The War on Terror is a Zionist racket

“The Americans were responsible for creation of a gangster state headed by an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders,” – Sir John Troutbeck wrote in his letter to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin on June 2, 1948.

“Of course the people don’t want war….but after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether, it’s a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a Communist dictatorship,” – Dr. Herman Georing, Hitler’s propaganda minister.

The former British Minister of Environment, Michael Meacher, in his article titled The war on terrorism is bogus (Guardian, September 6, 2003) – wrote that the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its world domination.

On February 7, 2001 – former CIA director George Tenet (born as David Cohen) eerily described to the Congress what did occured six months later: “Terrorists are also becoming oprationally more adept and more technically sophisticated  (inside Afghanistani caves!) in order to defeat counter-terrorism measures…”

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), was a Zionist think tank, which during 1997-2006 – played a very significant role in reshaping the Middle East map by Washington which has made Israel is the greatest beneficiary of the so-called “War on Terror”. Zionist William Kristol and Robert Kagan who founded the PNAC – urged Bill Clinton to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, though, both countries posed no military or economic threat to the US. The Jewish controlled mainstream media provided support to PNAC hoax by inventing propaganda lies of WMDs, Saddam’s involvement in 9/11; his invasion of Kuwait, and his use of chemical warfare against Shias and Kurds – which all were carried out by western blessings. However, to sell their evil agenda against the Muslim world – they needed a “New Pearl Harbor” some horrible tragedy to happen on the very soil of America – which did happen on September 11, 2001. Nine days after the 9/11 (September 20, 2001) – PNAC sent a letter (authors included Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby) to Dubya Bush urging him to bring a ‘regime change’ in Iraq, while projecting Islamic Iran as “the future threat” to the US: “Over the long term, Iran may well prove a large threat to US interests in Persian Gulf as Iraq has. And even should US-Iranian relations improves, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be a essential in US security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region…”

The PNAC, after successfully completing its goal of destroying any possible threat to the zionist entity – closed down their shop in 2006 – and most of its members joined the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), another Jewish think tank with intimate links to the Likud Party in Israel.

Gideon Long (Reuters, May 28, 2003) quoting Amnesty International Report 2002, wrote: “Washington’s war on terror has made the world more dangerous by curbing human rights, undermining international law and shielding governments from secrutiny….”

One of the other Zionist think tanks which plays an important part in American imperialism around the world – is The International Crisis Group . Its board members include Jewish billionaire George Soro, Morton Abramowitz, Kenneth Adelman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and former president of Council on Foreign Affairs, Leslie H. Gelb.

Mahboob Khawaja PhD in his July 14 article under the title The War on Terrorism that America lost, wrote:

The premise of the American led “war on terrorism” was based on the Nazis blueprint of flagrant lies and perpetuated “fear” to drain out all the positive and creative thinking of the American people and to enslave them for years to come while the Neo-conservatives dominated Bush Administration with overwhelming indoctrination of Nazism continued the militancy towards freedom of thought and conscience, human rights and legal justice denying America’s own history and rich values. America lost the war the day it invaded Iraq. The American Empire had no purpose and strategy to fight Islamists and its delusion represents failure and self-defeat on all the fronts.

The overriding motivation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are shielded by political smokescreen that the US and UK will run out of sufficient hydrocarbon energy supplies in 2010, whereas, the Arab and Muslim world would control almost 60% of the world oil producing capacity and perhaps more significantly 95% of the remaining global oil production capacity. The news media reports indicate that the US is predicted to produce only 39% of the domestic oil production in 2010, whereas in 1990, it produced 57% of its total oil consumption. The UK Government had projected ”severe” gas shortages by 2005, and indicated that 70% of the electricity will be drawn from gas and 90% of gas will be imported. It is interesting to note that Iraq is said to have 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to approximately 15 – 20% of the world oil reserves. In another research report by the Commission on America’s National Interests (July 2000), it observed that the most promising new energy resources are found in the Caspian Sea, Central Asian region and it would avoid the US exclusive dependence on the Saudi Arabian oil imports. The report outlined the feasible routes for the Caspian Seas oil deliveries, one hydrocarbon pipeline via Azerbaijan and Georgia and another pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan would ensure the future strategic demands of the US government. To counteract the USSR influence in Afghanistan, Taliban group was created with active support of the US intelligence agencies and the Peoples Party of Pakistan under the former PM Miss Bhutto. The Taliban group was helped to form a government in Afghanistan and to ensure the future passage of a hydrocarbon pipeline via Afghanistan and Pakistan onward to the Arabian Sea. The leadership included Osama bin Laden, the close affiliate of the US sponsored war against the Soviet Union. For years, the US officials held discussion with these groups to finalize formal agreement for the passage of the oil and gas pipelines in Afghanistan. If the author of the Forbidden Truth has any credibility, the US and Taliban negotiators continued discussion of the possible pipeline until August 2001. After the 9/11 attacks, the US government was outraged and asked Pakistan’s military leader General Pervez Musharaf to dismantle the Taliban government from power in Kabul. The US government never made any claim or evidence public to suggest that Taliban as a group were involved in the September 2001 attacks on the US.

After President Barrak Obama was sworn in as the new President, America looked morally exhausted and militarily lost, being unable to think of the much needed strategic change but more importantly, searching desperately for a navigational change in wars against the Islamists.

Gwynne Dyer, a well known British author (“The International Terrorist Conspiracy”), asserts that terrorism is not an ideology but a political technique and those groups willing to opt for violence in support of their goals, may resort to it. Dyer maintains that “there is no shadowy but powerful network waging a terrorist war against the West, the whole thing is a fantasy….there never was much of an Islamist “terrorist network” anyway – certainly nothing to compare the extensive cooperation between the extreme left-wing “urban guerrilla” of the developed world (Germany’s Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italy’s Red Brigades, the Japanese Red Army etc.)…..”

