Do you know that ...

در اين بخش مي‌توانيد در مورد کليه مباحث مرتبط با زبان انگليسي به بحث بپردازيد

مدیر انجمن: شوراي نظارت

Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

[External Link Removed for Guests]
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ''Stop Iran's Nuclear Program" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

The bill's key section "demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

"Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran" can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, "According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to 'pass like a hot knife through butter' before the end of June on what is called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial."
Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.

For more information about this action item, media requests, donations or other information, please contact Angela Keaton at 310-729-3760 or akeaton@antiwar.com.


Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

© energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;
(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.

[External Link Removed for Guests]
__________________
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

Establishing an "Arc of Crisis"

Many would be skeptical that the Anglo-Americans would be behind terrorist acts in Iraq, such as with the British in Basra, when two British SAS soldiers were caught dressed as Arabs, with explosives and massive arsenal of weapons.[1] Why would the British be complicit in orchestrating terror in the very city in which they are to provide security? What would be the purpose behind this? That question leads us to an even more important question to ask, the question of why Iraq was occupied; what is the purpose of the war on Iraq? If the answer is, as we are often told with our daily dose of CNN, SkyNews and the statements of public officials, to spread democracy and freedom and rid the world of tyranny and terror, then it doesn’t make sense that the British or Americans would orchestrate terror.

However, if the answer to the question of why the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq occurred was not to spread democracy and freedom, but to spread fear and chaos, plunge the country into civil war, balkanize Iraq into several countries, and create an "arc of crisis" across the Middle East, enveloping neighboring countries, notably Iran, then terror is a very efficient and effective means to an end.

An Imperial Strategy

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with links to the Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote an article for a publication of the World Zionist Organization in which he outlined a "strategy for Israel in the 1980s." In this article, he stated, "The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front. Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel." He continued, "An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon." He continues, "In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and Shiite areas in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."[2]

The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted until 1988, did not result in Oded Yinon’s desired break-up of Iraq into ethnically based provinces. Nor did the subsequent Gulf War of 1991 in which the US destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, as well as the following decade-plus of devastating sanctions and aerial bombardments by the Clinton administration. What did occur during these decades, however, were the deaths of millions of Iraqis and Iranians.

A Clean Break for a New American Century

In 1996, an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, issued a report under the think tank’s Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." In this paper, which laid out recommendations for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they state that Israel can, "Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats," as well as, "Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas," and to, "Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West."

The report recommended Israel to seize "the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon," and to use "Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." It also states, "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."[3]

The authors of the report include Douglas Feith, an ardent neoconservative who went on to become George W. Bush’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2001 to 2005; David Wurmser, who was appointed by Douglas Feith after 9/11 to be part of a secret Pentagon intelligence unit and served as a Mideast Adviser to Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2007; and Meyrav Wurmser, David’s wife, who is now an official with the American think tank, the Hudson Institute.

Richard Perle headed the study, and worked on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004, and was Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2004, where he played a key role in the lead-up to the Iraq war. He was also a member of several US think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is an American neoconservative think tank, whose membership and affiliations included many people who were associated with the present Bush administration, such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Peter Rodman, Dov Zakheim and Robert B. Zoellick.

PNAC produced a report in September of 2000, entitled, "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," in which they outlined a blueprint for a Pax Americana, or American Empire. The report puts much focus on Iraq and Iran, stating, "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."[4] Stating that, "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," the report suggests that, "the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," however, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime change of Saddam Hussein."[5]

Engineer a Civil War for the "Three State Solution"

Shortly after the initial 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus and Board Member of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, the most influential and powerful think tank in the United States. The op-ed, titled, "The Three State Solution," published in November of 2003, stated that the "only viable strategy" for Iraq, "may be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south." Citing the example of the break up of Yugoslavia, Gelb stated that the Americans and Europeans "gave the Bosnian Muslims and Croats the means to fight back, and the Serbs accepted separation." Explaining the strategy, Gelb states that, "The first step would be to make the north and south into self-governing regions, with boundaries drawn as closely as possible along ethnic lines," and to "require democratic elections within each region." Further, "at the same time, draw down American troops in the Sunni Triangle and ask the United Nations to oversee the transition to self-government there." Gelb then states that this policy "would be both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very hard-headed, and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup."[6]

Following the example of Yugoslavia, as Gelb cited, would require an engineered civil war between the various ethnic groups. The US supported and funded Muslim forces in Bosnia in the early 1990s, under the leadership of the CIA-trained Afghan Mujahideen, infamous for their CIA-directed war against the Soviet Union from 1979-1989. In Bosnia, the Mujahideen were "accompanied by US Special Forces," and Bill Clinton personally approved of collaboration with "several Islamic fundamentalist organisations including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda." In Kosovo, years later, "Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort." The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the British Secret Intelligence Services (MI6), British SAS soldiers and American and British private security companies had the job of arming and training the KLA. Further, "The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden," and as well as that, "the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict."[7]

Could this be the same strategy being deployed in Iraq in order to break up the country for similar geopolitical reasons?

The Asia Times Online reported in 2005, that the plan of "balkanizing" Iraq into several smaller states, "is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq - an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East. Curiously, Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion of Iraq." It continued, "this is classic divide and rule: the objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity. Call it Iraqification; what it actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war."[8]

In 2006, an "independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush," termed the "Baker Commission" after former Secretary of State, James Baker, "has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls ‘cutting and running’ or ‘staying the course’."[9]

It was also reported in 2006 that, "Iraq's federal future is already enshrined within its constitution, allowing regions to form, if not actually prescribing how this should happen," and that, "the Iraqi parliament (dominated by Shi'a and Kurds) passed a bill earlier this month [October, 2006] allowing federal regions to form (by majority vote in the provinces seeking merger)." Further, "The law, which unsurprisingly failed to win Sunni support, will be reviewed over the next 18 months in a bid to bring its opponents round." The article, however, stated that instead of a three state solution, "a system based upon five regions would seem to have more chance of succeeding. A five-region model could see two regions in the south, one based around Basra and one around the holy cities. Kurdistan and the Sunni region would remain, but Baghdad and its environs would form a fifth, metropolitan, region."[10] The author of the article was Gareth Stansfield, an Associate Fellow at Chatham House think tank in London, which preceded, works with and is the British equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Ethnic Cleansing Works"

In 2006, the Armed Forces Journal published an article by retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, titled, "Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look." In the article, Peters explains that the best plan for the Middle East would be to "readjust" the borders of the countries. "Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected." He states that after the 2003 invasion, "Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately." However, Iraq is not the only country to fall victim to "Balkanization" in Peters’ eyes, as, "Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan," and "Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today’s Afghanistan." Further, "What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren." Peters states that "correcting borders" may be impossible, "For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once." He further makes the astonishing statement that, "Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."[11]

The map of the re-drawn Middle East, initially published alongside Peters’ article, but no longer present, "has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles."[12] Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed wrote of Peters’ proposal, that "the sweeping reconfiguration of borders he proposes would necessarily involve massive ethnic cleansing and accompanying bloodshed on perhaps a genocidal scale."[13]

Federalism or Incremental Balkanization?

A month before Peters’ article was published, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Joseph Biden, a Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, in which they stated, "America must get beyond the present false choice between "staying the course" and "bringing the troops home now" and choose a third way that would wind down our military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our key security goals." What is this third option? "The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group—Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab—room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."

They describe a few aspects of this plan. "The first is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues." Then, "The second element would be to entice the Sunnis into joining the federal system with an offer they couldn’t refuse. To begin with, running their own region should be far preferable to the alternatives: being dominated by Kurds and Shiites in a central government or being the main victims of a civil war."[14]

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2007, Leslie Gelb stated that his plan for "federalizing" Iraq, "would look like this: The central government would be based on the areas where there are genuine common interests among the different Iraqi parties. That is, foreign affairs, border defense, currency and, above all, oil and gas production and revenues." And, "As for the regions, whether they be three or four or five, whatever it may be, it’s up to—all this is up to the Iraqis to decide, would be responsible for legislation, administration and internal security."[15]

The Senate subsequently passed a nonbinding resolution supporting a federal system for Iraq, which has still yet to be enacted upon, because it stated that this resolution was something that had to be enacted upon by the Iraqis, so as not to be viewed as "something that the United States was going to force down their throats." Further, "when Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he testified in favor of federalism. In his private conversations with senators, he also supported the idea," yet, while in Baghdad, the Ambassador "blasted the resolution."[16] Could this be a method of manipulation? If the American Embassy in Baghdad promotes a particular solution for Iraq, it would likely be viewed by Iraqis as a bad choice and in the interest of the Americans. So, if the Ambassador publicly bashes the resolution from Iraq, which he did, it conveys the idea that the current administration is not behind it, which could make Iraqis see it as a viable alternative, and perhaps in their interests. For Iraqi politicians, embracing the American view on major issues is political (and often actual) suicide. The American Embassy in Baghdad publicly denouncing a particular strategy gives Iraqi politicians public legitimacy to pursue it.

