Syria: NATO Genocide Approaches

Posted by Admin On Wednesday, 30 November 2011 2 comments

By Tony Cartalucci
BLN Contributing Writer

Blatant lies told by alleged "human rights activists" led to ignominious NATO-sanctioned brutality and ultimately brought BP, Shell, Total-sponsored Petroleum Institute representative, Abdurrahim el-Keib, into power in Libya. Now, these same corporate-financier interests, through their same networks of propaganda, duplicity and deception, are laying the ground work for a repeat performance in Syria.

It was just recently revealed that the UN Human Rights Council report regarding Syrian "crimes against humanity" was actually co-authored by Karen Koning AbuZayd, a director of the US Washington-based corporate think-tank, Middle East Policy Council, that includes Exxon men, CIA agents, US military and government representatives, and even the president of the US-Qatar Business Council, which includes amongst its membership, AlJazeera, Chevron, Exxon, munitions manufacturer Raytheon (who supplied the opening salvos during NATO's operations against Libya), and Boeing. The conflict of interest is so monumental it is only outdone by the corporate media's eager acceptance of the report and their complete negligence in airing the compromised backgrounds of those responsible for compiling it.

The UN report itself (.pdf) contained no verifiable evidence, but rather hearsay accounts recorded in Geneva by alleged "victims" "witnesses," and "defectors," put forth by "all interested persons and organizations." In other words, it was an open invitation for Syria's enemies to paint whatever image of the ruling government they pleased. While critics claim this is due to the Syrian government's lack of cooperation with the UN, it is more likely that the UN itself, with a proven track record of doing so in Iraq, the Ivory Coast, and most recently Libya, is merely complicit in providing "window dressing" for Wall Street and London's otherwise naked military conquests.

How to Start the War 

And it is through this purposefully distorted lens that calls for military intervention are being made. After months of denying the opposition was armed, the Wall Street-funded think-tank Council on Foreign Relations now openly claims that not only are the "protesters" armed, but there is a resistance army of "15,000." The CFR claims this "Free Syrian Army" is requesting weapons and air support. It has already been revealed that weapons are freely flowing over Syria's borders from foreign-supporters, most notably, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now even as far as Libya. The CFR report then goes on to explore the options available to NATO for facilitating "regime change" including the use of "overhead surveillance assets, logistical enablers, peacekeepers, armed drones, combat aircraft, ground troops," and "smuggled weapons."

Of course the number of Syrian defectors are as baseless as the UN human rights report. However, even the claim of a large, armed militant force operating inside of Syria directly contradicts the West's concurrent narrative that Syria's military is running rampant over defenseless civilians. With an army of "15,000 defectors" attempting to seize the nation by force with the help of foreign money, weapons, and diplomatic support, one finds it difficult to believe the Syrian government would instead be spending its time "massacring civilians." Just as in Libya, or any number of nations where foreign-backed "revolutions" have been attempted or achieved, Western-enabled violence is always a predetermined part of the equation, fully provisioned ahead of time with the subsequent violence cloaked behind tales of one-sided brutality aimed at the targeted regime.

As mentioned in the corporate-funded Brookings Institution report "Which Path to Persia?" the inclusion of covert armed support for US-backed protests is not just an option, but a necessity when carrying out such operations within a nation possessing competent security forces.

Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): "Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it." "This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.

Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it." 

In addition to this confession by the Brookings Institution, this pattern of providing for, or covering up the existence of, armed elements deployed during the opening phases of a color revolution has also been documented in LibyaSyria, and in Bangkok, Thailand in 2010. Just as in Libya where legions of Al Qaeda rebels armed by NATO and fresh back from killing US and British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were initially covered up with tales of street protesting youth being cut down by Qaddafi's troops, Syria too has been plagued by violent militants since the unrest began earlier this year. In April's "Globalist War Machine Fixates on Syria," the first reports of the now ubiquitous snipers terrorizing Syria began to surface. Also noted was the similarity between these sniper attacks and concurrent attacks being carried out in Yemen, and the year before in Thailand - all victims of Western-backed destabilization.

It will be through a perpetual campaign of deceit waged by the West's various puppet regimes and their compromised corporate-media that this war will be started. The ruling regime in Syria will be portrayed as grotesque human rights offenders while covert arms and support are provided to a mercenary army of ever increasing size, committing ever greater provocations. In time, as the proper "international" legal maneuvers are performed, this mercenary army will be provided NATO air and naval support, NATO special forces, and potentially NATO ground troops - this of course includes Turkey, a NATO member since 1952 and already deeply involved in meddling in Syria's sovereign affairs.