3-Way Relations: Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia

by Dr Ahmad Faruqui

Conventional wisdom has it that three A’s sum up Pakistan’s policy matrix: Allah, Army and America. But this is a half-truth. To complete the picture, one has to add a fourth A (Saudi Arabia) and a C (China) to the list. While Pakistan has long-standing ties with both patron states, these have become more nuanced since America emerged as a global hyper-power and India emerged as a regional power.China’s influence on Pakistan stems from its geographical proximity to Kashmir and Pakistan’s northern areas. For decades, it supported Pakistan on its forward Kashmir policy and Pakistan supported it on the One China policy. During the Cold War era, China competed with the Soviet Union for leadership of the communist bloc. Its border skirmish with India in 1962 made it a natural ally for Pakistan.Eventually, Pakistan supported China’s membership in the UN and served as China’s gateway to the Muslim world, earning the epithet of “China’s Israel” from at least one analyst.However, much has changed. Beijing is a global power house. It has independently established ties with all Muslim capitals. Moscow has become its biggest arms supplier and trade with New Delhi, at $20 billion a year, dwarfs its trade with Pakistan by a factor of four.

So where does that leave Sino-Pakistani ties? Some important clues can be assessed by reviewing the agreements that President Hu signed during his recent visit to Pakistan and even more by the ones he did not sign. Hu waxed eloquent, in good Mandarin tradition, saying that “our relations are higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the Indian Ocean and sweeter than honey.”

Hu’s visit provided a much-needed boost to the embattled regime of General Musharraf. It was the first in a decade by a Chinese president. There was a lot of razzle-dazzle, parades and garlands. But support on Kashmir was lacking. In fact, this had been lacking since President Jiang Zemin addressed the Pakistani Senate in 1996 and asked Pakistan to make peace with India, signaling China’s desire to have peace along its southern borders.

Even though Pakistan and China signed 18 economic, social and defense deals during Hu’s visit, topped by a free trade agreement (FTA) and a five-year pact to boost “trade relations, joint ventures and investment opportunities in Pakistan,” the much-awaited agreement to build six additional nuclear power plants was not signed, a salute perhaps to Washington’s hyper-power status. Nor was there any visit to Gwadar, a silent tribute to Akbar Bugti.

It remains to be seen whether the FTA will bring forward a tripling of trade. Governmental agreements make for good rhetoric but cannot force the pace of the marketplace beyond its natural limits. If trade grows, the likely losers will be Pakistani manufacturers, who cannot compete with their Chinese counterparts. The main beneficiaries will be Pakistani consumers and raw material suppliers so this will largely involve a redistribution of income.

The visit confirmed that Beijing is likely to remain Islamabad’s largest arms supplier. Joint production of AWACS is now on the table. The Pakistan army’s arsenal is heavily of Chinese origin as is PAF’s inventory of combat aircraft. The two countries are on track for co-production of the JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft and may co-produce the F-22P naval frigate. Chinese hardware, while hardly the best in class, performed poorly in the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars. But its low cost and plentiful availability make it an attractive choice for the generals in Islamabad who are apparently following Vladimir Lenin when he noted, “Quantity has a quality of its own.”

Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia continues to grow. After his coup in October 1999, Riyadh was the first foreign capital on the itinerary of General Pervez Musharraf as he ventured abroad in search of legitimacy.

Subsequently, Saudi Arabia accepted the deposed Prime Minister, Nawaz Shariff, into exile. This eliminated a major embarrassment for the man who, while wearing the same uniform as General Zia, did not wish to be seen as yet another vindictive dictator.

As a follow-up to his 2002 peace plan for the Israelis and Palestinians, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia gave Pakistan the green light to publicly enter into a diplomatic conversation with the Israelis. Talks were held in Istanbul between the foreign ministers of the two countries but went nowhere, since there was no support in Pakistan for recognition of Israel prior to the creation of a Palestinian state.

When Azad Kashmir and northern areas of Pakistan were devastated by an earthquake, Saudi Arabia topped the list of donor countries.

Defense cooperation continues to be a priority between the two countries. In the past, Pakistan has provided two divisions of troop ostensibly to protect the two holy mosques but in reality to guard the royal family against an indigenous revolt.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest arms importers and Pakistan is seeking to wean it off its traditional European and US suppliers. Encouraged by the visit of the Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister in April, Islamabad is seeking to sell up to 150 Al Khalid tanks to Riyadh, a deal which may be worth $ 600 million. In addition, the intelligence agencies of the two countries are engaged in an intense hunt for the leaders of al-Qaeda, including Saudi-born Osama bin Laden.

A complicating factor on the horizon is the warming up of ties between Saudi Arabia and India. The Kingdom is India’s largest supplier of crude oil and host to more than a million workers. Symbolizing a new interest in India, King Abdullah witnessed the Republic Day military parade in 2005 from the Red Fort in Delhi.

Whether and how this new relationship will affect the Kingdom’s long-standing relationship with Pakistan remains to be seen. But what is apparent that the Kingdom, like China, has begun to push Pakistan toward seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem.

This was noticeable during the Kargil crisis in 1999 and was visible a year ago when the Saudis offered to mediate in the dispute. As expected, the Indians demurred, killing the proposal.

Pakistan is likely to continue to depend on the largesse of its patron states, even though its special status with these states has been eroded by India. The remarkable thing is that New Delhi has done so without coming under anyone’s tutelage. While some of this is undeniably due to India’s larger size, much of the credit goes to India’s democratic dispensation that allows for the formulation of an independent foreign policy.

8-52

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 21st, 2006 at 1:41 pm and is filed under The Muslim Observer, International . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Source: Muslim Media Network
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=585

How Israel Lobby took control of US foreign policy

AIPAC becomes foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as domestic lobby.

In the early 1960s, Senator William J. Fulbright fought to force the American Zionist Council to register as agents of a foreign government. The Council eluded registration by reorganizing as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC has since become what Fulbright most feared: a foreign agent dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby.

Israelis and pro-Israelis object when they hear that charge. How, they ask, can we so few wield such influence over so many? Answer: it’s all in the math. And in the single-issue advocacy brought to bear on US policy-making by dozens of ‘domestic’ organizations that now compose the Israel lobby, with AIPAC its most visible force.

