrations, though at the national level the Libertarian Party still fared poorly.”

Also, George W. Bush‘s “personal accounts” for Social Security are modeled in part upon privatization proposals long supported by some pro-property libertarian groups like the Cato Institute…”

Many trade barriers have been lifted, (NAFTA, GATT, outsourcing jobs overseas) reducing what most libertarians argue are unneeded interferences with functioning markets and the right to use one’s property as one sees fit.

Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan have exerted considerable influence over monetary policy in favor of libertarian goals.

Ronald Reagan popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms, though many libertarians are ambivalent about his legacy


To say that libertarian philosophy is closely akin to that of the neoliberal/neoconservative movement is not only valid, its painfully obvious to anyone who has a little time to research it. In fact, modern libertarian philosophy was founded at pretty much the exact same time (and then apparently the leading libertarians were taught at the neocon founding university, the University of Chicago, where Leo Strauss put it all into motion)

From “How the Neocons Stole Freedom” – Ronald Reagan, and Ugly Truth

Ironically, it was Richard Nixon who fractured the Republican Party, driving out the Libertarian wing with his announcement of Wage and Price Controls on August 15, 1971. The Libertarian Party was officially founded on December 11, 1971, by David Nolan and a small group of former Republicans in the living room of activist Luke Zell in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

David Nolan had been an officer of three organizations at MIT which were working for the candidacy of Barry Goldwater. The three separate groups operating at MIT in 1963-64 were Young Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom (“YAF”), and Youth for Goldwater. The officers overlapped, making it possible for them to have more presence on the campus. Nolan came to the ideas on individual freedom, economics, and the Constitution from Barry Goldwater, Robert Heinlein, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” and other fiction, and Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.”

Soon after this, the first wave of eager and ambitious Trotskyites, soon to re-label themselves as Neo-Conservatives (“NeoCons”), left the Democratic Party to become Republicans. The first of these were Irving Kristol, his wife and son, William Kristol. These were soon followed by the cadre that, at present, still comprises the main intellectual end of the NeoCon cabal.

These idea-mongers had found a flush living re-packaging the strategies of Leo Strauss for use on Republicans and Libertarians. These included posh weekend-seminars that helped them identify potential academics and intellectuals who could accept their ideas with a straight face, keeping a clear eye on the potential for self profit.

Soon, the need to suborn and redirect the nascent Libertarian Movement and Party would be turned over to Edward H. Crane, III, and other profit-minded people. Melinda Foster

Rooted deep within Rand Paul is the same libertarian philosophies that drove Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, Alan Greenspan, George Bush, David and Charles Koch, Lewis Powell, and all the other neocons and neoliberals who are currently busy ruining this nation.

It is not surprizing that Rand Paul tries as best he can to distance himself at this point from that obvious fact.

Having not really cared about Rand Paul in the past (I did think his Alex Jones “money bomb” was a bit over the top) I didn’t spend much time looking into his positions. I always knew that his father was just one little tiny step away from the worst neocon you can think of. Sure he says we shouldn’t be in Iraq, but what do Ron and Rand really do for the establishment that justifies them not kicking them out like they easily did with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney?

Well, that is easy.

Ron and Rand’s jobs are to bring the neoliberal economic agenda to the young people and offer it up as an “alternative” to what is going on today. When in fact, it is actually the neoliberal/libertarian agenda that is behind every single problem we face.

Rand Paul is as “different” as Barack Obama is. During Obama’s candidacy I tried to warn people that voting for Barack was the same as voting for George W. Bush all over again. Not many listened. But they know it now.

On that note, I have to say that voting for Rand Paul would be the exact same thing as voting for Barack Obama and George W. Bush and for that matter, the neoliberal Hilary Clinton. He represents the same oligarchical power structure and the same corporatist and business first mentality. He represents the globalist agenda but like Obama he just puts a more pleasant face on it.

Just like Obama’s campaign, Rand is pretending to be one thing while he is really something very different. If the neocons and the neolibs wanted him out, trust me, he would be out. But with very little exception, Rand Paul shares many of their core beliefs and pout as they might in their WWE style, the neocons don’t have any problem with another Milton Friedman economic theory supporter in office.