How to Stop the War

While the power behind this war machine grinding up the planet seems monolithic and unstoppable, the very source of its power looks us back in the mirror everyday. We, through our choices of how we spend our time, money, and attention, are fueling daily its destructive consumption of our world. While protests, elections, and activism are important, what is absolutely essential is to entirely cut this machine off from its fuel. That is, for us to boycott the corporations, institutions, and personalities that constitute it to the point of starvation and submission. We must work ceaselessly to identify and expose who these corporations, institutions, and personalities are through the alternative media, boycott them out of business, and replace them entirely with local solutions derived from both tradition and technological innovation.

The Greatest Generation said "never again" to the rise of fascism in the 1930's and 1940's, yet here we are again watching the rise of Wall Street and London to sickening heights of unwarranted power and warmongering. Let this generation say, "not in our names" andstarve this beast into submission, just as it has done to so many other sovereign nations. 


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.

China's First Aircraft Carrier Starts Second Trial

Posted by Admin On 0 comments

BEIJING - China's first aircraft carrier began its second sea trial on Nov. 29 after undergoing refurbishments and testing, the government said, as tensions over maritime territorial disputes in the region ran high.
The 300-meter (990-foot) ship, a refitted former Soviet carrier called the Varyag, underwent five days of trials in August that sparked international concern about China's widening naval reach.
"China's aircraft carrier platform, after successfully completing its first sea trial in August, returned to the shipyard as planned for further refitting and testing," the defense ministry said in a brief statement.
"The work has been carried out and it set sail again on November 29 to carry out relevant scientific and research experiments."
Beijing only confirmed this year that it was revamping the old Soviet ship and has repeatedly insisted that the carrier poses no threat to its neighbors and will be used mainly for training and research purposes.
But the August sea trials were met with concern from regional powers including Japan and the United States, which called on Beijing to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier.
The Nov. 29 announcement comes against a background of heightened tensions over maritime disputes in the Asia-Pacific region, where China's growing assertiveness has put it on collision course with the United States.
President Barack Obama this month irritated Beijing with a drive to enhance the U.S. role as a regional power, positioning Marines in northern Australia and pushing for a potentially transformational trans-Pacific trade pact.

Beijing sees the initiatives as intruding into its own sphere of influence, with the dispute over the South China Sea putting the two major world powers' differences into stark focus.
China claims all of the strategic area, as does Taiwan, while four Southeast Asian countries declare ownership of parts of it, with Vietnam and the Philippines accusing Beijing's forces of increasing aggression there.
The region is a conduit for more than one-third of the world's seaborne trade and half its traffic in oil and gas, and major petroleum deposits are believed to lie below the seabed.
The announcement of the carrier's second sea trial comes after Beijing said last week it would conduct "routine" naval exercises in the Pacific Ocean before the end of November.
China reportedly bought the carrier's immense armored hull - with no engine, electrics or propeller - from Ukraine in 1998.
The PLA - the world's largest active military - is extremely secretive about its defense programs, which benefit from a huge and expanding military budget boosted by the nation's runaway economic growth.
Earlier this year, China announced military spending would rise 12.7 percent to 601.1 billion yuan ($91.7 billion) in 2011.


NATO attack was launched to rescue TTP militants

Posted by Admin On 0 comments

Akhtar Jamal

Islamabad—Military observers now believe that the NATO aircraft which attacked and killed 24 Pakistani soldiers were in fact sent to rescue the TTP terrorists who had been encircled by Pakistani forces near Silalah check posts.

The defence observers who are closely monitoring the situation told Pakistan Observer that reports suggest that Pakistani soldiers had encircled a group of TTP terrorists who had been active in the most difficult area where Pakistaniarmed forces had gained ground after paying much sacrifice. 

According to a report a group of TTP terrorists who had penetrated from Afghanistan had been surrounded by Pakistaniarmed forces in the region on November 25 and were about to be eliminated from within next few hours. But all of a sudden NATO aircraft reached and mercilessly attacked Pakistan army’s check posts. Pakistani officials in the region immediately sent messages to their ISAF counterparts in Afghanistan notifying the attack by aircraft but no action was taken and the attack continued for more than thirty minutes destroying all two Pakistan check posts in the area.

It is no secret that TTP terrorists leaders, Waliur Rehman and Mullah Fazlullah are residing across the border in Kunar and Nuristan and had recently vowed to return to Pakistan to carry out more terrorist attacks inside Pakistan.

Afghan monitors also say that anti-Pakistan Afghan commanders have been deployed along Pak-Afghan borders across Mohamand Agency where Pakistani armed forces had launched two operations against terrorists causing considerable casualties to the militants.

Afghan monitors believe that at least two Afghan military officials who have direct or indirect links had been posted in the region. These two Afghan military officials Brig. Gen. Aminullah Amarkhel and Colonel Numan Hatifi (of 201st Silab Corps) are known for their anti-Pakistan sentiments and links with elements aiming to malign Pakistan.