The political math was enabled by Senator John McCain whose support for all things Israeli ensured him the GOP nomination to succeed Christian-Zionist G.W. Bush. McCain’s style of campaign finance reform proved a perfect fit for the Diaspora-based fundraising on which the lobby relies. Co-sponsored by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, this change in federal election law typifies how Israeli influence became systemic.

‘McCain-Feingold’ raised the amount (from $1,000 to $2,300) that candidates can receive from individuals in primary and general elections. A couple can now contribute a combined $9,200 to federal candidates: $4,600 in each of the primary and general elections. Primary elections, usuall low-budget, are particularly easy to sway.

Importantly for the Diaspora, this change also doubled the funds candidates can receive without regard to where those contributors reside. A candidate in Iowa, say, may have only a few pro-Israeli constituents. When campaign support is provided by a nationwide network of pro-Israelis, that candidate can more easily be persuaded to support policies sought by Tel Aviv.

Diaspora-based fundraising has long been used by the lobby with force-multiplying success to shape US foreign policy. Under the guise of reform, John McCain doubled the financial resources that the lobby can deploy to elect and retain its supporters.

Fulbright was Right

The influence-peddling process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth AIPAC interviews. Those found sufficiently committed to Israel’s agenda are provided a list of donors likely to “max out” their campaign contributions. Or the process can be made even easier when AIPAC-approved candidates are given the name of a “bundler.”

Bundlers raise funds from the Diaspora and bundle those contributions to present them to the candidate. No quid pro quo need be mentioned. After McCain-Feingold became law in 2003, AIPAC-identified bundlers could raise $1 million-plus for AIPAC-approved candidates simply by contacting ten like-minded supporters. Here’s the math:

The bundler and spouse “max out” for $9,200 and call ten others, say in Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills. Each of them max out ($10 x $9,200) and call ten others for a total of 11. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.]

Imagine the incentive to do well in the AIPAC interview. One call from the lobby and a candidate can collect enough cash to mount a credible campaign in most Congressional districts. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than ten percent of the 435 House races are competitive in any election cycle (typically 35 to 50).

Additional force-multipliers come from: (a) sustaining this financial focus over multiple cycles, (b) using funds to gain and retain seniority for those serving on Congressional committees key to promoting Israeli goals, and (c) opposing any candidates who question those goals.

Jewish Achievement reports that 42% of the largest political donors to the 2000 election cycle were Jewish, including four of the top five. That compares to less than 2% of Americans who are Jewish. Of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, 25% are Jewish according to Michael Steinhardt, a key funder of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was led by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman when he resigned in 2000 to run as vice president with pro-Israeli presidential candidate Al Gore.

Money was never a constraint. Pro-Israeli donors were limited only by how much they could lawfully contribute to AIPAC-screened candidates. McCain-Feingold raised a key limit. The full impact of this foreign influence has yet to be tallied. What’s known, however, is sufficient to apply the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Of the top 50 neoconservatives who advocated war in Iraq, 26 were Jewish (52%).

Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, remains one of the more notable recipients of funds. In 1948, he was trailing badly in the polls and in fundraising. His prospects brightened dramatically in May after he recognized as a legitimate state an enclave of Jewish extremists who originally planned to settle in Argentina before putting their sights on Palestine.

That recognition was opposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bulk of the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and numerous distinguished Americans, including moderate and secular Jews concerned at the troubles that were certain to follow. Not until 1984 was it revealed that a network of Jewish Zionists had funded Truman’s campaign by financially refueling his whistle-stop campaign train with $400,000 in cash ($3 million in 2009 dollars).

To buy time on the public’s airwaves, money raised from the Israel lobby’s network is paid to media outlets largely owned or managed by members of the same network. Presidents, Senators and Congressmen come and go but those who collect the checks rack up the favors that amass lasting political influence.

The US system of government is meant to ensure that members of the House represent the concerns of Americans who reside in Congressional districts—not a nationally dispersed network (a Diaspora) committed to advancing the agenda of a foreign nation. Federal elections are meant to hold Senators accountable to constituents who reside in the states they represent—not out-of-state residents or a foreign government.

In practical effect, McCain-Feingold hastened a retreat from representative government by granting a nationwide network of foreign agents disproportionate influence over elections in every state and Congressional district. Campaign finance ‘reform’ enabled this network to amass even more political clout—wielding influence disproportionate to their numbers, indifferent to their place of residence and often contrary to America’s interests.

This force-multiplier is now wielded in plain sight, with impunity and under cover of free speech, free elections, free press and even the freedom of religion. Therein lies the perils of an entangled alliance that induced the US to invade Iraq and now seeks war with Iran. By allowing foreign agents to operate as a domestic lobby, the US was induced to confuse Zionist interests with its own.

Is India really interested in resolving all outstanding issues?

Is India really interested in resolving all outstanding issues?Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh left for a visit to France and Egypt, during which he will meet his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani on July 16. Ahead of his meeting with Prime Minister Gilani in Sharm-el Sheikh in Egypt on the occasion of NAM Summit,

Prime Minister Singh made it clear that New Delhi would do all that is necessary to resolve all outstanding issues if Pakistan takes credible action to deal with terrorist elements targeting India. He said that he was hoping that the Pakistani leader would give a renewed reaffirmation to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks to justice and that they would not allow Pakistani soil to be used for terror acts directed against India. The talks between Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers would take place after Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and his Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir had discussed what Islamabad has done to bring to book perpetrators of November 26, 2008 attacks and dismantle terror infrastructure.

Ironically, India is not serious in confidence building measures with Pakistan, which appears to be essential before seriously sitting on the table to discuss any of the outstanding issue. India government is presently in an intoxicated state of becoming permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC). France has already announced that it will back India in its move, while the present Prime Minister Singh’s visit is also in the same regard. Quite disturbingly, before India could honour its words, a propaganda campaign has been started by Indian intelligence in which new baseless allegations have been leveled on Pakistan to internationally defame Islamabad.