I said it before all this research and I will say it again… Rand Paul is a neoliberal scumbag… just like his daddy… and he doesn’t deserve your vote.


censoring dissent in Pakistan by wearing the Islamic national flag of pious virtue.

One of my early mentors use to tell me that religion was a sham........ (i) a cover under which much crime was committed, and (ii) the automatic closer of all avenues of rational human thought and inquiry about basic and fundamental issues in life that affect us all (religious fatalism)..."Ah this is God's will"......"This must be Karma".....thus further facilitating great and small crimes, injustices, inequalities, sheer absurdities, stupidity and backwardness. I have remained true to this advice from my mentor from an early age to this day.....and he was of course right.

When governments start using the religious blasphemy issue in order to impose censorship on freedom of expression then you have to ask...........whats up? Whats the real agenda hear? Whats actually going on?

Is Zardari bhen a Pak Muslim who is so concerned about offending the virtues of Islam that he must act against Youtube, or Twitter or Facebook? These sites played a crucial role in the Iranian Green revolution against the puppet mullahs installed by the USA/UK/France/Israel.

Is Zardari Bhen a Pak Muslim who never looted billions from the State coffers of Pakistan for many years through his wife?

Is Zardari Bhen the Pak Muslim guy who may have had a hand in killing his brother-in-law, just because he might have been a political threat to his wife's leadership role within the PPP?

Is Zardari bhen the Pak Muslim guy who has just pardoned Rehman Malik, a certified crook, and basically told ALL certified crooks in the Pakistani government that they can commit any and all crimes in Pakistan, and Zardari Bhen will be there to pardon and protect them?

Is Zardari Bhen the Pak Muslim guy who by default is waging war against ordinary Pakistanis in the NWFP, by not pursuing alternative methods of conflict resolution?

Is Zardari Bhen the Pak Muslim guy who is proud to be a puppet of Washington, accepting ALL their dictates with daily meetings with the American ambassador Anne Paterson?

Is Zardari Bhen the Pak Muslim guy who is facilitating American forces in Pakistan to attack and kill many innocent civilians, and then lying about their actual existence with a straight face?

Is Zardari Bhen the Pak Muslim guy who as President of Pakistan publicly wanted to grope a foreign female representative in NY?

Is Zardari Bhen the Pak Muslim guy who has allowed extremist Christian fundamentalist forces into Pakistan to act as a law unto themselves.........Blackwater/Dyncorps/XE.......killing innocent Pakistani women and children at will? .......its leaders want to, as Christian Fundamentalists, “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,”

Is Zardari Bhen the Pak Muslim guy who has invited foreign mercenaries into Islamabad to protect him because he can't trust his own people?

Is Zardari bhen the Pak Muslim guy who has gone into purdah, on the advice of Anne Paterson, thinking that out of sight out of mind?

Na! Zardari and his Kleptocractic cronies are scared that finally the Pakistani people might one day wake up to the crimes of his administration, and remove him and the Americans from Pakistan finally.

Offended by one page in Facebook, or on Youtube or Twitter has got NOTHING TO DO WITH IT ..........................Secular urban Pakistanis Blasphem against Mohammed and Islam on a daily basis.......I know they do.

Zardari bhen and his kleptocratic cronies certainly do.

The Pakistan mainstream media such as PTV, Geo, Dawn and the Jang group don't offer the real truth because they have been bought by Western intelligence, as has been the ISI. ........as have the leading politicians...........as have the top military brass. What these do against simple ordinary Pakistani folk is standard formula, misleading, and misdirection by:

1. Introducing conspiracy narrative that is so complicated that ordinary Pakistanis become confused.

2. By offering fake sorrow, "Oh What can we do, this is bad, so sad.....but alas we are powerless", rather than saying that the 180 million Pakistanis are powerful, and can take destiny into their own hands.....encourage, empower, proffer constructive clear simple advice, instigate and revolutionize.