This resolution has still not gone through all the processes in Congress, and may, in fact, have been slipped into another bill, such as a Defense Authorization Act. However, the efforts behind this bill are larger than the increasingly irrelevant US Congress.

Also in 2007, another think tank called for the managed "break-up of Iraq into three separate states with their own governments and representatives to the United Nations, but continued economic cooperation in a larger entity modeled on the European Union."[17] In a startling admission by former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, stated in 2007 that the "United States has "no strategic interest" in a united Iraq," and he also suggested "that the United States shouldn't necessarily keep Iraq from splitting up."[18]

Conclusion

Clearly, whatever the excuse, or whatever the means of dividing Iraq, it is without a doubt in the Anglo-American strategy for Iraq to balkanize the country. Saying that what is being proposed is not balkanization, but federalism, is a moot point. This is because reverting to a more federal system where provinces have greater autonomy would naturally separate the country along ethno-religious boundaries. The Kurds would be in the north, the Sunnis in the centre, and the Shi’ites in the south, with all the oil. The disproportionate provincial resources will create animosity between provinces, and the long-manipulated ethnic differences will spill from the streets into the political sphere. As tensions grow, as they undoubtedly would, between the provinces, there would be a natural slide to eventual separation. Disagreements over power sharing in the federal government would lead to its eventual collapse, and the strategy of balkanization would have been achieved with the appearance of no outside involvement.
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

There has been a great attempt to alienate Iran from its Persian Empire roots and include it in the Arab extremism sphere. This delicate strategy which has been going on during a long time is partially due to the current Islamic regime in Iran which welcomes all destruction of ties to the ancient Persia, even if it comes from the enemy side. This has taken many different accounts, everything from calling the Persian language for "Farsi" (as it is called in Persian, but completely alien to the Westen reader. It is like calling Greece for Hellas in daily English) to putting the name of Iran close to Wahabists.
Mr. Ledeen has during the last few years been actively tring to alienate the Western readers from the Persian era of Iran in a systematic manner and also equaled Iran (Persia) to Third Reich, Wahabi empire, Islamic extremism etc.
It should be reminded that the Jewish community of the world neither starts nor ends at the American Enterprise Institute and that it is fully aware of the deep, strategic and historic ties it has with the Persians. The wisdom of the Jewish community prohibits it from equaling the Persians with a certain current political figure in Iran and it will never abandon this strategic link for some Arab rich new comers who are funding the creation of hatred between Jews and Persians in order to master that region by themselves. It is quite strange to hear this typ of rehtoric today, when the late Saddam Hussein was always referring to the "Persian-Jewish conspiracy" in all his speeches and indeed attacked both Isreal and Iran during his rule.
However it now seems an "evil" plan exists which aims to start a war between these two great historic nations in order to create a post-war vacuum (when both Iran and Israel are weakened) which then can be filled by some rich petro Arab figures.
But the "evil planners" have miscalculated the wisdom of the Persians and the Jews and they will be surprised by its outcome.

Serr Grandi
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

Serr Grandi :
I think we have a 50% chance of an American attack against Iran. Whether that attack will be a joint operation by US and Israel is not very important. However I think an Israeli ONLY assault on Iran is unlikely given vulnerabilities of the state of Israel against the influencial Iranian power in the region (Hezballah, Shiites etc.).

I think the talks about an Israeli air force excersice in Greece is more about psychological warfare than really intending an attack. Isreael cannot fully achieve any military objective by sending 50-100 fighters/bombers into Iran because of the following reasons:
1. The Iranian nuclear sites are numerous and well spread all over the country.
2. The main enrichment site in Natanz is heavily digged down under the ground and is sorrounded by maountais.
3. The Iranian sites are heavily guarded by modern anti aircraft missiles and guns. These include Russian S-300 for long-range and Tor-M1 for short range. Iran also might have some S-400 systems as well
4. Iranians have fully identified and are innovatively monitoring the main blind spots which might be used by low-flying aircrafts for entering into their airspace. These include everything from installations of small autonomous sensors connected to major central radar stations to usage of barrage balloons and even grid nets! These basic systems will normally surprise low-flying objects and either "catch them" or force to get to higher altitudes where they will be identified by regular radars
5. The Iranian air force is now on high alert which means up to 20-30 aircrafts are patrolling it Western and Southern borders on a 24/7 schedule. These include F-14s, Su-27s, Mig-29s but also low-flying F5s and F4s. Iran also has at least one Russian made AWACS (Il-76) in air at any time coupled by other small early warning airborne systems (Antonov 140) to ensure a networked airborne radar coverage.
6. Iran has numerous air bases in the area where a possible Israeli attack will appear and will be able to shortly scramble a huge number of additional fighters. They have also a number of small hidden airfields which they have recently built in order to spread their fighters away from the official air bases which they know will be bombed during an attack.
7. Iranian fighters are armed amongst others with Russian R-77 AMRAAM and R-37 ALRAAM besides their American Phoenix ALRAAM missiles. These will give them the full spectrum of air to air missiles from medium range to long range and from non-agile to extremely manouverable ones.So the Israeli F-15s, which will most probably focus on air superiority during an assault, armed with Python 5 air to air missiles, will definitely meet upgraded and capable Iranian fighters and they will definitely have a tough time engaging them (so it will not be as easy as the Israeilis think about "aging Iranian jets...")
8. Some of the Iranian fighters (most probably F-14s) will go for the Israeli tankers and airborne radars which will be flying close to the Iranian border and waiting for the fighters to return. These large aircrafts will be very vulnerable targets and easy ones for the Iranians.
9. Iran will almost immediately, from the moment the report of an Israeli attack is confirmed, launch its own retaliation attack and it will at least apply the principle of "same category of target retaliation" which means if Iranian nuclear sites and installations have been bombed it has the full right to attack the same type of targets inside the enemy land, i.e. Iran will surely attack the Israeli Dimona nuclear power plant. This attack will be carried out by Iranian Su-24s with escorting F-14s (which have been upgraded for extended operational range), and this type of attack has during the last year been simulated by the Iranians in numerous manouvers and also officially announced. The Iranians will at least manage to reach Israel and at least manage to crash the bombers into the Dimona (of course they will first try to bomb it and try to get back after the operation or land in Syria, but if that is not possible I think they are ready for a suicide attack). Of course the Iranian Shahab long range surface to surface missiles will also target Dimona.
10. Even if the Israeli jets manage to bomb the Iranian installations they will be meeting a huge fire power from Iranian air defence and fighters on their way back from the targets while they are inside the Iranian airspace (or close to it), so it will reduce their chances of getting back home.

The above scenario is completely focused on an Israeli attack on Iran and mainly on the Iranian response (keeping out the other third parties like Syria and the US). As it is indicated above, even for such a limited scenario, there are few Israeli chances of really achieving what they want with few casulties and no major retaliation from Iran. The only way they can succeed is to send in a first wave of stealth jets, like the F-22 Raptor which can knock out the Iranian radars and then send in the regular fighter/bombers. But then if the US delivers fresh new F-22s to Israel, Russia will have the right excuse to arm the Iranians with Mig-31s and upgraded Su-30s.

So the Israelis should listen to the US president when he says: "Israel should think twice before striking Iran on its own...".