Courtesy: Pakistan Observer

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.

Choice is no longer an alternative

Posted by Admin On Tuesday, 29 November 2011 0 comments

Choice is no longer an alternative

Response to the post ‘nudity, niqab and illusion of ‘free choice’ on express tribune blogs dated November 28, 2011

Women’s exclusive politics is a subject oriented gimmickry, searching justification of ‘free will or free choice’. In a world like ours, conservatives have for long believed in a pre-destiny. But exceptionally so, the free woman of a free choice ceases to exist in a meta-narrative of religious world view,

By Inshah Malik
Women’s exclusive politics is a subject oriented gimmickry, searching justification of ‘free will or free choice’. In a world like ours, conservatives have for long believed in a pre-destiny. But exceptionally so, the free woman of a free choice ceases to exist in a meta-narrative of religious world view, Women’s exclusive politics is a subject oriented gimmickry, searching justification of ‘free will or free choice’. In a world like ours, conservatives have for long believed in a pre-destiny. But exceptionally so, the free woman of a free choice ceases to exist in a meta-narrative of religious world view,Reactionism- for sure is one such phenomenon that has dawned on the political scene in the twentieth century. Spearheaded by the most volatile conservative forces however, reactionistic politics is not an exclusivist feature of conservatives alone. When we resist, we conjure up imagery in our mental picture completely opposite to our enemy. This feature of resistance is uniform in all resistance movements. With ever growing exposure to a particular pattern of thinking imported to us through a distinctive language, we resist what our language does.
This intrinsic commonality of what we read and what we feel, encroached by the need to constantly evade this paradox by constant self denial. We become what opposing forces want us to become. If the language calls us conservative, we become so to a greater extent. Our fascination with marking protest by merely importing characteristics of no useful meaning but mere steam off has reduced us to illusionary objects in constant self denial.
Politics is henceforth mere reductionist reaction-ism for a purported gain. Women’s exclusive politics is a subject oriented gimmickry, searching justification of ‘free will or free choice’. In a world like ours, conservatives have for long believed in a pre-destiny. But exceptionally so, the free woman of a free choice ceases to exist in a meta-narrative of religious world view, since by choosing a world view woman tends to have exercised a free will [that perhaps may not be considered a choice at all]. How do we for example see a catholic women turning to Islam? or a Buddhist woman turning to Christianity [See any free will here?] Let us than see where do women of free choice exist? In a pre-determined shrinking world, robbed by the capitalists and full of smoky socialist promises? In a world dominated by curious interference that has converted women’s subjugation into women subject. Mind you, there is no emancipation in [education and economy alone]. In this modern world which has sort different levels of enhanced forms of human slavery converting men into machines of no emotional resolve what is but the idea of ‘choice’. If you don’t study, you don’t have job, you don’t have money, you don’t have respect and you can’t live, by this formula what is then remaining in the idea of choice?  All choice is predetermined or subject to the law of probability. From A or B, you may choose either. It is as simple as that when we say do women wear the veil by choice or force or do women getnaked by choice or force? Either or situation exits. In case of patriarchy it roots straight at men to force women to veil but what about capitalism? We trace it back to modernity women’s choice to wear otherwise which is compelled by hyper sexualized imagery and advertisement of what is beautiful; that is economic profit. In fact the impact of capitalism can permeate the veil. For example women in Saudi who are forced to wear veils are also the biggest consumers of western out fits. Consumption is so bizarre that the most priced things are for the women in Saudi Arabia. So it is okay for her to do whatever and wear whatever at home or private sphere. Women do not one fine morning wake up and say ‘O I want to exercise my choice’. Women like men are conditioned into all sort of social reality. Question of choice is therefore intrinsic to other ideals of higher form not mere clothing -and for women grass is always greener on the other side. As can be seen this sort of choice is not benefitting.
Ideally men facing any sort of oppression have never resorted to getting naked? So what purpose does it serve? Is men’s sense of shame in place and women are reactionaries? Interestingly men want to be known as honorable, respected while women do not care of things like these? Why it is that a woman has for a quarter century in Muslim societies particularly fought only for dressing? Colonialism has infused this sort of quarrel mongering as sole purpose of ‘emancipation’ of women? Why can’t Muslim women fight so fiercely for knowledge, wisdom and economic prowess in their societies which are staggering due to several sorts of internal menaces [not to say women question is not intrinsic to that] but is that fought by just being naked?
At least we may agree, modern world has taught us ‘how to disagree’ and there are more civil ways of doing so. If Taliban’s attack on women is considered as reactionism by modernists why woman’s getting naked against those who value ‘body’, honour and piety in Egypt is no reactionism? In this irresolvable mockery played on in the name of free choice ‘women’ are the loosers of all sorts. Trapped between two extreme ideals wearing clothes is no longer easy for Muslim women, it is detrimental and decisive of what sort of politics they would face. It is not as difficult for a man to wear what he wants because the ‘commonality’ of all men dress is ‘modesty’. To choose between a ‘khan suit’ and a ‘western suit’ is not like choosing between a ‘veil’ and ‘mini-skirt’. So for Muslim women especially choice is predetermined.  So if we emphasize on choice we are likely to get trapped in an ever so cyclic oppression which benefits none but a spectator.
Likewise if a woman exercises her choice by not wearing her veil, believing that it is not taking her to heaven etc. She exercises such a choice by informed hyper-sexualized environment and capitalist incentives which claims that “NOT WEARING BURKA, NIQAB or ABAYA” is modern and luring. 
Choice is no longer an alternative, our world needs concrete solutions, and we can’t afford a share to a dog when our children are hungry.
Warning:  I to the fullest condemn the act of beating women whosoever is responsible must be regretful and punished. Do not purport words like misogynist, chauvinist and patriarchal for me. Besides having a voice I am a woman too. I share my sentiments about women’s subjugation as much with the writer but I disagree greatly with the form she/he takes for retorting to change.
Courtesy: Opinion Maker
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.