While Pakistan is seriously doing its best to link home grown under clouds groups with Mumbai attacks but things appears not working. India must refrain from putting too much pressure because in that case innocent groups and individuals may be prosecuted for face saving. Although the militants killed during Mumbai also comprised of Maoists and Tamils and other Indian indigenous home grown elements but India till to-date is not linking them with Mumbai attacks.

A few days back on July 11, Maoist carried out attacks in Chhattisgarh, brutally killing 30 Indian Police officials including Superintendent of Poilice (SP), Vinod Kumar Choubey. Ironically, India government in this case is hesitating to call it terrorism and is referring it as violence. India has come up with a new claim that there was no evidence of local help for the gunmen involved in the November 26 Mumbai attacks and a series of calls made by Lashkar-e-Taiba handlers prior to the attacks was only to keep the internet telephony account active. In this regard, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Rakesh Maria said that they have verified every call that was made to India including the random ones and there was no evidence of local support found.

India claims that the statements of all the persons who received calls had been recorded and nothing suspicious had been found about them and also that handlers called numbers randomly which is evident since the calls lasted only between 30 to 40 seconds. Ironically, even an ordinary citizen of any country can make out from the photographs of militants involved in Mumbai attacks, released to press in November 2008, that majority of them had no resemblance with Pakistanis. However, Indian government is still adamant that there was no evidence of local help for the gunmen involved in the Mumbai attacks.India, in renewed efforts, has started a proactive blame game against Pakistan in order to internationally defame Islamabad as perpetrator of terrorists’ activities on Indian soil.

Allegations are being leveled on Pakistan that it has trained at least 15 terrorists at Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K) to target the 450 MW Baglihar power project in Indian held Jammu and Kashmir (IHK). India claims that a secret tunnel is being dug from Sialkot to connect AJ&K with IHK to attack on Baghliar dam across Chenab at Chanderkote-Ramban. Indian intelligence also claims to have arrested two Lashkar-e-Tayyiaba (LeT) Mujahideen from the forests of Shamashabari range in Kupwara. It is true that Pakistan raised objections to Baghliar power project, claiming that it would obstruct flow of water as the size of the dam was above the normal size but the Indian propaganda is baseless. This is a technological age in which India claims to be far ahead many countries.

India acquired Radar Imaging Satellite (RISAT) from Israel, which was launched on April 20. RISAT is equipped with spying capabilities and capable of taking high-resolution images of 1 metre at night and through clouds. It is strange to observe that India has failed to release any imageries of secret tunnel being dug from Sialkot to connect AJ&K with IHK. Since there is no truth in this propaganda so India will never be able to do this. In a latest development, India has also started moving its regulars to Rajasthan area for the purpose best known to New Delhi and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In a recent statement Director General of Police, Harish Chandra Meena cautioned that terrorists might attack western region of Rajasthan anytime. He claims that an intelligence agency has got concrete information that lakes in the state would be attacked and that since then whole state has been put on high alert. Director General of Police Meena disclosed that Jodhpur Police recovered a map of Jodhpur from the Mujahid who was arrested in Srinagar recently. Pakistan does not doubt Indian intentions that New Delhi is not serious to do all that is necessary to resolve outstanding issue with Pakistan but the uncalled for blame game must end from Indian side in order to develop a cordial atmosphere. As talks between India and Pakistan are going to fail in an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust, so as a first step, confidence building measures must continue from where the point they got derailed.

Pakistan Objects to U.S. Plan for Afghan War

Newyork Times
By ERIC SCHMITT and JANE PERLEZ
Published: July 21, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan is objecting to expanded American combat operations in neighboring Afghanistan, creating new fissures in the alliance with Washington at a critical juncture when thousands of new American forces are arriving in the region.

Pakistani officials have told the Obama administration that the Marines fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan will force militants across the border into Pakistan, with the potential to further inflame the troubled province of Baluchistan, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Pakistan does not have enough troops to deploy to Baluchistan to take on the Taliban without denuding its border with its archenemy, India, the officials said. Dialogue with the Taliban, not more fighting, is in Pakistan’s national interest, they said.

The Pakistani account made clear that even as the United States recommits troops and other resources to take on a growing Taliban threat, Pakistani officials still consider India their top priority and the Taliban militants a problem that can be negotiated. In the long term, the Taliban in Afghanistan may even remain potential allies for Pakistan, as they were in the past, once the United States leaves.

The Pakistani officials gave views starkly different from those of American officials regarding the threat presented by top Taliban commanders, some of whom the Americans say have long taken refuge on the Pakistani side of the border.

Recent Pakistani military operations against Taliban in the Swat Valley and parts of the tribal areas have done little to close the gap in perceptions.

Even as Obama administration officials praise the operations, they express frustration that Pakistan is failing to act against the full array of Islamic militants using the country as a base.

Instead, they say, Pakistani authorities have chosen to fight Pakistani Taliban who threaten their government, while ignoring Taliban and other militants fighting Americans in Afghanistan or terrorizing India.

Such tensions have mounted despite a steady rotation of American officials through the region. They were on display last weekend when, during a visit to India, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said those who had planned the Sept. 11 attacks were now sheltering in Pakistan. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry issued an immediate rebuttal.

Pakistan’s critical assessment was provided as the Obama administration’s special envoy for the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, arrived in Pakistan on Tuesday night.

The country’s perspective was given in a nearly two-hour briefing on Friday for The New York Times by senior analysts and officials of Pakistan’s main spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence. They spoke on the condition of anonymity in keeping with the agency’s policy. The main themes of the briefing were echoed in conversations with several military officers over the past few days.

One of the first briefing slides read, in part: “The surge in Afghanistan will further reinforce the perception of a foreign occupation of Afghanistan. It will result in more civilian casualties; further alienate local population. Thus more local resistance to foreign troops.”

A major concern is that the American offensive may push Taliban militants over the border into Baluchistan, a province that borders Waziristan in the tribal areas. The Pakistani Army is already fighting a longstanding insurgency of Baluch separatists in the province.