July 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

Lets pray that the leaders in this country will address Iran with wisdom and not immaturity. Only a reckless leader wld put his country into a third war against a larger foe at this time. Without a draft and total sacrafice from all of our citizens attacking Iran wld be sheer madness. I dont think the country is willing to do what wld be necessary to fight an additional war. If the only reason the United States has to fight the war is the protection of Israel then it is past time to reevaluate our relationship with that country. If this is truly an Israeli conflict then let Israel handle it and not waste the blood and treasure of US citizens. I wld think after Lebanon that the Israeli's wld be wary of attacking another country. I cant believe the Israeli people long for eternal war and they like us must begin putting pressure on our goverments to find alternatives to military pressure. North Korea has made it clear that you can talk to your enemies and find compromise. Finally, if we do go to war we must insist that all of the neo-cons: kristol, Lieberman, and Cheney's, we must insist that they and all of their family members are enlisted to go fight on the front lines. After all if the war with Iran is so important to them then surely they want to provide a good example of leadership and join the fight.
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

George and Laura Bush to divorce after election because of Condi Rice?
Front page / World / Americas
18.07.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru


Pages: 1

Many US tabloids have been flooded with rumors of George W. Bush’s family misfortunes recently. The latest gossip is about George and Laura Bush to divorce after November elections.



George and Laura Bush to divorce after election because of Condi Rice?


BREAKING NEWS

Condoleezza Rice's sexual worries in the White House


Future generations to suffer from severe lack of fresh water


USA plans to encircle Russia with missiles and radars




Russian pop star Anna Semenovich
More...


Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper wrote with reference to The National Examiner tabloid that George and Laura Bush were planning a divorce after the presidential election in the USA.

According to the supermarket tabloid, George and Laura Bush hardly ever speak to each other. George feels very unhappy and does not want Laura to leave him. However, the newspaper wrote, Laura is tired of everything; she is determined to live her own life.

The couple still keeps their relationship alive just because they are contractually obliged to stay together during George W. Bush’s presidency; it is not a matter of feelings at all.

They are both certain that they have rendered a huge service to their country. They pretend that their marriage is still alive in spite of the fact that it was buried long ago. The divorce will be kept a secret until the president retires, the newspaper wrote.

The tabloid dwells upon the reasons which could lead to the possible divorce. The newspaper believes that George . W. Bush has been having an affair with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. A former employee of the presidential administration told The National Examiner that Laura Bush once spent her night in a hotel to stay away from the White House.

Laura Bush will reportedly be paid $20 million in case she divorces her husband.

It is worthy of note that it was not the first time, when US tabloids wrote about George W. Bush’s affair with Condoleezza Rice. Ms. Rice became the center of tabloid gossip in the USA two years ago in July. Many US newspapers wrote back then that Condi had a love affair with President Bush.

Wayne Madsen, a national security expert, wrote in 2006 that George W. Bush confessed during a session with his psychologist that he was attracted to other women. Bush reportedly named Condoleezza Rice as an object of his fantasies.

Laura Bush soon heard of the rumors. The first lady spent that night in Washington’s May Flower Hotel. Tabloids wrote that Laura Bush had escaped from the White House after an argument with President Bush which happened because of his supposed affair with Condoleezza Rice.

Evil tongues recalled the story of a Freudian slip which happened to Ms. Rice during an official meeting in Washington. Condoleezza Rice, who is always meticulous in the choice of her words, reportedly said the following: "As I was telling my husb—" before abruptly breaking off and correcting herself: "As I was telling President Bush."

Ms. Rice has earned the reputation of the Bushes’ family friend. She became close to President Bush mainly because of the fact that she is the only person who finds a common language with Bush to teach him wisdom of foreign politics.

Indeed, unlike her predecessor, Colin Powell, Ms. Rice is in a very close relationship with President Bush. She talks to him on the phone at least once a day.

Mark McKinnon, former media advisor for President Bush, said that it would not be hard for Condoleezza Rice to take a higher position because this woman has unlimited political potential.

“She's a superfecta: a Republican, a woman, an African American and secretary of state," he said. "I don't think there's a hotter star on the Republican political horizon than Condi Rice," McKinnon said.

Source: agencies

Speak your mind on Pravda.ru forum
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

This article appears in the July 18, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The British Plan To Recolonize
The Subcontinent Is Gaining Ground
by Ramtanu Maitra

[PDF version of this article]

The massive suicide bomb attack on July 7, which killed 41 people at the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, including the Indian military attaché and counsellor, indicates the ruthlessness of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)-British MI6-aided Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban, to break up Pakistan, and create a new, and unstable, nation bordering the resource-rich Central Asia and Iran. Although the Western media is keen to blame the "Taliban," it is clear that the Afghan Taliban was not involved, and that it was the handiwork of the TTP.

A day earlier, on the first anniversary of the Pakistani Army's raid of Lal Masjid at the heart of Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, a suicide bomber blew himself up, killing at least 19 people, mostly police officers. On the same day the Indian Embassy was attacked, terror struck Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, six times within an hour, as unknown terrorists triggered a series of blasts that wounded over 50 people, including children and policemen. Karachi, the largest Pakistani port, is the main disembarkation station of nearly 70% of the supplies that go to Afghanistan by road to the battling U.S./NATO troops. The supplies pass through the famed Khyber Pass—a 30-mile stretch between the Khyber Hills. At the time of this writing, the Khyber Pass, and a part of Peshawar city, 22 miles east of the Pass, remain infested with militant local tribes working hand-in-glove with the TTP.

The only way to comprehend what is happening is to first step back, and look at the key geostrategic puppet-master in the region: the British Empire.

British Geostrategy for the Subcontinent
The British policy toward South Asia, and the Middle East as well, is uniformly colonial, and vastly different from that of the United States. Even today, when Washington is powered by people with tunnel vision, at best, the U.S. policy is not to break up nations, but to control the regime, or, as has become more prevalent in recent years, under the influence of the arrogant neocons, to force regime change. While this often creates a messy situation—for example, in Iraq—the U.S. would prefer to avoid such outcomes.

Britain, on the other hand, built its geostrategic vision in the post-colonial days through the creation of a mess, and furthering the mess, to break up a country. This policy results in a long-drawn process of violent disintegration. That is the process now in display in Pakistan, as well as in many other nations, including Zimbabwe and Kenya—where the British colonial forces had hunted before, and still pull significant strings.

When the British left the Indian subcontinent in 1947, it was divided into India and Pakistan. The British colonial geostrategists, coming out of World War II, realized the importance of controlling the oil and gas fields. If possession could not be maintained, the strategists argued, Britain and its allies must remain at a striking distance, to ensure their control of these raw material reserves, and deny them to others.

At the end of British rule, Pakistan consisted of East Pakistan (which since has been liberated to form Bangladesh) and West Pakistan. West Pakistan's western wing (west of River Indus) bordering Afghanistan and Iran, consisted of Baluchistan, the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Tribal areas. North of all these, was the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which was a princely state under the Maharaja of Kashmir. Of the three areas, Baluchistan and the Tribal areas had not been brought under the British occupation and were kept instead as British protectorates. This was because the Tribals were ferocious, and made it clear they would not accept British troops within their territories. Moreover, the British crown figured that these areas would act as a buffer with Afghanistan, where the British were worried the Russians would show up.

Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP), however, is a different story. The NWFP, inhabited by Pushtun Muslims, was under the Indian National Congress, and led by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a close associate of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Ghaffar Khan had no intention of joining Pakistan, but when the British called for a referendum to decide which way the NWFP would go, Ghaffar Khan decided not to let his party participate, ostensibly because he feared violence. Because of this, the referendum won by only 50.49% in favor of joining with Pakistan.

It is evident that Britain did not want India to have any direct land link either to Afghanistan, or Russia, or Iran. In the North, when the dispute over the status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) arose, India's access to the North was blocked as well. The Kashmir dispute, the handiwork of London, showed what the British were looking for. Using a large number of Mirpuris (Mirpur is a part of J&K) who had migrated to Britain soon after the partition of the subcontinent, the MI6 built up a very strong anti-India lobby in J&K and encouraged the demand for an independent Kashmir. At the same time, MI6 lent a hand to the Pakistani ISI, to implement terrorist acts within the India-held part of J&K which would undermine India's efforts to stabilize the area. The policy has not worked so far, but a royal mess has been made, thanks partly to India's misguided, and often ruthless, policies.