American Intransigence and Pakistani Deception

Posted by Admin On 0 comments

War on Terrorism
Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.
“Some cynic might ask, why is it if we have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and are making incursions into Pakistan, that these other nations such as Russia could not, under any circumstances no matter what the reason, invade other nations? The answer is very simple because that's the rule that we have put in place; we have the right to do it but others do not. It's because we say so. If it's a double standard, well so what? If some nations don't like it, just what are they going to do about it?”   Michael Payne (“America: The World's Master of Double Standards: OpenEdNews: 7/10/2010)
“America glorifies wars in the name of peace, what historian Charles Beard (1874 – 1948) called "perpetual war for perpetual peace" in describing the Roosevelt and Truman administrations' foreign policies – what concerned the Federation of American Scientists when it catalogued about 200 post-1945 conflicts in which America was, and still is, the aggressor” Stephen Lendman (“America's Permanent War Agenda” 3/01/2010)
When George Bush called General Musharaf at midnight a day after the 9/11 attacks, he spelled out the doctrine – “either you are with us or against us.” The Pakistani self-appointed President and military dictator had no sense of the time and history to THINK what scenario he was tackling to act or react. As most dictators do, they align themselves with any possibility to reinforce their self- interest and self- survival. This was the opportunity that Commander Bush enticed the four stars Pakistani General and dictator to accept and act right away.  General Collin Powell, the then US Secretary of State confirmed the Bush call to Musharaf in many discussions. If Musharaf had imagination and intellectual foresight and knew possible consequences of his disastrous action, he should have consulted with the Pakistani intelligentsia, political leaders and the public before declaring war on the self, the then Afghan Government and the people of Afghanistan. Bush offered him money and so called friendship to further the American interests and war strategy in Asia. The facts of the bogus war on terrorism cannot be denied nor modified that it was one-way war on the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both nations would suffer for centuries to come. Michael Payne (“America: The World's Master of Double Standards: OpenEdNews: 7/10/2010), offers the context:
“It's really a monumental job that we have to keep all these nations under some kind of semblance of control and compliance; but, then again, someone has to do it and we are the best qualified for the job. That's why we have established the set rules that we expect the rest of the world to follow.”
Does the US war strategy require other nations (willingly or otherwise) to follow the American policy lead of war against all? Stephen Lendman (“America's Permanent War Agenda” 3/01/2010), an American political intellectual and a man of universal conscience puts the history in one nutshell:
“America glorifies wars in the name of peace, what historian Charles Beard (1874 – 1948) called "perpetual war for perpetual peace" in describing the Roosevelt and Truman administrations' foreign policies – what concerned the Federation of American Scientists when it catalogued about 200 post-1945 conflicts in which America was, and still is, the aggressor”
The US and Britain had no rational purpose to be fighting against the poverty-stricken and destitute people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghans and Iraqi people never posed any political threats or military challenge to the security and sovereignty of the US or Britain. Wars are the outcome of naïve, egoistic and corrupt mindset representing minority ruling elite, irresponsible to consequences on human society and are planned, financed and fought by governments, not by groups or ordinary people. Wars are based on political agendas and they long for complete control over resources, people and territory. Michael Payne (“America: The World's Master of Double Standards: OpenEdNews: 7/10/2010), helps us to THINK what could be an unthinkable behavior of the US administration:
“Some cynic might ask, why is it if we have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and are making incursions into Pakistan, that these other nations such as Russia could not, under any circumstances no matter what the reason, invade other nations? The answer is very simple because that's the rule that we have put in place; we have the right to do it but others do not. It's because we say so. If it's a double standard, well so what? If some nations don't like it, just what are they going to do about it?”
Most wars would have multiple reasons, domestic, foreign and global outreach. The American led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fought to maintain the US domination worldwide, to occupy the untapped natural resources of the Middle East in particular the oil and
 gas, and to protect the value of American dollar as a stable international reserve currency. In September 2000, the proactive policy paper written by the neoconservative intellectuals to envision “the Project for the New American Century (PNAC): sets out the milestone seeking American domination over the rest of the world powers and to meet its energies needs plans to occupy by force all the oil resources in the Arab Middle East. The blueprint supports military occupation of the oil exporting Arab countries and regime change where it is necessary to fulfill the policy aims of the New American Century of global domination. Centuries ago, German historian Carl Von Clausewitz wrote On War: “War is not merely a political act but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” The small ruling elite who plans and wages war are often afraid of citizenry reaction and refusal to accept the so called antidote for the rationality of a war. Throughout the history European nationalism institutionalized the doctrine of war as a necessity to promote national interest and racial superiority over other by using war as a means to that end. Most proponents of wars have used “fear” as one of the major instruments of propaganda and manipulation to perpetuate allegiance from the ordinary folks to the elite warmongers in a crisis situation. Sheldon Richman (“War is Government Program” ICS, 05/2007), notes that “war is more dangerous than other government programs and  not just for the obvious reason – mass murder….war is useful  in  keeping the population in a state of fear and therefore trustful of their rulers.”