A Taliban spillover would require Pakistan to put more troops there, a Pakistani intelligence official said, troops the country does not have now. Diverting troops from the border with India is out of the question, the official said.

A spokesman for the American and NATO commands in Afghanistan, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, said in an e-mail message on Monday that there was no significant movement of insurgents out of Afghanistan, and no indication of foreign fighters moving into Afghanistan through Baluchistan or Iran, another concern of the Pakistanis.

Pakistani and American officials also cited some positive signs for the alliance. Increased sharing of information has sharpened the accuracy of strikes against militant hide-outs by Pakistani F-16 warplanes and drones operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. And Pakistani and American intelligence operatives are fighting together in dangerous missions to hunt down fighters from the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas and in the North-West Frontier Province.

But the intelligence briefing clearly illuminated the differences between the two countries over how, in the American view, Pakistan was still picking proxies and choosing enemies among various Islamic militant groups in Pakistan.

The United States maintains that the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, leads an inner circle of commanders who guide the war in southern Afghanistan from their base in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan.

American officials say this Taliban council, known as the Quetta shura, is sheltered by Pakistani authorities, who may yet want to employ the Taliban as future allies in Afghanistan.

In an interview last week, the new leader of American and NATO combat operations in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, paused when asked whether he was getting the cooperation he wanted from Pakistani forces in combating the Quetta shura. “What I would love is for the government of Pakistan to have the ability to completely eliminate the safe havens that the Afghan Taliban enjoy,” he said.

The Pakistani intelligence officials denied that Mullah Omar was even in Pakistan, insisting that he was in Afghanistan.

The United States asked Pakistan in recent years to round up 10 Taliban leaders in Quetta, the Pakistani officials said. Of those 10, 6 were killed by the Pakistanis, 2 were probably in Afghanistan, and the remaining 2 presented no threat to the Marines in Afghanistan, the officials said.

They also said no threat was posed by Sirajuddin Haqqani, an Afghan Taliban leader who American military commanders say operates with Pakistani protection out of North Waziristan and equips and trains Taliban fighters for Afghanistan.

Last year, Washington presented evidence to Pakistani leaders that Mr. Haqqani, working with Inter-Services Intelligence, was responsible for the bombing last summer of the Indian Embassy in Kabul that killed 54 people.

Pakistani officials insisted that Mr. Haqqani spent most of his time in Afghanistan, suggesting that the American complaints about him being provided sanctuary were invalid.

Another militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is also a source of deep disagreement.

India and the United States have criticized Pakistan for allowing Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, to be freed from jail last month.

The Pakistani officials said Mr. Saeed deserved to be freed because the government had failed to convince the courts that he should be kept in custody. There would be no effort to imprison Mr. Saeed again, in part because he was just an ideologue who did not have an anti-Pakistan agenda, the officials said.

Source: Newyork Times

ISI Summons RAW Chief Over Terrorism In Pakistan

Pakistan slaps India with evidence of RAW’s involvement in Terrorism in Pak.

Dan Qayyum

ISI Chief Shuja Pasha has summoned his Indian Counterpart, K C Verma for a meeting through the Indian defence attache in the Indian High Commission in Islamabad.

The Indian government has not responded to ISI’s request yet, and is reportedly assessing the implications of a possible meeting carefully.

After the July 16 Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement between India and Pakistan, India fears that Pakistan would use this meeting as a forum to expose Indian connections with terrorists in Balochistan and Baitullah Mehsud’s Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.

Pakistan has stockpiles of evidence against Indian consulates in Afghanistan that are being used to fund terrorism in Pakistan through Baitullah Mehsud’s TTP as well as Brahamdagh Bugti and his ‘BLA’ (Baloch Liberation Army).

Pakistan’s DAWN reports that a dossier containing proof of India’s involvement in “subversive activities” in Pakistan was handed over by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh during their meeting at Sharm el-Sheikh last week.

The evidence has also been shared with the US and Afghanistan, with Kabul being asked to prevent the use of its territory for disruptive activities against Pakistan.

“Although the information given to India is being kept highly secret, broad outlines of the dossier available with Dawn reveal details of Indian contacts with those involved in attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team and the Manawan police station,” the newspaper said.

“Operatives of RAW who remained in touch with the perpetrators of the attacks have been identified and proof of their interaction have been attached,” it added.

A description of Indian arms and explosives used in the attack on the Sri Lankan team has been made part of the dossier, besides which the names and particulars of the perpetrators, who illegally entered Pakistan from India and joined their accomplices who had reached Lahore from Waziristan, have been mentioned, the report said.

The dossier is also said to list the safe houses being run by RAW in Afghanistan where terrorists are trained and launched for missions in Pakistan.

“The dossier also broadly covers the Indian connection in terror financing in Pakistan.

A substantial part of the shared material deals with the Balochistan insurgency and Indian linkages with the insurgents, particularly Bramdagh Bugti, Burhan and Sher Khan,” Dawn said.

Photographs of their meetings with Indian operatives are part of the evidence, which also describes Bugti’s visit to India and the meetings he had with Indian secret service personnel, it added.

The dossier also mentions an India-funded training camp in Kandahar where Baloch insurgents, particularly those from Bugti clan, were being trained and provided arms and ammunition for sabotage activities in the Pakistani province.

Dawn quoted its sources as saying that Manmohan Singh had agreed to “look into Pakistani claims” and to take “corrective action” if proven. He is said to have assured Mr Gilani that India is against interference in other countries and Pakistan’s stability was important for them.

“Yes, these issues were discussed,” Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit said when asked about the meeting.

Indian Backed Terrorism in Pakistan

Brahamdagh is based in Kabul and is a familiar face within the defence and intelligence circles in Delhi.

BLA was the name that the former KGB and the Indian intelligence gave to Pakistani communist recruits who were paid to destabilize Pakistan during the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s, when the Soviet Union controlled Afghanistan. The BLA died with the end of the Cold War and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, but has been revived by the Indians after the US occupied Afghanistan.