The MI6 mouthpiece, and a link to the British colonial establishment, was Eric Lubbock (Lord Avebury). He was the first British Member of Parliament to publicly support the Kashmiri secessionist movement, which he did in an address to a secessionist group, JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front), at a conference in London, in 1991. There, he also announced his support for an armed struggle, according to The Dawn of Karachi. In a March 1995 issue of the JKLF's Kashmir Report, Lubbock condemned Indian policy in Kashmir as equivalent to what would have occurred if "Britain had been invaded in 1940," and suffered Nazi occupation. He demanded that Indian troops be withdrawn. "New Delhi fails to understand that if peaceful initiatives are thwarted, the inevitable result will be further violence," he threatened. Lubbock is still around pushing the colonial policies.

Who Are the Afghan Taliban?
For the uninitiated, it is important to realize that there exists a distinction between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban. The Afghan Taliban, along with many other Afghans, are engaged in a war against the occupying U.S. and NATO troops, with the objective of driving them away so they can gain control of their land. In other words, these Afghans are ready to fight any foreign troops, be they are American, British, Canadian, or German. But they have no intention of doing harm to others who have not lent troops to the occupying forces. At the same time, the Afghan Taliban would accept help from anyone, including the Pakistani Taliban, or any jihadi group functioning along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, including the much-vaunted al-Qaeda. It must be noted that no Afghan Taliban has ever been spotted, either in Iraq, or Palestine, where the Western, or pro-Western troops are engaged in battling the local Islamic groups.

On the other hand, while it is true that the Afghan Taliban have no love for the Indians, nonetheless they would not risk setting up a large operation of the kind that must have preceded the attack on the Indian Embassy. Moreover, the Afghan Taliban control large swathes of land in southern and eastern Afghanistan, but ground information suggests that they still are not in a position to carry out major attacks inside Kabul. Last April, an elaborate operation was put in place to assassinate Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. Initially, the operation was attributed to the Afghan Taliban, but later the Afghan authorities charged that it was the Pakistani ISI behind the failed attempt.

The Pakistani Taliban, however, are an altogether different kettle of fish, and are presently involved in breaking up Pakistan on behalf the geostrategic interests of the British colonials. This outfit, besides having a large number of tribes representing Pakistan's virtually ungoverned Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Northern Areas bordering Afghanistan and the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, is guided by the Pakistani ISI and British MI6. The Pakistani tribal groups, who have never formally accepted Islamabad's authority, see, in the present situation, an opportunity to carve out a separate nation bordering Afghanistan in the West and River Indus in the East. This objective, however far-fetched it may have seemed just months ago, is now a distinct possibility, not only because the ISI and MI6 have chalked out a design for achieving it, but also because of Washington's reckless approach to taming the Taliban and al-Qaeda at any cost, including undermining of Pakistan's sovereignty.

The increasing disintegration of Pakistan's political establishment has added to the threat. The ISI has been deeply infiltrated by MI6, and the Pakistani Army does not have the will to engage in a bloody civil war to prevent yet another break-up, nor does Pakistan's weak political elite have a clue as to how to integrate the increasingly militant tribal areas with Pakistan.

ISI-MI6 Link-Up
On the other hand, there exists a policy agreement between the ISI and MI6. Following the withdrawal of the defeated Soviet Army in 1989, the ISI moved in to arm and train the Taliban. The intelligence agency also brought in al-Qaeda, and was in the process of developing what is called "strategic depth," which, it argued, was necessary to protect the country from its "mortal enemy," India. The civilian governments in Islamabad, under the late Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, had little choice but to allow the Pakistani Army and the ISI to pursue this objective.

After 9/11, the scene changed rapidly. The Bush Administration identified Afghanistan, which was under Taliban rule, as the staging ground of al-Qaeda, and invaded the country with the intent of eliminating both the Taliban and al-Qaeda, in one fell swoop. Neither the ISI, and by extension, a section of the Pakistani Army, nor the British colonial operatives, wanted these assets, set up over years with the intent of controlling Central Asia, and undermining Russia, China, and India, to be sacrificed. Pakistan's ungoverned FATA immediately became the shelter of many who were facing Washington's wrath. In December 2001, Asia Times reported that the former ISI chief and a close collaborator of the MI6, "Hamid Gul, nicknamed the 'Godfather of the Taliban,' is believed to be behind moves to help the Taliban establish a base in Pakistan's autonomous Pushtun tribal belt."

The added irony, is that Washington's foolhardy approach involves two of its "best allies"—Britain and Pakistan—who had built up these assets, and were keen to protect them from Washington's missiles and rockets. The outcome of Washington's policy is now plain for everyone to see: Having routed the Taliban, and driven them from power within weeks following the invasion, almost six and a half years later, Washington is now facing an enemy which is surely much stronger than it ever was before. The credit for this, of course, goes to the ISI and MI6. Both have now come to realize that not only can the assets be protected, they can be "officially" lodged in a country carved out of Pakistan.

What Drives the ISI?
The question is, why would the Pakistani ISI want the separation? Putting aside the British control over the ISI for the moment, what must be recognized, is that the ISI was the brainchild of an Australian-born British intelligence officer, Maj. Gen. R. Cawthorn, Deputy Chief of Staff in the Pakistan Army in 1948, who later served in Australia as head of their Secret Intelligence Service. The ISI was structured to be manned by officers from the three main military services, and to specialize in the collection, analysis, and assessment of external intelligence, either military or non-military. At the time, as it exists even today, the ISI considered India its "mortal enemy," and the key to hurting India was to wrest control of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, where Muslims are in majority.

There is yet another "meeting of minds" between MI6 and the ISI in recent days: their mutual hatred of Afghan President Karzai. The ISI rejected Karzai out of hand because the Afghan President is close to India, and even Russia—but cool toward Pakistan. So, the ISI feels it necessary to replace Karzai with someone who will be pro-Pakistan and anti-India.

Nor does MI6 like Karzai, and has joined with the ISI to remove him, because he is controlled from Washington, and has become openly anti-British: Last December, when Karzai learned that two British MI6 agentswere working under cover of the United Nations and the European Union, and behind his back, to finance and negotiate with the Taliban, he expelled them from Afghanistan. One of them, a Briton, Michael Semple, was working as the acting head of the EU mission in Afghanistan, and is widely known as a close confidant of Britain's ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. The second, an Irishman, Mervin Patterson, is the third-ranking UN official in Afghanistan.

These MI6 agents were entrusted by London with the task of using Britain's 7,700 troops in the opium-infested, Pushtun-dominated southern Afghanistan province of Helmand to train 2,000 Afghan militants, ostensibly to "infiltrate" the enemy and "seek intelligence" about the lethal arms of the real Taliban. Karzai rightly saw it as Britain's efforts to develop a lethal group within Afghanistan.

In addition, around the same time, Karzai was under pressure from Britain, the U.S., and the UN, to appoint Lord Paddy Ashdown, a British Liberal Democrat, as the UN Special Envoy to Afghanistan. Ashdown had left his "viceregal" mark while serving as the High Representative of the United Nations for Bosnia a few years ago.

Anticipating that Ashdown, true to his reputation in the Balkans, would function like a colonial viceroy under orders from London, Karzai summarily called off the appointment. This decision raised quite a few hackles in London, and elsewhere.

MI6-ISI's Anti-Russia Ties
During the Cold War, the Pakistani ISI was not only training and infiltrating armed militants inside the India-held part of Jammu and Kashmir, but was utilized by the British to create security problems on Russia's southern flank. When the Soviets bumbled into Afghanistan with thousands of troops and tanks, ISI and MI6, along with the CIA, joined forces in the early 1980s to recruit mujahideen to fight the Red Army. MI6 turned over to the ISI some of their assests in the London-based organization known as al-Muhajiroun, or The Emigrants. This became the recruiting arm of al-Qaeda in London, and was used for terrorist work. The first groups were Pakistanis; they were followed by Somalis and Eritreans, among others. Al-Muhajiroun operated at the time under the armless Omar Bakri Muhammad, known as "Captain Hook," who was the Imam of Finsbury Mosque in London.