3. Sustaining the myth of "al-Qaeda", for America, and global International terrorism.

4. Not highlighting the links between the military and the Taliban, and ALL Islamist groups in Pakistan. Islamists didn't just appear from no where, they were created, funded, armed and guided by the Pakistan military as proxy forces, and often encouraged by the USA since the late 1970's, just as the USA military uses Christian fundamentalist in Blackwater/Dyncorp/XE.

5. That the Pakistani military actually carries out a lot of the terrorism within Pakistan under the principles of Gladio.

6. The security cooperation with the USA will ultimately lead to the breakup of Pakistan. Friendship with the USA has in no way benefited Pakistan over a span of 50 years, in fact quite the reverse. Yet the bought commentators of Pakistan remain ever hopeful that this fundamental paradigm will change for the good, tomorrow, next week, next month or maybe next year inshalah.

7. America has negative intentions towards Pakistan, and in the long term could invade Pakistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists.

8. America wants to secure Pakistan's nukes for Israel.

The ONLY people who highlight the truth of Pakistan's present reality is people writing on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube..........because they have not been bought. On the other hand most of these sights are pre-occupied with very mundane trivia.......... Pakistan government by its recent actions has shown that it is very nervous about this new phenomenon.


Washington not happy about prospects for peace and settlement with Iran.

The original brilliant compromise idea from Russia for Iran's enriched uranium to be sent to other countries seems finally to have evolved logically to the point where the corrupt inept mullah's of Iran have initially accepted a destination for its spent fuel after many years of wrangling and guarded hesitation.

If peace and compromise are genuinely desired then it can be achieved, quickly.

The cost of war to mullah run Iran would be far far greater in terms of lives lost, material loss and regime instability (Saddam 1991--2003) than the mere minor concession of submitting Iran's spent nuclear fuel to third countries, WHETHER THESE ARE RELIABLE OR UNRELIABLE.........such things are not fundamental to the cohesion and survival of the Iranian state, as has been argued factually by the writer for 5 consistent years. Thus after 4 years of laborious pondering the mullahs have come to the correct sensible conclusion............the Israelis naturally wish to sabotage such a compromise as their real agenda is war against Iran, and the process of building up America towards war.

One should be a passionate Persian nationalist with some things, but not everything.

The Israeli run Democratic Party (80% of American Jews have voted Democratic and many suspect Rahm Emanuele is in fact the ever elusive "Mega" who coordinates Israel's espionage in Capital Hill/DC) is naturally not happy at the prospect of not being able to threaten Iran daily with apocalyptic consequences for merely following the NPT guidelines, which are carefully monitored by the IAEA with their go any where see everything short notice spot inspections in Iran since 2003.

But most hypocritically not against Israel which already has 400 nuke bombs, and has not even bothered to sign the NPT, and as Sibel Edmonds revelations have discovered Israel through its agents in the USA has been very active in the open proliferation of nuclear parts stolen from the USA into some very dubious and one may say dangerous regimes around the world. The sheer chutzpah of it all!!!!!!

What is to be done with mullah Iran though? ALL those years of speculation from well paid Western experts who stated since the early 1980's that mullah Iran was only 6 months to a few years away from the nuke bomb.

I have a suggestion for the Israelis in the USA and in Israel. Why not say that OBL is residing in Tehran, surrounded by 72 live virgins and the mullahs have promoted him to the head of the Revolutionary Guard. Spin that one from the Mossad station in Rome through to London and then from there to Judith Miller and then on to the NY times and Fox News.

If the Jewish run Democratic Party is that negative in its response to the possibility of peace and compromise then it must mean that they wish war against Iran in the future, and that sanctions are a prelude for that eventuality................in which case the mullah puppets of Iran originally installed by the USA/UK/France/Israel in 1979 should mobilize the Iranian economy to North Korea's level for war...25%, with 1.2 million men under arms. Iran spends just 3% on defense at present, with 550,000 men under arms which is too low an effort given the open hostility of the USA, and Israel.