Here is what Christine Fair of RAND corporation had to say about what the Indian consulates are up to in Afghanistan and Iran:

“I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan’s regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar–across from Bajaur. Kabul’s motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India’s interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India’s rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan’s near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it — and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan’s control.”

The Foreign Policy magazine also recently confirmed the Indians were neck deep in supporting the TTP in Pakistan:

While the U.S. media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to jihadi elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less often mentioned that India supports insurgent forces attacking Pakistan. “The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” a former intelligence official who served in both countries said. “The same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.”

Afghan officials have also confirmed that India is using Afghanistan to stir trouble in Pakistan.

“India is using Afghan soil to destabilize Pakistan and Afghan security agencies are unable to stop Indian intervention due to absence of centralized government mechanism”, said Afghan Government’s Advisor, Ehsanullah Aryanzai on sidelines of Pak-Afgan Parliamentary Jirga at a local hotel on April 2nd, 2009.

Pressure on the US

The Americans – under heavy pressure in Afghanistan – have started to realise they cannot save face in Afghanistan unless Pakistan’s legitimate concerns with regards to Indian sponsored terrorism are addressed immediately.

A Senior US diplomat William Burns gave Indian officials a terse directive last month, asking them to ’shut down Indian Consulates in Afghanistan, reduce presence in Kabul and stop sending terrorists across the Durand Line.’. The message was supplemented with a letter from the American President Barack Obama to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with a similar message.

Whether K C Verma takes up Shuja Pasha’s offer of a one-on-one or not, Pakistan should increase the pressure on the US by declaring neutrality with regards to Afghanistan, and block the supply of American and NATO weapons through its soil. With no other supply line available, this act will go a long way in turning the tables and forcing the US to negotiate on Pakistan’s terms – which must include the complete elimination of Indian assets in Afghanistan.

Eretz Israel and the “Two-State” solution

Barack Obama’s rhetoric regarding the outdated “Two-State Palestinian Solution” (proposed in the notorious Balfour Declaration in 1917) was against the Zionist’ dream of Eretz Israel aka Greater Israel- Which as expected, has earned him the title of “anti-Semism”. This is the trick the Zionazi Jews have been using to silence the people who criticize Israel’s “Thugocracy” – as admitted by a former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni in the video at the end of this article: “In Europe, when someone criticizes Israeli policies, we bring in Holocaust – and when someone in this country (US)criticizes Israel policizes, we bring in Anti-Semitism…..”

How for these Zionazi would stoop in their hatred of Arabs and Muslims – can be judged by the latest statement of Zionist entity’s transport minister, Israel Katz that Bibi’s government has decided to Judaize hundreds of Arabic names of cities, roads and commnities in order to erase Palestinian history like their 5,000-year-old country of Palestine. For exmple, Jerusalem (Al-Quds) would be changed to “Yerushalayim”, Jesus’ birth place, Nazreth, would be changed to “Natzrat”, and Jaffa city will become “Yafo” and the city of Nablus could become “Shechem”. Historically, it’s as old scheme as the creation of Zionists’ outlaw state in 1948 – whose first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, told the “Naming Committe”: “We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state”.

Rachelle Marshall, an American Jewish freelance writer, in her July 2009 article titled Death of a Myth: Israel\’s Support of a Two-State Solution wrote:

“…..With the exception of Jimmy Carter, American presidents and the Congress have bought into the image of Israel as a peace-loving country whose actions are intended only to protect its citizens from terrorism. Following Israel’s lead, Washington for years refused any contact with the PLO, and it continues to shun Hamas as terrorist. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress in April that the Obama administration would consider dealing with Hamas as a member of a unity government only if it renounced violence, recognized Israel, and agreed to abide by past agreements.

These demands, unfair to begin with, have become untenable in the light of Israel’s unequivocal rejection of a two-state solution. Hamas leaders have repeatedly indicated their willingness to make peace with Israel if it withdrew to its 1967 borders. Hamas also signed on to the 2002 Arab peace proposal that promised full recognition of Israel and was based on the same terms. The recent election of an Israeli government that opposes any form of Palestinian state means that Hamas’ position is now closer to Washington’s than is Israel’s.

The Obama administration nevertheless continues to insist that Hamas “recognize” Israel. Roger Cohen, a long-time foreign correspondent and now columnist for The New York Times, calls the argument over recognition “a form of evasion.” In a recent letter to the New York Review of Books he wrote that Hamas should be viewed as “an authentic, resilient, and many faceted political expression of Palestinian frustration rather than through the sole prism of terrorism.” He might have added that Hamas also provides much needed social services to the people of Gaza and restored order to an area that under Fatah was plagued by gang violence and corruption.

A solution may be a long time coming, however. Shortly after his election, Binyamin Netanyahu told Obama’s envoy George J. Mitchell that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state before there could be any progress toward peace. Netanyahu also said he would accept only “limited Palestinian self-rule,” a term Israeli leaders use to mean giving Palestinians in West Bank cities control over not much more than garbage collection and street maintenance.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the bad cop in Israel’s top leadership, took an even more extreme stand, declaring that Israel was not bound by the agreement it signed at the Annapolis peace conference in 2007 pledging to “further the goal of two states.” He also said that granting concessions to the Palestinians would “only bring pressure and more wars.” Lieberman, a former bar bouncer who immigrated to Israel in 1978 from the Soviet Union, has been under investigation for 13 years for receiving bribes, money laundering, and breach of trust. But since Israel’s new minister for internal security is a member of Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenyu party he has little reason to worry.

So far criticism of Israel by the Obama administration has been muted. Shipments of U.S. arms to Israel have continued, and an American officer, Gen. Keith Dayton, will oversee the training of Fatah security forces for another two years. Those forces have been used almost solely to disperse Palestinian protesters and hunt down Hamas supporters. According to Netanyahu, the U.S.-trained police are an “apparatus that will fight terrorism.”

Nevertheless, the days of rubber-stamp support for Israel may be over. In his appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on May 5 Vice President Joe Biden, after reaffirming America’s commitment to protecting Israel’s security, went on to say, “Israel has to work toward a two-state solution, not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts, and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.”

