Your Pakistan

Long Live Pakistan, God Bless Pakistan – Latest News Updates

Archive for September, 2009

Alert: If Not Stopped, US Plans Will Lead To A Pakistani Civil War

Posted by yourpakistan on September 30, 2009


US Plans Will Lead To A Pakistani Civil War

A pro-US fifth column inside Pakistan is now talking about southern Punjab as the hub of Al-Qaeda just as it earlier pointed to Balochistan in the same manner.  For those who had failed to connect the dots to the US grand design of targeting Pakistan a year ago, it should be easier today. There are covert US operatives now spread across the length and breadth of Pakistan; drone attacks have increased in frequency since Obama took office; aid packages are demanding unacceptable conditions; the military is being pushed on all fronts, with India increasing its deployments along the western border with Pakistan and aiding low intensity conflict through Afghanistan.

The US design to destabilize Pakistan is becoming clearer by the day, even for the most blinkered Pakistani.As the US continues to be stalemated in Afghanistan, it has sought to move the centre of gravity of the “war on terror” to Pakistan.  Initially it was assumed that this shift would be restricted to FATA, but now it is evident that the US is seeking to engulf the whole of Pakistan in an asymmetric conflict, which will eventually pit the people against the state, especially the military.
Reports of a US plan to target Balochistan, including its capital city Quetta are, in all likelihood, correct – more so because the US has not issued even a half-hearted denial on this count.Pakistani officials are admitting that the US has sought to extend drone attacks to Balochistan, especially Quetta.  Given the present government’s proclivity to accede to all US demands, it should not come as a surprise to soon see these drone attacks taking place.
However, for Pakistan such a development will be suicidal, given the prevailing instability in Balochistan and the continuing lack of trust between the Pakistani Baloch people and the Pakistani federation.  Worse still, Quetta is an urban centre with a concentration of population.  It is also a major military station with the Command and Staff College as well as other formations present in the heart of the city.How far is our military prepared to accommodate the US desire to undermine the country’s sovereignty?
After all, the drones will push the separatists closer to their goal, while the US will think it can move towards its concept of Greater Balochistan through the breakup of Pakistan and Iran.Unfortunately for the US, the Iranian leadership shows no signs of falling prey to such US designs, unlike their Pakistani counterparts.Again, if today drones are allowed to target an expanded area of the country, what will stop the US from expanding into southern Punjab next?  With receding red lines, the whole country could be up for targeting by the US in its growing despair over the inevitable failure in Afghanistan.
There are many fifth columnists in our midst now talking of southern Punjab as the hub of Al-Qaeda just as earlier they pointed to Balochistan in the same manner. For those who had failed to connect the dots to the US grand design of targeting Pakistan a year ago, it should be easier today. There are covert US operatives now spread across the length and breadth of Pakistan; drone attacks have increased in frequency since Obama took office; aid packages are demanding unacceptable conditionalities; the military is being pushed on all fronts, with India increasing its deployments along the western border with Pakistan and aiding low intensity conflict through Afghanistan, and the US demanding we withdraw more troops from the eastern border to FATA and begin a premature conventional operation there; and the US-dominated IMF and World Bank pushing through threatening price hikes and taking charge of policy making in Balochistan and NWFP.
This editorial appeared today under the title, US War On Pakistan.

The US design to destabilize Pakistan is becoming clearer by the day, even for the most blinkered Pakistani.As the US continues to be stalemated in Afghanistan, it has sought to move the centre of gravity of the “war on terror” to Pakistan.  Initially it was assumed that this shift would be restricted to FATA, but now it is evident that the US is seeking to engulf the whole of Pakistan in an asymmetric conflict, which will eventually pit the people against the state, especially the military.

Reports of a US plan to target Balochistan, including its capital city Quetta are, in all likelihood, correct – more so because the US has not issued even a half-hearted denial on this count.Pakistani officials are admitting that the US has sought to extend drone attacks to Balochistan, especially Quetta.  Given the present government’s proclivity to accede to all US demands, it should not come as a surprise to soon see these drone attacks taking place.

However, for Pakistan such a development will be suicidal, given the prevailing instability in Balochistan and the continuing lack of trust between the Pakistani Baloch people and the Pakistani federation.  Worse still, Quetta is an urban centre with a concentration of population.  It is also a major military station with the Command and Staff College as well as other formations present in the heart of the city.How far is our military prepared to accommodate the US desire to undermine the country’s sovereignty?