Coincidentally, in 1983, the British-based World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), headed by Prince Philip, which often provides the staging grounds for operations of MI6 and other British intelligence outfits, suggested that two national parks be created in Pakistan's Northwest, and although rather thin in natural wildlife, the preserves have proved to be excellent for growing poppy, and for training and staging mujahideen incursions into Afghanistan.

But, in the post-Cold War days, and particularly after 9/11, Washington moved closer to India, which went from being a "Soviet puppet," as it was labeled by some American analysts, into becoming a U.S. ally. Following 9/11, Washington made it a point to seek India's help in fighting the war on terror. Although India never supplied Washington with troops, New Delhi strongly supported Washington's war on terror policy. At the same time, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf embraced this Washington-led policy, putting the ISI in limbo. With the anti-India angle suddenly removed, the ISI became vulnerable to the British plan to create a separate Islamic state, carved out of Pakistan, located on the threshold of Central Asia. MI6 succeeded in reigniting the the ISI's aspiration to liberate the state of Jammu and Kashmir as its prime mission. The attack on the Indian Embassy on July 7 was a statement of that objective.

Musharraf on the MI6 Role
The interweaving of British MI6 and the Pakistani ISI is too elaborate to fully describe here. But, to get an idea of it, consider this example: Pakistani President Musharraf, in his book, In the Line of Fire, stated that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a Britain-born Pakistani who has been accused of kidnapping and killing Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, in 2002, was originally recruited by MI6, while studying at the London School of Economics. He alleged that Omar Sheikh was sent to the Balkans by MI6 to engage in jihadi operations. Musharraf added that, "at some point, he [Omar Sheikh] probably became a rogue or double agent."

On Oct. 6, 2001, a senior U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad," had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead."

Beyond that, the Saeed Sheikh affair shines a bright light on the MI6-ISI links. More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of the ISI, Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, resigned from his position. It was reported that the FBI was investigating the possibility that it had been General Ahmed who ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta. There were reports that Indian intelligence had already produced proof for the Pakistani administration that this was so.

Even more important are the joint operations between the MI6 and the ISI. The export of jihad to the Central Asian republics to pressure the countries of the former U.S.S.R. was a joint venture of the ISI, Pakistan's Jamaati Islam (JI), and Hezbe Islami Afghanistan. It is also documented that the MI6 directly deposited money into an account in the name of Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmed of Pakistan's JI, name, which Qazi used to pump Islamic literature and money into the Central Asian republics to incite the local Naqshbandi circles (a Sufi group) to rebel against the governments.

Khalistan and the Assassination of Indira Gandhi
Britain's other gross interference to undermine Indian sovereignty with the help of the ISI became evident during the Khalistani movement in India's Punjab in the 1980s. A number of militant Sikh-led organizations, such as the Dal Khalsa, Babbar Khalsa, Council of Khalistan, the Khalistan Government-in-Exile, and the Sikh Federation were headquartered in Britain. The Sikh Federation was formed after the 2001 proscription by the British government of the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF), while the Babbar Khalsa cadres started working under the aegis of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ), another militant group, after the ban imposed by the British government. Moreover, the top leaders of the Khalistani movement, Jagjit Singh Chauhan and Gurmej Singh of the Khalistan Government-in-Exile, used Britain to call for an independent Punjab (Khalistan), yanked out of India.

Although the Khalistani movement, which helped in fomenting the plots to assassinate two Indian prime ministers—Indira Gandhi and her son, Rajiv Gandhi—in addition to the deaths of scores of innocent Indians, is no longer visible, London still carries the Khalistani flag. In a highly significant development for the internationalization of the Sikh freedom struggle, representatives from a range of leading Sikh organizations met with high-ranking officials of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on Aug. 15, 2007, in London, in order to seek British support for the Sikh nation's right to self-determination.

Goaded and helped by MI6 and Britain's colonial geostrategists, the ISI did its best to create chaos within Punjab during that period. At the time that the Khalistani movement had grown dangerous following the Indian Army's raid of the Golden Temple, the holiest of holy Sikh shrine in Amritsar, and of the assassination of Indira Gandhi, the Pakistani ISI chief was Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who is now leading the charge on behalf of the Pakistani Taliban to undermine Pakistan's sovereignty.

According to an Indian intelligence analyst, in 1988, when Benazir Bhutto became prime minister, Gul justified backing the Khalistani terrorists as the only way to preempt a fresh Indian threat to Pakistan's territorial integrity. When Mrs. Bhutto asked Gul to stop playing that card, he reportedly told her: "Madam, keeping Punjab destabilized is equivalent to the Pakistan Army having an extra division at no cost to the taxpayers." Gul strongly advocated supporting indigenous Kashmiri groups, but was against infiltrating Pakistani and Afghan mercenaries into Jammu and Kashmir. He believed Pakistan would play into India's hands by doing so, the analyst pointed out.

The Kingpin
This brings us to the leading collaborator of the British MI6 within Pakistan, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul. Driven by his anti-India zeal, and now, with an equally zealous Islamic fervor, Gul is perhaps the most dangerous individual in Pakistan today. As his support for the Pakistani Taliban is expected to unleash more violence in the coming days, Gul will become even more powerful.

It is widely acknowledged, even by the CIA, that Gul played a key role in helping to train and arm the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s. He had extensive liaison with Osama bin Laden, now hated, but liked immensely earlier by the CIA-MI6-ISI trio, while that Yemeni-Saudi was in Afghanistan.

Since the Lal Masjid raid by the Pakistani Army at the behest of President Musharraf last July, to free the mosque of jihadis and Pakistani Taliban, Gul has become violently anti-Musharraf. The July 15, 2007 London Times reported comments by Gul following the Lal Masjid conflict: "The government is trying to hide the number of young girls killed. As the truth comes out that young girls were gassed and burnt, riddled with bullets and killed, it'll be bad for Musharraf."

BBC reported Gul's views on jihad, criticizing Musharraf for seeking to stop jihadists, and challenging: "Who is Pervez Musharraf to say we should stop Jihad, when the Koran says it and when the United Nations Charter backs it up? Musharraf says: 'Stop the jihad, do this, that and the other.' No, no, no. He cannot. There is a clear-cut Koranic injunction."

UPI and the Washington Times have quoted Gul's interview in Pakistan's Urdu newspaper Nawa-e-Waqt where he stated: "The leadership vacuum created by the sad demise of [Palestinian] President [Yasser] Arafat can only be filled by Osama bin Laden and [Taliban leader] Mullah [Mohammad] Omar, the real leaders that are the only dedicated individuals with the mass support of the Muslim world."

It is likely that Gul was directly involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto had contended that the rise of extremism in Pakistan could not have happened without support from government agencies, including the military and the powerful ISI. She added that, though Baitullah Mahsud, the frontman of the MI6 and the ISI in the TTP, had reportedly threatened to send suicide bombers against her if she returned to Pakistan, the real danger came from extremist elements within the government that were opposed to her return.

"I'm not worried about Mahsud, I'm worried about the threat within the government," she told the London Guardian. "People like Mahsud are just pawns. It is the forces behind them that have presided over the rise of extremism and militancy in my country."

Despite his inciting speeches and his role on behalf of the terrorists masquerading as jihadis, Gul remains virtually untouchable. Following the imposition of a state of emergency by President Musharraf on Nov. 3, 2007, Gul had demonstrated against the Presidential order. He was arrested, but Musharraf had to release him within two weeks. It is evident that Hamid Gul has become too powerful and that he enjoys high-level protection. Cui bono?
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

A Turkish theater for World War III*
By Chan Akya

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf is on record stating his ambitions to make his country a modern and secular state modeled on the Turkish republic under Kemal Ataturk. Ironically, even as that goal appears mind bogglingly unachievable for Pakistan, recent events will conspire to push Turkey in the direction of Pakistan; into becoming a breeding ground for a new class of Islamic militants. The transition of Turkey into a new front for Saudi interests will follow typical ideological, strategic and political trends.

The age-old rivalry of the House of Saud with Turkey, which saw the overthrown of the Ottoman Empire from the lands of what is now Saudi territory, helps create enough energy and urgency for the latest Saudi enterprise. It is no mere coincidence that the Saudis need a functioning Sunni army to counter the likely



expansionism of Iran, a matter that they simply cannot risk leaving to the putative next president of the United States, Democratic Senator Barrack Obama.