Obama’s special adviser on the Gulf and Southeast Asia is Dennis Ross (a Zionist Jew), who in 1985 helped launch the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank spun off from AIPAC. Ross was a member of the U.S. delegation at Camp David in 2000, and afterwards blamed Yasser Arafat for the failure of those talks. Arafat had turned down Israel’s offer of only a truncated portion of the West Bank as the basis for a Palestinian state.

More ominously, last summer Ross co-chaired a task force for Obama that produced a paper entitled “Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Nuclear Challenge.” According to an article by Robert Dreyfuss in the Nation, the paper proposed a coordinated U.S. and Israeli policy toward Iran that included plans for “preventive military action.” In a report for the neoconservative Bipartisan Policy Center, Ross recommended the “prepositioning of military assets” in the Gulf by the U.S. in case negotiations with Iran fail. Ross favors talks with Iran, Dreyfuss writes, but believes they should be limited to at most a few months. After that the U.S. should plan to take “kinetic action,” which could mean a military assault….”

How far Obama can go in his belief in the “Two-State” solution – can be judged from the remarks of a former US president, Gerald Ford, who too spoke in favour of the “Two-State” solution and end to Israeli occupation. When a reporter asked him why he did not pressure Israeli leaders to accept that while he was in the White House – Ford replied: “Because I was president”.

Chattisingpora Massacre & Mrs. Clinton Indian Visit

To remove Indian worries and enhance US-India strategic partnership` offering solutions to the challenges of 21st century, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is visiting India on July 17,2009 . She will meet with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, other government officials, the leader of the opposition, entrepreneurs, scientists, and youth, State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly. Indian is projecting her visit as new start with Obama s government. Mrs. Clinton visit can be wrapped while covering many angles but Indian intellectuals should be mindful that focus of the US Sectary of state s visit would be guarding her interests in the region by assigning the responsibility of Asian Watch Dog and nothing more would be gaining by New Dehli.

US interest of promoting India as regional power, strengthening her against China, Russia and Pakistan, using Indian market to boost US economy, getting access to Indian Nuclear Programme, intensification of Israeli and Indian ties against Muslim world, making her future and permanent ally of future world war, helping Indian government in suppressing on going liberation movements like Kashmir, Khalistan Moist, Bengal and Tamil could be some of the major aims of Clinton s visit. In fact US, Israel and India are the main players of The Grate Game which have been planned to achieve regional and global domination and capturing of Central Asian Recourses. Sikh community, Kashmiries and Pakistani government should analyse the said game plan since Clinton visit could be the part of regional mascara too. This is the time for UNO to interfere and ask India to resolve burning Kashmir conflict. New Delhi and Tel Aviv should be pressurized to respect international law and neighboured countries rights.

India was showing reluctance over restart of composite dialogues with Pakistan and always tried to link the talks with Mumbai Drama but some how failed to provide worthwhile evidence of involvements Pakistani establishment. Both countries returned from the brink of the war. New Delhi always tried to stage some drama at the time of visit of some foreign dignities. RAW has played Mumbai drama to divert the world attention from main core issues i.e. Kashmir and Water grabbing.

There are reports that Indian agency RAW in collaboration with Mossad is again planning to launch a new episode to attract the world attention at the occasion of Clinton visit. In this connection these unnatural allies may go for some misadventure against Pakistan and China or may hit any worth while target in India and afterward would allege Pakistan involvement in that.

Anyhow Mrs. Clinton visit took me to the past when at the occasion of her husband

(Former President Bill Clinton) visit, notorious agents of RAW in Chattisinghpora (Islamabad, Kashmir) slaughtered 35 members of Sikh community on March 20, 2000. The grieved families are still asking and seeing their innocent Sikh Prime minister for justice. It was a horrible evening of 20 March 2000, 15 to 17 unidentified gunmen dressed in Indian army fatigues entered the village of Chattisinghpora, located in Islamabad district. They ordered all of the Sikh men and boys to assemble at the village Gurdwara and systematically shot and killed 35 of them. Many others were injured in the attack, and at least one man died later of his injuries. The sole survivor of the massacre was Nanak Singh Aulakh, who recounted the events to reporters.

A unit of Rashtriya Rifles stationed nearby failed to intervene during the attack. The attackers wore military uniforms, and were lead by a man they addressed as ‘Commanding Officer.’ At they withdrew, they allegedly shouted Hindu slogans and left behind bottles of liquor. This was the first time in the Kashmir clash that Sikhs had ever been targeted. In the aftermath of the attacks, the then Indian Home Minister L K Advani offered the state’s Sikh population additional protective measures. However the local Sikh leadership reportedly discarded the plan saying that the Muslim majority had not been hostile to them before and that no protection was needed.

The butchery, which took place on the eve of US President Bill Clinton’s visit to the subcontinent, was widely condemned by both the Indian and Pakistani governments as well as leaders of the Kashmiri separatist movement. Although the Government of India and the state government of Jammu and Kashmir did not launch an early official investigation into the massacre, they immediately accused Lashkar e Tayyiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. However the Hurriyat Conference accused the Indian government of carrying out the massacre to discredit Kashmiri independence movement while Syed Salahuddin, head of Hizbul Mujahideen said: “Mujahideen have nothing against the Sikh community which sympathizes with our struggle. We assure them that there never was and there will never be any danger to Sikhs from Kashmiri freedom .

According to the sources reports the participants of these were the same individuals who have trained under the direct supervision of Col Prohit allegedly involved in blasting of Samjota Express and elimination of Christian s community in Orica. There are also confirmed reports that most of the troops belong to the units located in Islamabad (Indian Held Kashmir). The participants of operation Blue Star were also part and parcel of Sikh crushing movement in Kashmir. The Sikh community in Kashmir is demanding reopening the case of Chattisinghpora massacre in which 35 member of the community were killed in cold blood on March 20, 2000. But I am quite sure that weak Indian Prime minister will not be able to provide the justice to his community in the cases of Chattisnghpora and operation Blue Star.