Ordinary citizens do not have passion for war as it disturbs the safe and secure, and destroys the living habitats. The ruling elite, the actual warmongers force people to think in their extreme terms of hatred and rejection of others so that people would be forced to align with the rulers to support and finance the war efforts. Sheldon Richman describes how Herman Goering, one of Hitler’s Minister understood the discourse of war making:
“Of course the people don’t want war….but after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether, it’s a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
Paul Craig Roberts (“The Collapse of America Power”: ICS, 03/2008), attempts to explain how the British Empire had collapsed once its financial assets were depleted because of the 2ndWorld War debts. Correlli Barnett (The Collapse of British Power, 1972) states that at the beginning of the WW2, Britain had limited gold and foreign exchange to meet the pressing demands of the war. The British Government asked America to help finance their sustainability to continue the war. Thus, ‘this dependency signaled the end of British power.’ For its draconian wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is heavily dependent on China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. It is well known that American treasury (bankrupt – 14 trillion dollars deficit that cannot be fixed) owes trillion of dollars to its foreign debtors and therefore, its financial dependency is increasingly becoming an obvious indicator of the end of American global hegemony and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the US financial system  have broken down and some of the leading banking institutions have gone into declaring the bankruptcy the roller coaster repercussion could be seen across the American economic,  social and political spectrum of life. Under the Bush administration, America has shrinked its capability and vitality of role and in fact appears dismantled as a superpower status in global affairs. It is no wonder that other nations of world do not seem to take America and its traditional influential stratum in any serious context. Paul Craig Roberts (The Collapse of American Power”) refers to Noam Chomsky stating that under the neoconservative Bush Presidency, “America thinks that it owns the world.” But the fact of the matter is, explains Paul Craig Roberts, “that the US owes the world. The US ”superpower” cannot even finance its own domestic operations, much less its gratuitous wars except via the kindness of foreigners to lend it money that cannot be repaid.” It is undeniable that the US is “bankrupt” because of the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. David M. Walker Comptroller General of the US and Head of the Government Accountability Office (December 2007). reports that “In everyday language, the US Government cannot pass an audit.”
Chris Floyd (Darkness Renewed: Terror as Tool of Empire”), elaborates the warmongering mentality of the US policy makers: You goad and provoke violent extremist groups into retaliating against your attacks, your civilian-slaughtering invasions and incursions into their territory. Being unable to confront directly your war machine – the largest, most advanced military force in the history of the world, sustained by a tsunami of public money that each year surpasses the military spending of the rest of the world – they naturally respond with "asymmetrical" operations. At first, these are directed at nearby targets: your supply lines, the forces of your local proxies and allies, and other chaos-inducing depredations in the groups' own regions, designed to foul the lines of your control and drive you out. Just as naturally, you use these attacks to justify an even greater military presence in their regions. The cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards, until at last the extremists strike at your homeland – either with your connivance, or your covert acquiescence, or, in any event, with your foreknowledge that such an attack was sure to come. This is the moment you have waited for; this is exactly what you wanted. Now you can whip the herd back into a martial frenzy, keep the Long War going, and push aside the rabble's petty, small-minded desires for a peaceful, prosperous life at home, minding their own business.”
Michel Meacher, British Environment Minister under former Prime Minister Tony Blair (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus”) provides most credible insight on the real reasons for the “War on Terrorism.” He explains that the war on terror is bogus as “the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination.” He further records that “the so called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives… fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.” In its report prepared by the Baker Institute of Public Policy (April 2001), it stated clearly that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to….the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East” and it its recommendations elaborated the dire need that because it was a challenging risk therefore, the “US military intervention” was the most favored action (Sunday Herald: Oct 6, 2002).  