The House of Saud, in its bargain with the Wahhabi establishment, needs to use its fabulous oil wealth to further Islamic - and more pointedly Wahhabi - causes. That is why it bankrolled Pakistan's military and intelligence services in fighting their war in Afghanistan against the Russians, and it is precisely why it needs to create a large fighting force to contain Iran.

Neither the timing nor the direction of these events can be considered fortuitous. America has in effect sold Turkey's Kemalist generals down the river, in favor of keeping the avowedly-Islamic Justice and Development Party in power. The fact that Turkey's modern military represents the exact opposite vision of Islamic rule, compared with the feudal Saudi clan, represents the key flash point here, a particular grievance given the largely Sunni nature of Turkey's Muslim population.

Evaluating the possible - in my view likely - descent of Turkey towards the Pakistani morass can only be done by first looking briefly at the major factors that led to the latter's maladroit evolution. From there, we can look at the social and demographic factors that will compel Turkey into the Islamist fold, in turn creating a new front for the coming civilizational war.

How Pakistan was sold on the cheap
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the first leader of Pakistan when it was founded as a secular republic with a Muslim majority in 1947, envisaged Pakistan as a rapidly modernizing, Western-friendly country that would value education and engineering over feudalism and farming. In the first few years, this was indeed the direction that the country took. With the death of Jinnah in 1948 and the assumption of military power at the behest of the Americans, always chary of potential communist infiltration, Pakistan soon emerged as a two-tier state, with an elite that disdained the machinations of democracy, instead viewing itself as capable of setting the country on an elevated path.

To stay in power, the middle-class men who constituted Pakistan's top army brass needed the wealth and support of feudal lords and businessmen, thus entrenching a social schism in the economic structure. Middle-class Pakistanis without the benefit of being in the army were consigned to more mundane existences, with the pretence of democracy holding them in place.

The emergence of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto from a landed Shi'ite clan changed the equation somewhat for here were wealthy, non-Punjabi lords of the soil who commanded mass adulation for their embrace of socialist principles and upholding secular values (by and large). The fact that Bhutto succeeded Field Marshall Ayub Khan proved to be both his making and undoing. While being a dictator and anti-democratic, Ayub did make the correct economic choices for Pakistan, as well as embracing its most important strategic relationship, namely a long-term friendship with China that even today serves as the bedrock of its geopolitical standing.

After the 1965 war with India, Pakistan signed the Tashkent agreement, which proved deeply unpopular within the country, already buffeted by declining prosperity. The split of the charismatic ex-foreign minister Bhutto from the Ayub government was timely and paved the way for the creation of the Pakistan People's Party, which went on to sweep the general elections in 1970 in Western Pakistan but failed to win any seats in the East.

The resulting c r 4c k on the East that led to genocide, Indian intervention and finally the creation of Bangladesh also paved the way for Bhutto to become the prime minister of Pakistan.

Taking a cue from the disastrous economic leadership of his bitter foe in India, Indira Gandhi, Bhutto set about nationalizing all of Pakistan's major industries. His embrace of socialist mores however proved fatal for Pakistan's economy, leading to increasing dissent - more importantly, the linkage between the country's wealthy and its military had been broken. Being Shi'ite, Bhutto was never trusted by Arab rulers, least of all those in Saudi Arabia; his embrace of socialism and the Non-Aligned Movement meant that he was considered untrustworthy by the US.

India had just completed its first nuclear test in 1975, even as the Middle Eastern embargo on exporting oil to the West had caused a stunning descent into recession for many developed countries. It was perhaps at this stage that an ideological bargain was struck between the US and Saudi Arabia that paved the way for the removal of Bhutto from power. For his part, Bhutto believed that it was the US that wanted him dead for Pakistan's avowed intention to possess a nuclear device. He wrote of an alleged warning from US statesman Henry Kissinger ("make a horrible example of you") as the precursor to his incarceration [2].

Socialism as always failed to deliver as a substitute for nationalism, thus paving the way for a takeover by religion as the main guiding force of Pakistan. The wily General Zia ul-Haq, who staged a coup against Bhutto in 1977 and declared himself president, in due course set about re-establishing the authority of the military and Pakistan's elite businessmen. Keeping the restive public from embracing the next demagogue though would prove to be easier said than done, and this is where the embrace of Islam worked to the military's advantage.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and continued losses in the Kashmir "freedom struggle" in the backdrop of a giant sucking sound emanating from the economy all meant that the availability of cannon fodder to fight America's battles had suddenly increased exponentially. This is what the Saudi-sponsored religious schools and rich mosques helped to propagate in Pakistan. Unable to pay for any education in the face of its collapsing economy and escalating military expenditure, Pakistan in effect outsourced the training of its youth to the Saudis, who in turn turned to the Wahhabi establishment. The corrupt military were perfectly happy as long as they remained in power.

From there on, Pakistan's descent into a tragicomedy only accelerated. Split between the conflicting and contradictory forces of capitalism and socialism, military rule and democratic charades in the backdrop of an indifferent economy, people took whatever path presented the greatest opportunities in their particular existence. This is from where the steady supply of militants willing to commit suicide for the Wahhabi cause came.

History repeats itself
At first glance, the decision of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government to arrest last week 86 people (and a further 20 on Wednesday) for an alleged coup plot doesn't look anything like what happened when Zia arrested Bhutto. For one thing, the tables are turned here in that a democratically elected government has sequestered its military. That is, however, where the differences end.

For a long time now, Turkey's secular generals have run the country in the image of Kemal's republic, which embraced modern Islam, secularism and pro-Western behavior. This is well in keeping with the interests of the US and therefore continued for a long time.

More recently though, the generals have become a thorn in the flesh of the Saudi royal family as well as possibly various US interest groups. Their assistance to the talks between Syria and Israel, opposition to any US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and steadfast repression of Kurds have all put them at odds with either explicit US policy or its interests.

In contrast, key members of the Erdogan government who embrace the traditional Sunni values of Islam face being banned by a military-backed case that could see yet another setback to the Islamist cause in Turkey. That is the likely reason for the current bout of Saudi intervention.

As the price of oil increased rapidly in the past three years, Saudi influence has grown. The rapid decline of the US into a credit crisis has also prompted the need for rich friends in high places, particularly to rescue moribund banks and continue buying bonds issued by bankrupt federal agencies. It now appears that instead of a share of US banks or its corporate that "lesser" Arab rulers may be happy with, Saudi Arabia has been slowly pushing the US to capitulate its Turkish fiefdom.

After stabilizing the Islamist government, the true costs of this bargain for Turkey will become more visible. As the US Army plans to leave Iraq, it will leave in its wake an independence-seeking if not functionally autonomous Kurdistan that embraces territory in the north of Iraq and Iran as well as the eastern part of Turkey. On its western front, Turkey has already been outmaneuvered by Greece on its claims on Cyprus by using the illusory carrot of potential European Union membership.

Turkish nationalism will thus receive two severe blows in the next few years. Coalescing at the center, it is likely that Turks will turn to religion for succor, much as Pakistanis did after the creation of Bangladesh. That they will become cannon fodder in the age-old conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite forces is another matter.

In perhaps less than a decade from now, Saudi Arabia could well control and call on two Wahhabi-inspired armies on either side of Iran, and seek to deal a death blow against the Shi'ites when a convenient excuse presents itself. It is only after Islamic forces consolidate around the Wahhabi establishment that the next phase of the civilizational war against the West will begin.

*Notes
1. The author has written previous articles on the likely push towards World War III, and Asia's role in that future conflict. See Playing South Asia's World War III game Asia Times Online, Nov 17, 2007 and China and India in World War III Asia Times Online, July 26, 2006.
2. If I am assassinated Vikas (1979)by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

This article appears in the August 1, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
PKK Terrorists Named `Drug Kingpins';
Nations Move Against Narcoterrorism
by Michele Steinberg

[PDF version of this article]

The murderous Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, was founded by the jailed former Marxist, Abdullah Ocalan, in 1974, at Ankara University, and has been mislabeled as a "Turkish" problem, or a "Kurdish" problem. But, an examination of the PKK's history, especially its notorious drug running—some $50-$100 million a year income from heroin and opium trafficking—establishes without doubt that the PKK is an enemy of all humanity.