Iran is a small military power (18), behind Egypt (17), Pakistan (15) and Turkey (10). The USA is the premier military power, and Israel number 8. The Iranian army should be maintained at 700,000 ( 400,000 regulars) and the revolutionary Guard at 300,000, 50,000 air force and 20,000 navy. Actual defense spending should be increased to 10% of GDP at least.

The mullah puppets installed by the USA/UK/France/Israel will look extremely foolish to the Iranian people and the world if they repeatedly state that Israel/USA will not attack Iran, but in reality they do eventually in 2010 or 2011.

The Mullah puppets must not rely on the advice and guarantees of the British and French in Tehran that Israel and the USA will never attack Iran, as they already have neighbor Iraq (2003) and neighbor Afghanistan (2001)......and Pakistan slowly (since 2006).

In the event of war mobilizing the people and economy for war from a low peacetime commitment SUDDENLY into war will be difficult even for countries like Germany or Japan. Nazi Germany was spending approximately 22% on defense in 1939 in the eve of war with a military of 3 million. Japan by 1941 was spending 35% of her economy on defense with 3.2 million men under arms before Pearl Harbor.

Corrupt inept inefficient mullah Iran a regime installed by the USA/UK/France/Israel thus will have great problems mobilizing the economy for war before it is destroyed by American air power, with its 2,200 targets within Iran. Initially they will attack the nuclear enrichment facilities, but will eventually be expanded to ALL other military. economic and social targets.

But we understand why such a puppet regime is only spending 3% on defense with a paltry 550,000 men under constant arms, a significant part of which competes against the rest of the armed forces, in the current international climate.

Admiral Dennis Blair head of all American intelligence correctly stated that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, a gentile and WASP, so the slippery conniving Jew worked to remove him from this important position. The Jew was not happy with Admiral Blair speaking the truth.

This little event within the USA must give us all further pause for thought. We must not be lulled into a false sense of security by the Crypto-Jew Ahmedinejad/Sabourjian who on the one hand promises on the Koran that there will be no war against Iran by Israel and the USA, but equally never misses an opportunity to bait Israel and America in the international field.

Good Persians must make Iran militarily strong and EFFECTIVE, whilst simultaneously working slowly and diligently to overthrow the mullah puppet regime and replace it with a true Islamic state which does not as its main business and occupation commit crimes against ordinary Iranians.

The puppet mullah rhetoric is directed against ISRAEL and the USA in a strange gay fixation and obsession for 31 years. However the true aggression and guns of the puppet mullah regime is directed against the Iranian people, often for small reasons such as wearing makeup and other such silly reasons.

The mullahs must continue with efforts at peace and compromise in relation to nuclear enrichment. They must not be misdirected by the negative efforts of Israel in the USA, with their push for total sanctions, as against Japan in 1937.


White House Slams Iran Uranium Deal

'Too Little Too Late,' Officials Say

by Jason Ditz at antiwar.com

The White House today angrily rejected an announcement that Iran had agreed to a third party enrichment deal with Turkey and Brazil, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs promising to continue the push for sanctions.

Other US officials mocked the deal as a ploy, and one official termed it “too little too late,” even though the deal was materially the same one the US has been demanding Iran agree to for the past six months. Another official demanded that Iran submit the deal to the IAEA for consideration.

Though the US seems determined to continue on with its calls for sanctions it seems unlikely that they will be able to successfully sell the sanctions, ostensibly to punish Iran for refusing to accept the third party enrichment deal, now that they have accepted the deal.

Moreover, while the US fancies itself as having veto power over this matter the deal doesn’t really involve them directly or indirectly. Turkey will take possession of 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium and, assuming Russia and France come through with the pledged rods for producing medical isotopes, will turn it over to those nations. If they don’t, Turkey will return the uranium to Iran.

At the end of the day all the US condemnations in the world are likely to change nothing, and whether or not they manage to stop France from cooperating in the exchange several members of the UN Security Council will likely be persuaded that the diplomatic process still has a chance or, if it does not, that it isn’t Iran’s fault.