Both the US and United Kingdom have increasing dependence on imported oil from the Middle East. The overriding motivation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are shielded by political smokescreen that the US and UK will run out of sufficient hydrocarbon energy supplies whereas, the Arab and Muslim world would control almost 60% of the world oil  producing capacity and perhaps more significantly 95% of the remaining global oil production capacity. The news media reports indicate that the US is predicted to produce only 39% of the domestic oil production in 2010, whereas in 1990 it produced 57% of its total oil consumption. The UK Government projects ”severe” gas shortages by 2005 and it confirmed that 70% of the electricity will drawn from gas and 90% of gas will be imported. It is interesting to note that Iraq is said to have 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its approximately 15-20 % of the world oil reserves. In another research report by the Commission on America’s National Interests (July 2000), it observed that the most promising new energy resources are found in the Caspian Sea, Central Asian region and it would spare the US exclusive dependence on the Saudi Arabian oil imports. The report outlined the feasible routes for the Caspian Seas oil deliveries, one hydrocarbon pipeline via Azerbaijan and Georgia and another pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan would ensure the future strategic demands of the US government. To review the documentary evidence of the 9/11 events, it is not unlikely that many strategists have seen the American Government failure to avert the 9/11 terrorist attacks as facilitating a much needed stage drama for its policy aims and an invaluable opportunity to attack Iraq and Afghanistan – a military intervention already been well planned in early 2000. The PNAC policy blueprint of September 2000 projects the transformation of the American power as an unchallengeable global superpower and the need for some tangible tragedy to make it happen. The paper outlines that it “is likely to be a long one in the absence of of some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”  In his analytical view, Minister Michael Meacher (“This War on terrorism is Bogus”) states that “global war on terrorism” has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave way for a wholly different agenda-the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command and over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.”
Under President Barrack Obama, the global community waited anxiously how and when the promised change will come to America’s failed entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan. How soon will President Obama be able to put the body of US politics together again after its moral, political and financial collapse? Obama secured Nobel Peace in anticipation of his proactive promise to end the illegal and immoral hostilities against the Muslim world. If the facts of life speak their language, Obama betrayed the rational expectations of the global community in restoring peace and order to American broken image and political ruins.  America and Britain appear lost, not knowing how to come out of the self-engineered defeat in wars against Islam and the humanity.  The Masses in Iraq and Afghanistan have sympathies with the true believers and the Muslim freedom fighters appear to have lost nothing. They had no banks to declare bankruptcy, they had no mansions to be destroyed and they had no Bush, Cheney and Blair to be declared as War criminals against the mankind. What an irony , given all the material powers and advanced weaponry, the US and Britain could not override a handful of freedom fighters (mujihadeens) encountering the world’s most trained cruel armies just with traditional weapons and will power. They remain in tact and active on all the fronts even buying weapons from the US and Russia to fight against them. American strategists know well to do business in global arms market. The so called superpowers are extremely nervous not knowing how soon they could be replaced by smaller nations of the developing world.
In recent days, the US and its paid  and some coerced allies are doing the lip service and staging warmongering-like preparations against Iran on its nuclear development program. The global community is fully aware that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, yet it will not open up its facilities to IAEA visit and inspection. Whereas, Iran has cooperated and allowed IAEA expert visits to see the suspected sites and they found no evidence of any bomb making capability over there. Michael Payne shares his critical concerns and reflects on the American duplicity :
“Israel continues to accuse Iran of covertly building a nuclear weapon and has threatened to bomb the suspected nuclear facilities numerous times. It insists that Iran has no right to nuclear weapons because that would pose great danger to the Middle East. So, we have to conclude that it is perfectly okay for Israel to have nuclear capability but Iran, who insists that it is only developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, must immediately suspend its programs. It's the old double standard once again; Israel can do anything it wants in the Middle East but Iran and other nations cannot, thus taking hypocrisy to new heights.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for any military purpose. Acting as an agency of the UN, it has inspected Iran's nuclear program and facilities for years and has found no concrete evidence of any nuclear weapons development.”
The wars spread hatred, social and political disorder and do not help any nation to solve any problems but create more aimed at depriving the future generations from time and opportunities to live in peace and harmony. When something loses its vitality, purpose and direction, it ends-up in self-defeat and piles of garbage. The US-British strategic policy makers do not have the right kind of weapons to fight against Islam and God.  They appear to miss the historical conclusion that those who cross-over the limits of REASON and global responsibility, do end–up in self-geared failures and disasters. Both are trapped in self-generated illusions and are fighting against their own interest and survival.  The US and British political leaders waging the continued global warfare, have no idea nor rational THINKING and leadership abilities to conduct wars or to know the prevalent realities of fighting on a war front. They run and manage political horses and appear to be engaged in pursuing their egoistic ambitions to rule the mankind, not to protect its well being and survival interests and priorities. America and its allies need a Navigational Change. One would imagine, if the US and British policy makers had any rational understanding of fighting in a distant land without knowing the enemy and without having a logical basis for the wars, they would have cautioned the leaders and prevented them from historical repetition of disgraced failure.