Specifically, the PKK is a British-protected separatist outfit, a drug-funded "narcoterrorist" army, whose only purpose is to destroy the nation-states of Southwest Asia for the British-led modern imperialists. Active in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, the PKK terrorists, who killed some 30,000 Turkish people—mainly civilians—in the 1980s and 1990s, are identical in intent to their sister organizations: in Ibero America, the Sendero Luminoso cult of Peru, and the just-defeated FARC of Colombia; and in Asia, the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, assassins of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandhi, in 1991.

Now, with Turkey at the center of sensitive regional negotiations in defense of republican nation-states (see preceding article), the PKK has been linked to a massive conspiracy to overthrow the Turkish government. The PKK/Ergenekon/Young Turk coup plot would reinfect Turkey with the British disease of the last century—the perpetual running sore in Asia Minor created by the secret Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, in which France and the British Empire, the "victors" of World War I, divided up the region between them, and manipulated ethnic, religious, and tribal groups against one another, and against central governments, to create perpetual war.

This time, however, in the aftermath of the victorious, patient operation against the FARC in Colombia, a resistance against narcoterrorism worldwide has emerged. This is especially so in Southwest Asia, where a heated debate is going on at the highest level of the North Atlantic alliance to recognize that fighting "narcoterrorism" is the only way to defeat al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or the other "new dark age" terrorist forces that have declared war on the modern nation-state. At the same time, the U.S. government has declared the Kurdistan Workers' Party to be a "drug kingpin" organization, a designation that will put the PKK at the top of the priority list for shutdown of its operations, arrest of its leaders, and seizure of its assets—including bank accounts and property.

This new designation was announced at a meeting of the International Conference on Drug Enforcement in Istanbul, on July 8-10, where 300 law enforcement officials were hosted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Turkish National Police. There, U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson stated that after the "historic rescue of hostages long held by FARC and the big blow it represented to that organization," it was time to talk about narcoterrorism.

"It's a critical topic for Turkey," said Wilson. "This country has been struggling for over two decades against a terrorist organization called the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK. The PKK funds itself through extortion and trafficking in arms, human beings, and drugs."

Wilson politely covered up the fact that for nearly two years, the United States had failed to shut down the PKK operations in Iraq, prompting criticism from U.S. Gen. Joseph Ralston, and forcing the government of Turkey to enter Iraq in pursuit of the PKK forces this year. But, Wilson declared, now the United States has "recently opened another front in the campaign" against the PKK, and has designated the terrorist group as a "drug kingpin." In working closely with Turkish law enforcement, Wilson added, the designation "will allow us to strengthen our joint efforts against PKK narcoterrorists through focussed targetting of the assets of individuals and businesses associated with it."

A Real Strategy Against Terror
Naming the PKK as a "drug kingpin," is an important move, but only if it is followed by a strategic understanding that narcoterrorism is the nature of the beast that civilization is up against, and the aim of the narcoterrorist international is the destruction of the sovereign nation-state, which is a bulwark against the global rule by a financier oligarchy.

In August 1996, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., then running for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, made this point emphatically in a policy paper entitled "Today's Echoes of Civil Wars in Ancient Rome," where he outlined the threat facing Turkey, a threat that is eerily parallel to today's coup danger. In a section subtitled, "Case Study #2, Turkey, Iran, China," LaRouche wrote:

Recently, Prime Minister Erbakan of Turkey has entered into crucial strategic agreements with the Rafsanjani government of Iran. To assess this, the subject must be approached on four levels.

First, Prime Minister Erbakan's actions echo the 1919-1920 alliance of Turkey's patriot, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, with Iran patriot Reza Pahlevi, who joined forces to effect the successful defeat of the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale's Sykes-Picot plot against the people of the Middle East.

Second, this reflects the common interest among Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, in destroying a London-based, Kurdish (PKK) terrorist operation deployed entirely by London and Paris....

Third, this represents two vital interests. It represents Turkey's vital national interest in finding the kind of economic cooperation it requires for national economic reconstruction. It also reflects Iran's present, crucial close cooperation, in Eurasia Land-Bridge development, with China and central Asia republics. In that specific setting, Turkey's vital interests demand that it become an integral partner in the extension of this Land-Bridge collaboration. Thus Turkey's and Iran's shared interests in ending the power of the Entente Cordiale's Kurdish operations, coincide with the two nations' vital interests in economic-development cooperation.

Fourth, this effort is of vital strategic-political importance, not only for the nations, directly and indirectly, involved. It is of global strategic importance.

That LaRouche description is even more crucial today, where in the aftermath of the disastrous war against Iraq by the U.S.-British alliance, the region remains in flames.

EIR has learned from well-informed Washington sources that there is now full recognition within U.S. military circles that the commanders of the Taliban, and Taliban's al-Qaeda allies, are funding their armies—as EIR warned more than a decade ago—with opium and heroin trafficking, as well as a newer, burgeoning empire in hashish production. One U.S. intelligence source stated that more than $100 million a year, directly from the opium grown in Afghanistan alone, goes directly to the Taliban, for its military operations.

The source put the overall monetary value of the Afghan opium trade—now accounting for 93% of the world's opium production last year—at approximately $160 billion—a figure considered high by U.S. law enforcement analysts. But these law enforcement circles will admit that they can no longer precisely calculate what the value of the Afghanistan opium might be.

One reason for the confusion about the cash flow is, "how big is big"? The opium production in Afghanistan in 2007 was a staggering 8,200 tons, out of a total world production of 8,847 tons. In 2006, the Afghan opium production was 6,100 tons out of 6,610 tons worldwide. In perspective, opium production in Afghanistan alone in 2007 is more than three times greater than Afghanistan's opium in 1998, when the United Nations put the figure at 2,693 tons in Afghanistan, and about 4,300 tons worldwide.

In fact, since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan that drove out the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the opium production has skyrocketted, growing steadily, year after year, since 2002. And as the opium production has grown in volume, the Taliban has grown in strength and activity.

Any competent military historian knows that logistics in depth is the key to the operations of any army, and that applies more than ever to irregular warfare forces and terrorist armies. So, without eliminating the narcoterrorists' supply lines, and economic base, it is impossible to defeat them.

Now the discussion is in full force to include the "Narco-Khans" of Afghanistan in the allied war plan there, but the decision has not been finalized.

Defeating the PKK's dirty war would be a good case study in successful counterterror operations, but this would mean directly taking on the British Empire. In 1996, EIR published a memorandum demanding that the U.S. State Department put Britain on the list of sponsors of terrorism. EIR listed over a dozen countries, including Turkey, that suffered from London's protection of terrorism. EIR wrote: "On Aug. 20, 1996, the Turkish government formally protested to the British government for allowing the Kurdish Workers Party to continue its London-based MED TV broadcasts into Turkey, despite documentation that the broadcasts were being used to convey marching orders to PKK terrorists there."

The Kurdish and PKK Narcotics Role
In May 2003, Steven W. Casteel, the DEA's assistant administrator for intelligence, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Casteel stated: "The Government of Turkey consistently reports that the PKK, as an organization, is responsible for much of the illicit drug processing and trafficking in Turkey. Turkish press reports state that the PKK produces 60 tons of heroin per year and receives an estimated income of forty million dollars each year from drug trafficking proceeds."

From the DEA's own intelligence report, Casteel added that evidence shows that among the PKK's modes of drug-profiteering are producing opium, taxing traffickers who pass through their cross-border territories, and "possibly controlling a significant portion of the heroin markets in Europe."

Shortly after the Istanbul DEA conference this month, a senior Turkish security official described the PKK's drug operations to EIR as follows: The PKK has been ideally suited for drug trafficking, since it draws its membership from various Kurdish tribes whose members overlap the territory of eastern Turkey, northern Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Thus, the PKK has networks already in place to transship heroin from Afhanistan, through Iraq or Iran, into Turkey, and on through Turkey to Europe.

The PKK trafficking activities are interlinked with other Turkish organized crime networks, the official said, and therefore can take advantage of the freight traffic into Europe. Furthermore, with 8 million Turks living in Europe, half of whom visit Turkey each year, there are tremendous opportunities to take out the drugs and bring in the cash in return.