India is trying hard to create instability, targeting killing of foreigners and locals to create panic in general masses. Our adversary (India) has always planned some sabotage activities for damaging Pakistan. The recent blast waves, killing of an official (MR. Zel-e- Usmann) representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) could be the tasks of RAW.

The chief of the U.N. refugee agency in Pakistan, Guenet Guebre-Christos, said the dead U.N. worker was a 59-year-old Pakistani Usman who had worked for the U.N. for 30 years. The official was a true Pakistani, honest and balanced personality and always tried to support the cause with his full strength. The killing of Late UNO official a day prior to Hillary visit is a big question mark. His killing was a try to pose Pakistan a terrorist country. Pakistan Government and other communities should be watch full against RAW agents around us.

Proud To Be American? You Should Be Ashamed

The Market Ticker

We have seen the largest looting operation in history
perpetrated against The American People.

Over $5 trillion dollars in junk securities were marketed and sold.  They had a real value of about $2 trillion dollars; the other $3 trillion, roughly, was pure fiction.

The banks created and sold these throughout the world, with the full knowledge and support of Congress, The Fed, and the banks themselves.

It was pure fraud.

Granting someone a “mortgage” based only on whether they can fog a mirror is proof positive of malfeasance, unless you disclose this fact to the buyers of these securities – a fact that was not disclosed until after the securities blew up.

Lenders, builders and others pressured appraisers to “hit the numbers” to support these fraudulent deals.  Proof of that is found in the nearly-10-year-old Appraisers Petition bearing thousands of appraiser signatures.

That ratings were a “mistake”, either real or intentional, is a matter of now-known historical fact.

Americans have sat on their butts through all of this, allowed their 401ks and IRAs to be trashed, their supposed “home values” to be pumped and then destroyed, and their hopes, dreams, employment and house have all vanished into the ether of fraud.

When this came to light the banks went to Congress, and supported by The Fed’s intentional draining of liquidity to create an immediate “crisis”, they got a $700 billion bailout bill passed – one that you, your children and grandchildren, will have to pay for.

The government then passed another near-trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill claimed to hold unemployment to 8%.  It did not, because it was yet another “papering over” of the fraud, but that bill your children and grandchildren, along with you, will also pay.

Your savings accounts and CDs now yield an effective zero.

Your credit card interest rates have gone from 11% to 29%, all so that the banks can keep granting ill-advised credit to people who can’t pay.  Those who can pay – the rest of you – are being jacked for 30% a year in interest.

We have seen a few “tea parties” in which a few people showed up and which were immediately panned by “those in power” as “astroturf.”

Contrast with this.

A few days ago, Iran held an election.  It is alleged that there was massive fraud.  The current President claimed victory under less-than-clear circumstances.

The people said “hell no!” in this sort of demonstration:

That’s about 2 million people, out of 70 million population (roughly), or one in thirty-five Iranians in the entire nation who took to the streets to demand justice in a simple vote.

More strikingly, Tehran has a population of roughly 12 million; this means that one in six citizens of the city are standing in that crowd.

This, despite the fact that the government there has been shooting people, has arrested the opposition party and issued an order to burn the ballots so there can be no recount.

This, despite the fact that the Iranian population does not enjoy a Second Amendment, and thus is forced to fight a rogue government with makeshift molotov cocktails, rocks and clubs, should that rogue government choose to shoot.

And this was about an election.  A President.  One man.

In our nation we have literally had 1/3rd of our GDP – that is, 1/3rd of everything you worked for last year – stolen by a bunch of fraudsters with the explicit cooperation and assistance of the government.

We should be seeing 10 million Americans literally closing Washington DC with peaceful protest in the streets – making the entirety of the downtown inaccessible to vehicles and the normal conduct of business impossible, were Americans to display the same sort of anger over an insult vastly more serious than that served upon the Iranian people.

If one in sixAmericans had enough in America’s big cities, there would be one million people in the Streets of Chicago – enough to fill Chicago’s Loop from Lake Michigan to I-90/94 and from The Chicago River to beyond Soldier Field, rendering the city core impassable.  (Roughly double the crowd that shows up for the 4th of July Fireworks, to put it in perspective.  “Greater Chicagoland” has a population of ~7 million)

The same in NY City would result in a crowd of 3.3 million people.

Where are you America?

In America, if the government turns into a goon squad, you have the constitutionally-protected ability to shoot back.  In Iran you have no such ability as the Iranian government has never recognized the unalienable rights as set forth in our Declaration.

So in Iran the population risks mass death to protest.

In America the population risks loss of some income since you’d have to cut work.

The Iranians take to the streets; we take to our couches and have another beer.

Grow a pair of balls America.

The people of Iran are putting us to shame.

Chinese Poll: 90% say India threatens China’s security

Zhu Shanshan | Editorial by PakNationalists

India used the distraction of North Korea’s recent missile tests to reinforce its military presence on China’s border in the disputed territory that India calls Arunachal Pradesh.

Being a disputed territory pending settlement, observers are interpreting the Indian move as a sign of New Delhi’s lack of sincerity in its commitments with China. The move also underlines India’s longstanding policy of unilateral action against neighbors whenever a geostrategic chance offers itself. India has done this in China’s Tibet province.

There is also evidence of close contacts between Indian intelligence officers and terrorists claiming to represent Chinese Muslims inside Afghanistan. Pakistan first identified this unique Indian style in managing relations with neighboring nations in 1956 when New Delhi backstabbed Pakistan and annexed Kashmir, and again in 1971 when India launched an unprovoked invasion of East Pakistan to help break up the country. And after 9/11, India is using Afghanistan to export terrorism into Pakistan in the guise of fake Taliban and fomenting separatism in other parts of Pakistan. India has accepted this Pakistani charge in the joint statement released in Egypt after the summit meeting between Pakistani and Indian prime ministers.

Our advice to China: Do not trust the Indians. They are masters at this game, and they are getting emboldened thanks to full backing by the American and the British propaganda machine.