Pakistani paid agents of influence – the rulers including the Generals NEED to see the mirror. Who does not know the double standard pitched in by Zardari and the General Kiyani on the Raymond Davis case and his final freedom against the killing of two Pakistani young men at Lahore. Few months earlier, the US media reported that Raymond Davis was arrested and charged with two counts of attempted attack to kill civilians in Colorado and Washington. The issue of his killing of two Pakistanis was referred to in the US court. Raymond Davis claimed, he acted in self defense as he was operating in a “War Zone.” The prosecutor clarified that “Lahore” (Pakistan) was not in a war zone but that the war was going on in neighboring Afghanistan. Raymond Davis again justified and contended that “Lahore” is located in a “War Zone.”  Should the people of Pakistan not question the sadistic and treacherous rulers (Zardari and General Kiyani) and demand an answer if in fact Lahore is located in a “war zone” of which the Pakistani masses have no idea except their traitor rulers who helped Raymond Davis to escape the normal course of legal justice in Pakistan.
Ostensibly, the US Obama administration is looking for a fast track convenient opportunity to dispel the obvious military defeat in their cruel pursuits. The facts on the ground unmask the inherent treachery and folly abundantly clear that Obama is directing expansions of the wars into Pakistan and Iran. A usual, the Western news media once again developing the people’s psyche to accept whatever Obama and the British would claim to be the threats are. The forthcoming Presidential elections in America would help Obama if he could enlarge the scope of number games and claim credits for destroying the nuclear establishments of Pakistan and Iran. The political killing of Ben Laden has already uplifted his standing better than other candidates in the US election game. These masters of cruelty and deception would create an unusual situation or crisis that would warrant immediate action and the world would know its occurrence only after the facts. The other day, US led midnight surprise attack on a Pakistan tribal post killed 26 sleeping soldiers. The planners expect reaction and retaliation from the paid mercenaries of the Pakistani elite armed forces. This will give the US opportunity ad abilities to move deep inside Pakistan and finish the remaining lifelines of the Pakistani defense and nuclear installations.  Pakistan’s well bribed and bought political rulers – Zardari, Geelani, Malik and the Generals are not only complacent but terribly naïve and stupid too. They are under the direct dictates and commands of the US military establishments. The masses across Pakistan are up in arms denouncing the perpetrators of the bogus war on terrorism. They are competing in shouting matches against Obama and the CIA run drone attacks on the civilian populations. What they do not realize that Obama or the CIA did not go to Pakistan for this entanglement except for the dictator Musharaf, and now Zardari, and the Generals are the real culprits – rulers who betrayed Pakistan and offered the territory and facilities to the US intransigence and terrorism of wars. They should be forced to resign and be held accountable in a public court of law- indeed for their treachery and treason to the interest of the people of Pakistan. It all depends, those protesting if they are sincere and are not paid protesters to manage the emotional outbursts and then back to business as usual.  Pakistani masses must act and behave rationally knowing and understanding the facts of human affairs – who are their real enemies – the traitors are inside, not in America. America’s friendship is hard to be defined as most often it comes with secret strings attached that public does not know. They should knock at the doors of Zardari and Kiyani and demand responsible answers.
Gabriel Kolko (Another Century of War), stressed how “America contributes to much of the world's disorder through its interventions and as the world's largest arms producer and exporter. Post-WW II, the US became a global menace, today claiming "terrorism" as the main threat – a bogus fiction to justify militarism, perpetual wars heading the nation for moral, political and economic bankruptcy.”
American historian Harry Elmer Barnes "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and It's Aftermath" ) offered this stern warning if the US led wars continue leading to man’s annihilation from this planet:
"If trends continue as they have during the last fifteen years, we shall soon reach this point of no return, and can only anticipate interminable wars, disguised as noble gestures for peace. Such an era could only culminate in a third world war which might well, as Arnold J. Toynbee has suggested, leave only the pygmies in remote jungles, or even the apes and ants, to carry on 'the cultural traditions' of mankind."
America's Illegal Wars of Aggression – The "Supreme Crime" Stephen Lendman shares undisputed insights to Obama administration continued intransigence:
”All US post-WW II conflicts were premeditated wars of aggression against nations posing no threat to America ……..James Petras and others have said behind every imperial war is a great lie, the more often repeated the more likely to be believed because ordinary people want peace, not conflict, so it's vital to convince them………..
Besides the Afghan escalation, he's also destabilizing Pakistan to balkanize both countries, weakening them to control the Caspian Sea's oil and gas riches and their energy routes to secured ports for export………Like George Bush, Obama plans permanent war and more military spending than all other nations combined at a time America has no enemies. He promised change and betrayed us. Grassroots activism must stop this madness and make America a nation again to be proud of. The alternative is too grim to imagine.”
Courtesy: Opinion Maker
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.