In a January 1999 article, "PKK heroin cartel threatens Europe," EIR published the fundamentals of this story as follows:

...While the European Union condemns Turkey's war against the PKK as a violation of 'human rights,' the reality is that western Europe has itself become a primary victim of the war, because the PKK and Kurdish mafia are major traffickers of heroin into Europe.

The evidence compiled by western European, Turkish, and U.S. law enforcement agencies documenting the PKK role, is dramatic. According to published reports by these agencies, Turkey serves as the land-bridge for three-quarters of the heroin transported for use in western Europe, some 60 tons a year, from its origin in Afghanistan. According to several reports, the PKK and its allied Kurdish clan mafia is one of the main groups bringing that heroin into Europe. The PKK's proceeds from this smuggling, and its control of street-level distribution networks throughout western Europe, fund the PKK's war.

Heroin also provides the basis for the PKK's alliances with other separatist armies operating in the war-zones of Afghanistan-Tajikistan, the Caucasus, eastern Turkey, and the Balkans, which constitute the highway through which the heroin reaches western Europe. Control of the heroin trade has become a primary objective in many of these conflicts.

Here we summarize some of the evidence compiled by U.S., western European, and Turkish law enforcement sources which documents this criminal role, supplemented by interviews with their investigators.

Turkey's role as the main highway used to transport opium and heroin from the 'Golden Crescent' opium poppy cultivation zone in Afghanistan and Central Asia, into western Europe, has long been reported. According to the U.S. State Department's most recent annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released in March 1998, 'Turkey's position astride the main overland trade route between Asia and Europe, makes it a significant transit point for narcotics.' The report states that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that 'between four and six tons of heroin transit Turkey each month,' and that 'three-quarters of the heroin abused in Europe transits Turkey.'

A 1997 internal report of the German Federal Criminal Investigation Office (BKA), leaked to the German magazine Focus and cited in its March 3, 1997 issue, makes similar charges. According to the BKA report, '80% of the heroin' used in western Europe, reaches its destination via Turkey.

Ethnic Kurds, whether from the PKK or Kurdish mafia, are central to this trafficking. 'Most of the deadly dealers come from the Anatolian province, Van, a Kurdish region,' the BKA report states. 'The gangs possess laboratories where they transform morphine base into heroin, and transport it to Istanbul. From there, the dealers smuggle the drugs mainly via Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, and Austria, to Germany.'

This is not a new phenomenon. According to Interpol, 34% of the 42 tons of heroin seized in continental Europe during 1984-93 was found on Turkish nationals. And of the 503 Turkish nationals seized carrying this heroin, at least 298 were PKK members or were tied to the PKK.

The German police have calculated [as of 1995] that heroin trafficking brings in more than $120 million a year for the Turkish Kurdish crime families, both the politically minded and common criminals combined. The British National Criminal Intelligence Service estimated in 1993 that the PKK earned $38 million from drug-trafficking. Turkish law enforcement sources estimate that the PKK's annual turnover from heroin and hashish sales is currently $100 million. For such reasons, Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem estimated in November 1998 that the PKK has a $40 million war-chest.

Italian authorities concur with these estimates of the importance of Turkish-based drug-running in general, and the Kurdish mafia and PKK in particular.

The director of the Italian Police Force's Central Operations Service, Alessandro Pansa, issued a report, 'New Guide to Fighting Money Laundering,' on the issue to the Italian Bankers Association in December 1998. He stated that Turkey is the main source of the heroin used in Italy, and that the PKK is the main group behind the heroin trade. 'Heroin from Anatolia [the Turkish peninsula] has now taken over as the main product on the market,' the Dec. 15 Italian daily Il Giornale quoted Pansa. Moreover, Kurdish networks run it all: 'Thirty percent of the laboratories for refining heroin scattered around Turkish territory are currently in the hands of the PKK Kurdish rebels; the remainder, on the other hand, is allegedly run by the Kurdish mafia.'

A 1998 report by the Italian Finance Police, SCICO, came up with similar estimates, Il Giornale reported. The police agency determined that the PKK is 'directly involved' in 'international drug-trafficking,' while also earning illicit proceeds from the 'immigrant trade' and the 'systematic levying of 'protection' payments from Turkish businessmen and workers abroad.'

Turkish law enforcement sources say that the PKK's heroin and refugee smuggling, and its extortion operations, constitute one integrated business.

Going after the PKK for its narcoterrorism is long overdue. It has been protected by the British Empire, and by groups like George Soros's Human Rights Watch throughout the 1990s to the present. Now is the time to say, "It's over," and defend nation-states against these killer operations.
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

The Anglo-Saudi`BAE' Factor in the Syria Assassination
Increase DecreaseAUG. 7, 2008 (LPAC)--A senior U.S. intelligence source with decades of experience in Southwest Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean has reported that there is strong evidence that Saudi Arabia played a role in the recent assassination of a top Syrian general. Gen. Mohammed Suleiman was assassinated in the Syrian Mediterranean port city of Tartous on Friday, Aug. 1, in what was described as a professional assassination.

According to the U.S. source, while some news accounts blamed Israel for the killing, he is convinced that Saudi Arabia provided critical information and funds for the murder, and that this is part of a larger Saudi effort against the Assad government, including the inciting of Sunni tribal confrontations, targeting Allawites in both Syria and Lebanon. The source encouraged exploring the Anglo-Saudi nexus of the "Al Yamamah" off-the-books covert slush fund, as part of any serious investigation.

The recent Doha agreement, establishing a unity government in Lebanon, including Hezbollah and the Christian opposition faction of Michel Aoun, as well as the agreement between Damascus and Beirut to resume normal diplomatic relations, has greatly weakened the Saudi grip over Lebanon. The Turkish mediated talks between Israel and Syria have also undermined the Saudi position, and these factors, the source emphasized, are part of the reason that the Saudis may have played a hand in the assassination of Gen. Suleiman, a key ally of President Assad, who was not well known outside of Damascus.

The recent diplomatic efforts of Turkey and France have broken the isolation of Syria's Assad regime. The targeting of Syria for "regime Change" was a cornerstone policy of the Cheney/neocon apparatus in the Bush Administration, from 2001, and is part of the British longterm strategy of "managed chaos" to prevent any peace agreement in Southwest Asia. According to the U.S. intelligence source, both Turkish and French mediation have moved the Israel-Syria peace talks forward, and current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is strongly in favor of a permanent treaty with Syria, and then Lebanon.

Since September 2007, Lyndon LaRouche has been promoting a Syria-Israel peace deal as a critical means of shifting the entire dynamic in the region, and moving the overall regional peace process forward.
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
پست: 797
تاریخ عضویت: شنبه 11 فروردین 1386, 9:11 pm
سپاس‌های دریافتی: 56 بار

پست توسط TOPGUN »

Armenia Must Prepare Now If Israel and America Attack Iran
by Jack Manuelian

Chances are growing presently that Israel will attack Iran in order to destroy its atomic program. For the past two years Israel has been preparing for such an attack where Iran's nuclear facilities if not destroyed completely at least they would be crippled for many years to come.

The attack could come someday this Fall. In September there are going to be political changes in Israel where extreme nationalists and militaristic leaders are likely to replace the resigned soft Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who was a proponent of negotiations.

Can the attack come as soon as this September? Both September and October 'are on the table.'

Armenia should prepare for a worst-case-scenario where Iranian refugees flee by the thousands into Armenia, Karabagh, and Nakichevan when the attack starts. Thousands will flee to Turkey. Armenia needs to enter into negotiations with Turkey in order to coordinate their activities aimed at accommodating and taking care of the Iranian refugees.

Emergency tents and blankets would be needed by the thousands. Sanitary facilities has to be built. Food distribution has to be organized.

There is no doubt about the outcome of the attack. Iran as a sitting duck would be on the losing side. However, thousands of Iran's population driven by fear and panic would flee converting to refugees if the attack spins out for weeks instead of one or two days.
The content of the materials does not necessarily reflect the views of the «PanARMENIAN.Net».
ارسال پست

بازگشت به “زبان انگليسي”