After all, the drones will push the separatists closer to their goal, while the US will think it can move towards its concept of Greater Balochistan through the breakup of Pakistan and Iran.Unfortunately for the US, the Iranian leadership shows no signs of falling prey to such US designs, unlike their Pakistani counterparts.Again, if today drones are allowed to target an expanded area of the country, what will stop the US from expanding into southern Punjab next?  With receding red lines, the whole country could be up for targeting by the US in its growing despair over the inevitable failure in Afghanistan.

There are many fifth columnists in our midst now talking of southern Punjab as the hub of Al-Qaeda just as earlier they pointed to Balochistan in the same manner. For those who had failed to connect the dots to the US grand design of targeting Pakistan a year ago, it should be easier today. There are covert US operatives now spread across the length and breadth of Pakistan; drone attacks have increased in frequency since Obama took office; aid packages are demanding unacceptable conditionalities; the military is being pushed on all fronts, with India increasing its deployments along the western border with Pakistan and aiding low intensity conflict through Afghanistan, and the US demanding we withdraw more troops from the eastern border to FATA and begin a premature conventional operation there; and the US-dominated IMF and World Bank pushing through threatening price hikes and taking charge of policy making in Balochistan and NWFP.

This editorial appeared today under the title, US War On Pakistan.

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

A US Counteroffensive In Pakistan

Posted by yourpakistan on September 28, 2009


A Loose Coalition Of Pro-American Politicians, Writers, Academics To Promote US Goals, Isolate Pak Military.

Forget US diplomacy with the Pakistani government.  The Americans are now setting the policy agenda in Pakistan in direct talks with Pakistani political parties.  To ensure privacy, these talks are being held in Washington, away from prying eyes and ears in Pakistan.  Pakistani politicians, writers and some academicians are being recruited to promote US policies and isolate the Pakistani military and intelligence.  This is how a superpower occupies a nuclear-armed nation.

US ambassador in Pakistan

Face Of An American Bully In Islamabad:
Is it our country or yours, Madam Ambassador?

Face Of An American Bully In Islamabad: Is it our country or yours, Madam Ambassador?

Pakistan—US political and military officials go on the offensive inside Pakistan, boldly confronting critics and seeking to build a coalition of pro-American supporters across Pakistani politics, media and the academia.  The goal is to create a domestic counter to the entrenched Pakistani policymaking establishment [read ‘the military’] that is resisting American efforts to force Pakistan to become a voluntary full-fledged second theater of war after Afghanistan.

Signs of the new American aggressiveness abound from increased willingness of US diplomats in Pakistan to confront their local critics, to sweet-talking Pakistani politicians, media and academicians into openly promoting the US agenda through sponsored visits to Washington and Florida.This is similar to a Plan B:  using local actors to force change from within.  Plan A, which was focused on coercive diplomacy and threats of sending boots on the ground into Pakistan, failed to yield results over the past months.

In essence, the United States is covertly raising an army of special agents and soldiers on Pakistani soil, with the help of local Pakistani accomplices, but without the full knowledge of the Pakistani military to avoid a confrontation. This counteroffensive began with Ambassador Anne W. Patterson’s attempt to intimidate a Pakistani columnist and a known critic of US policies.  Ms. Patterson did not seek a public debate to counter criticism.  Instead, she resorted to backchannel contacts to have the writer blocked.  In so doing, Ms. Patterson unwittingly broke a new barrier for US influence, creating precedence for how the US embassy deals with the Pakistani media.  This is something that the Ambassador’s counterparts could never imagine pulling off in places like Moscow, Ankara, or Cairo.

Buoyed by this, the Ambassador went on the offensive.  This month, she held a press conference, released a long policy statement, and met Prime Minister Gilani to reassure him after reports suggested her government did not trust Islamabad with the expected aid money.  She also appeared on primetime television, carefully choosing a nonaggressive TV talk show as a platform to address Pakistanis glued to their sets in peak evening hours.

US ambassador on Pakistani news channelPakistan’s ‘New Capital’: The gigantic expansion of the US embassy in Islamabad.  The US ambassador [left] kicking off her counteroffensive on Sept. 19, telling her Pakistani host she intervened to stop a columnist from writing against her government and affirmed she will do this again because criticism endangers the lives of US citizens in Pakistan.