US Attack on Pakistani Outpost - What Really Happened

Posted by Admin On Monday, 28 November 2011 0 comments

By Meinhaj Hussain,

Bismillah ar-rahman ar-raheem. Midnight, on the 26th of November, a Pakistan Army post, manned by soldiers from the Azad Kashmir Regiment, detected movement in a valley below and adjacent to their check-post. The checkpoint is 2 km inside Pakistani territory and located on high ground. After identifying the movement as armed individuals via night vision devices, spot light and flares, the soldiers opened fire. Shortly, they came under attack of an AH-64 Apache helicopter, resulting in the loss of 19 lives.

Gleaning from the ISAF press release, it seems that these unidentified individuals were US soldiers infiltrating well into Pakistani territory, without any prior notice to Pakistani counterparts. Furthermore, there is no official operation indicated by the occupation forces, so this was likely a classified operation. The Pakistanis have given coordinates of all Pakistani posts / bases in the region and, given the GPS and other navigation devices available to NATO, it is impossible that the occupation forces did not know that they were: 1) inside Pakistani territory and 2) where this base was located.

This leads to the conclusion that at some point in the past, the US military has received permission to expand the war into Pakistan and to "increase the heat temperature" so to speak.

Continuing with our narrative, the attacked troops called regional command for help, and a quick reaction force was send to aid them. These were then attacked by A-10s of the occupation forces. The battle lasted for at least an hour and resulted in the death of not only the Pakistani forces engaged but also those asleep in the compound. Total death toll stands at 24-28.

Given that the battle lasted that long and that US forces have both coordinates and high tech equipment to note their position, and being aware of the location of the Pakistani base 2km inside Pakistani territory, the attack is obviously deliberate. Given both that the A-10s, which are USAF assets and AH-64s (Army / Marine) assets were involved, this was a predetermined operation aimed, coldly calculated to have specific objects.

An educated guess of those objectives are as follows. The United States want to destabilize Pakistan or to directly confront her. Their supply is well stocked for the winter and they have developed alternative routes to Afghanistan. They now wish to create political space to go into Pakistan. A destabilized Pakistan would allow them this opportunity.

At present, the mood within the Pakistan Army, particularly junior / mid-tier officer ranks would lend credence to the possibility that the US may have achieved its objective. What the rank and file want is a punitive punishment of the US. Kayani cannot accomplish this without losing military procurements and showing that the political establishment has no effective power. On the other hand, if he does not react appropriately, he loses face with his men who are on the verge of a mutiny. This is thus a lose-lose situation for Pakistan and a win-win scenario for the US.

Any Pakistanis reading this would be sincerely advised to calm down, there will be enough time to return the favor to the Americans, insh'Allah. Do not act in haste, do not lose your discipline. Actions should not be taken in haste, calm down, relax. We shall deal with them insh'Allah in a time and location of our choosing and not theirs.
O ye who believe! When ye are told to make room in the assemblies, (spread out and) make room: (ample) room will Allah provide for you. And when ye are told to rise up, rise up Allah will rise up, to (suitable) ranks (and degrees), those of you who believe and who have been granted (mystic) Knowledge. And Allah is well- acquainted with all ye do. (58:11)
When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: "Allah will test you at the stream; if any drinks of its water, he goes not with my army; only those who taste not of it go with me; a mere sip out of the hand is excused.―" But they drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river― he and the faithful ones with him they said: "This day we cannot cope with Goliath and his forces." But those who were convinced that they must meet Allah, said: "How oft, by Allah's will, hath a small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly persevere." (2:249)

O ye who believe! Persevere in patience and constancy: vie in such perseverance; strengthen each other; and fear Allah; that ye may prosper. (3:200)
1. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
2. Verily Man is in loss, 
3. Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.(103)
The number of months in the sight of Allah is twelve (in a year)― so ordained by Him the day He created the heavens and the earth; of them four are sacred; that is the straight usage. So wrong not yourselves therein and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together. But know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves. (9:36)

By those who range themselves in ranks. (1) And so are strong in repelling (evil) (37:1-2)

Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure. (61:4)

Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate! (41:34)

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article.