The television appearance coincided with an interview she gave to a US news service accusing Pakistan of refusing to join the US in eliminating one of the Afghan local parties – the Afghan Taliban – whom her own government and military failed to wipe out in Afghanistan in eight years of war.  The statement played on the usual American accusations, backed by no evidence, that seek to explain the growing disenchantment of the Afghan people with the failed American occupation of their country by linking it to alleged Pakistani sanctuaries and covert support.

But hours before her television appearance, on Sept. 19, Pakistani police raided the Islamabad offices of Inter-Risk, a Pakistani security firm representing American defense contractor DynCorp, where a huge quantity of illegal sophisticated weapons was confiscated.  According to one news report, the Pakistani owner of the firm, retired Captain Ali Jaffar Zaidi, escaped from his house hours before the police arrived.  A Pakistani journalist, Umar Cheema, who works for The News, confirmed in a published statement that Mr. Zaidi told him a day before the raid that “the US embassy in Islamabad had ordered the import of around 140 AK-47 Rifles and other prohibited weapons in the name of Inter-Risk” and that “the payment for the weapons would be made by the embassy.”

[The News reports today that the government has “disbanded” Inter-Risk, voiding its contract with both the US embassy and with DynCorp.  The company director Capt. Zaidi remains at large.]

In other words, Pakistani security authorities have found American and Pakistani citizens working for the US embassy involved in suspicious activities.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

US ambassador Anne Patterson used her goodwill to seek the personal intervention of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Interior Minister Rehman Malik to obtain licenses for prohibited weapons. Sixty-one pieces of sophisticated weapons were seized by the police at the Inter-Risk/DynCorp facility.

The question is: Why did the Pakistani police confiscate the weapons if they were duly licensed by the government?

The only logical answer is that the licensing procedure, which includes clearance from the country’s intelligence and security departments, was not followed.  Apparently, Washington’s staunch allies inside Pakistan’s elected government helped their friends with advanced weapons into the country without the knowledge of important national security departments of the government.

This raises serious questions because of several reports recently that implicate Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, in issuing a large number of visas to US citizens without proper clearance from Islamabad.  Since US tourists are not exactly flocking to Pakistan, Amb. Haqqani is suspected of having facilitated private US security agents to enter Pakistan.  A spate of recent reports have exposed the presence of private American security firms on Pakistani soil.

When the country’s security departments finally paid attention to Ambassador Haqqani’s indiscretions, the ambassador, who is a former journalist, is suspected of leaking a protest letter he wrote to his country’s intelligence chief, apparently attempting to clear his name before his American friends.  Of all places, the letter, which is a classified government communication, surfaced in New Delhi, on the screen of an Indian television news channel.

Haqqani AgendaAmbassador Haqqani’s letter secret that blasts the ISI surfaces in New Delhi.  Pakistanis joke that Mr. Haqqani is ‘the US ambassador to the United States, stationed at the Pakistan Embassy in Washington DC.

PATTERSON’S LIE EXPOSED

On Sept. 30, Mr. Ansar Abbasi of The News published the full content of a letter written by Ambassador Patterson to Interior Minister Rehman Malik, dated March 30, seeking his “intervention” to grant Inter-Risk and DynCorp “the requisite prohibited bore arms licenses to operate in the territorial limits of Pakistan and as soon as possible.”

The letter creates a new dent in the US embassy’s counteroffensive that seeks to downplay the presence of private US security firms in the country.  A Web news portal, PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com released fresh evidence this month showing the infamous US security firm formerly known as Blackwater recruiting military-trained agents fluent in Urdu and Punjabi.

To quell the controversy, Ambassador Patterson went on record confirming that five million US dollars will be spent by her government to build new living quarters for US Marines within the embassy compound in Islamabad. But the number of marines utilizing this facility will not exceed 20, she assured Pakistanis recently. The Sept. 19 raid, however, proves there will be a far larger number of armed Americans on Pakistani soil eventually than the figure given by Ambassador Patterson.

US MERCENERARIES IN PAKISTAN?

The strong denials of US officials on the presence of private US security firms in Pakistan do no tally with the circumstantial evidence.  At least three verified incidents have been reported in Islamabad alone over the past few weeks that involve armed US individuals in civilian dresses.  In two incidents, Pakistani police officers arrested and then released armed civilian Americans after intervention from the US embassy.  In one incident, a Pakistani citizen reported being assaulted by armed Americans in civilian clothes.  Police officers refused to register a complaint against the Americans for fear of being reprimanded in case of intervention by the US embassy.

US DOLLARS RECRUITING PAKISTANIS – TO WORK AGAINST PAKISTANI MILITARY

Private US security agents sneaking into Pakistan is one level of the current US engagement with Pakistan.  Another level is political and seeks to isolate the Pakistani policymaking establishment, and especially the Pakistani military and the country’s powerful intelligence agencies, from within, after months of incessant one-sided US media campaign demonizing the country’s military and intelligence services.

On the political front, Washington’s Pakistan handlers have launched a new bout of US meddling in domestic Pakistani politics.  The US government has put into high gear its contacts with Pakistani political parties.  Washington is now conducting direct diplomacy with these parties.

A high level delegation of MQM, which controls the port city of Karachi, the starting point of US and NATO supplies headed for Afghanistan, is in Washington meeting US political and military officials.  A similar exercise is planned with the ANP, the small ex-Soviet communist ally currently governing the NWFP, the Pakistani province bordering Afghanistan.

Both parties came to power thanks to former President Musharraf’s secret ‘deal’ brokered by Vice President Dick Cheney and his State Department officials in 2007.  The deal sought to create a pro-American ruling coalition in the country that would ensure that the Pakistani military is aligned with the US strategic goals in the region. The Americans are trying to accentuate what they see as pro-Indian, pro-American strains within the two parties.

US Project against Pakistan

Washington began this program quietly in 2007 after getting a green signal from President Musharraf to increase US involvement in Pakistani politics.  There are reports that nazims of several districts in Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP were invited to Washington to meet US government and military officials over the past thirty months.  But these were very low key visits.  In fact, they were so secretive that ANP chief Asfandyar Wali refused in early 2008 to confirm or deny a visit he made to Washington after the Feb. 2008 elections in Pakistan.  In contrast, no effort was made this time to downplay the current visits by MQM and ANP delegations to Washington and their meetings with US and NATO officials.  And as in all of these covert visits, the federal Pakistani government, the Foreign Office and the country’s security departments are not privy to what is being discussed between US officials and the leaders of the two Pakistani political parties on US soil.  In fact, US officials arranged the meetings on US soil precisely in order to circumvent the Pakistani government.

While there is no immediate evidence that Pakistan should be alarmed by Washington’s direct diplomacy with Pakistani political parties outside Pakistan’s territory, Islamabad needs to be wary of strong strains within Washington’s policy establishment that have been focusing on exploiting Pakistan’s ethnic and linguistic fissures in order to support its so-called ‘Af-Pak’ agenda.

A lot of work has been done over the past three years in several Washington think tanks on Pakistan’s linguistic and ethnic fissures and how these can be exploited by Washington to weaken Islamabad and force it to follow the US agenda in Afghanistan and the region.

During Pakistan’s worst domestic instability in 2007, mainstream US media outlets were leaking policy and intelligence reports focusing on alleged separatism in several Pakistani regions.  This week, some of the most ardent American supporters of separatism inside Pakistan – the usual suspects from the US think-tank circuit – came together in Washington to launch a political action committee that seeks independent status for a Pakistani province, Sindh.  The ceremony for the launch of the ‘Sindhi American Political Action Committee’ was addressed by Selig Harrison and Marvin Weinbaum, two think-tank types with extensive links to the US intelligence community and both advocates of engagement with Pakistani separatists as a leverage against Islamabad.

The new American confidence in openly meddling in Pakistani politics should raise alarm bells in the Pakistani capital.  This is the strongest sign yet of how weak the federal Pakistani government, and in turn Pakistan itself, appears to outsiders. The weakness of Pakistan’s ruling elite is inviting American hounding at a time when the American bully is on the retreat elsewhere.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Zardari ‘could be eliminated’ as US eyes another regime change

Posted by yourpakistan on September 27, 2009


Another example of US micromanagement in Pakistan’s internal affairs. While nobody in Pakistan wants Zardari to stay on the President’s post, it is the system which needs an overhaul.
Dr. Shahid Masood | The News
WASHINGTON: Americans see a change fast, but smoothly, coming in Pakistan in the wake of loss of credibility of the man at the helm, following some domestic legal developments.
After meeting top political and defence decision-makers here in the US capital, where I was invited by the National Defence University (NDU) for a two-day seminar on the anniversary of 9/11, I was told in unambiguous terms that a change in Pakistan was inevitable for US policy interests, although Washington does not intend to disrupt the system.
Several important Pakistani political players have also been conveyed the same message by the US political and defence establishment, including the MQM and recently the ANP, whose chief is travelling with President Asif Zardari in New York.

Another example of US micromanagement in Pakistan’s internal affairs. While nobody in Pakistan wants Zardari to stay on the President’s post, it is the system which needs an overhaul.

Dr. Shahid Masood | The News

Americans see a change fast, but smoothly, coming in Pakistan in the wake of loss of credibility of the man at the helm, following some domestic legal developments.

After meeting top political and defence decision-makers here in the US capital, where I was invited by the National Defence University (NDU) for a two-day seminar on the anniversary of 9/11, I was told in unambiguous terms that a change in Pakistan was inevitable for US policy interests, although Washington does not intend to disrupt the system.

Several important Pakistani political players have also been conveyed the same message by the US political and defence establishment, including the MQM and recently the ANP, whose chief is travelling with President Asif Zardari in New York.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Why Can’t Bilawal & Hussian Be Like William & Harry?

Posted by yourpakistan on September 24, 2009


When British Princes Can Spend Time In The Trenches With The Soldiers, Why Can’t The Sons Of Pakistani Politicians?


prince_harry

prince_william2

Why cant Bilawal Zaradri, Yousaf Gillani’s Sons, Hussain Nawaz, Humaza Shabaz , Munas Elahi, son of Mullah Fazlurehman, spend some time with Pakistani armed forces in FATA and SAWAT, like Prince William and Prince Harry go on front line with British Armed Forces not as observers but soldiers.

Hamza Sharif

Pakistan


Dr Shahid Qureshi, London. Dr Shahid Qureshi is award wining journalist and writer on foreign policy & security based in London . He has written his MA thesis on ‘Political Thought of Khomeini and visited Tehran University. Why can’t Bilawal Zaradri, Yousaf Gillani’s Sons, Hussain Nawaz, Humaza Shabaz , Munas Elahi, son of Mullah Fazlurehman, spend some time with Pakistani armed forces in FATA and SAWAT, like Prince William and Prince Harry go on front line with British Armed Forces not as observers but soldiers. Dr Shahid Qureshi, London. Dr Shahid Qureshi is award wining journalist and writer on foreign policy & security based in London . He has written his MA thesis on ‘Political Thought of Khomeini and visited Tehran University.cant Bilawal Zaradri, Yousaf Gillani’s Sons, Hussain Nawaz, Humaza Shabaz , Munas Elahi, son of Mullah Fazlurehman, spend some time with Pakistani armed forces in FATA and SAWAT, like Prince William and Prince Harry go on front line with British Armed Forces not as observers but soldiers.Dr Shahid Qureshi, London. Dr Shahid Qureshi is award wining journalist and writer on foreign policy & security based in London . He has written his MA thesis on ‘Political Thought of Khomeini and visited Tehran UniversityWhy cant Bilawal Zaradri, Yousaf Gillani’s Sons, Hussain Nawaz, Humaza Shabaz , Munas Elahi, son of Mullah Fazlurehman, spend some time with Pakistani armed forces in FATA and SAWAT, like Prince William and Prince Harry go on front line with British Armed Forces not as observers but soldiers.

Courtesy: http://www.ahmedquraishi.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Security and Threats For Pakistan & Pakistanis

Posted by yourpakistan on September 23, 2009


Unless there is something in particular that the security firm
assisting the Americans is doing wrong, there is little sense in
opposing a firm that is after all providing jobs and training to
Pakistanis.

The raid on the office of a Pakistani security firm providing security
to the American embassy in Islamabad has raised more questions than it
answers. The paperwork for the weapons seized by the police, including
those requiring special permission, appears to be in order and as yet
no official has explained the illegalities the security firm is
suspected of committing.

A section of the media, however, appears convinced of the ‘guilt’ of
the security firm and the Americans and has frenziedly reported the
‘threats’ from their activities. But it is a deeply problematic
position.

First, American officials in particular face serious threats in
Pakistan and they certainly need extra security. Since the possibility
of marines protecting American officials has been vociferously
rejected by the media and denied by the government only recently that
leaves the option of private security guards. Second, private security
companies
operate by the dozen in Pakistan, protecting countless
private citizens and properties, and every company trains its
employees and provides them with weapons. So unless there is something
in particular that the security firm assisting the Americans is doing
wrong, there is little sense in opposing a firm that is after all
providing jobs and training to Pakistanis.

It appears though that the ‘wrongs’ allegedly committed are less about
legalities and technicalities and more about politics and turf wars.
There is zero risk of Islamabad being overrun by ‘American’ security.
This isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no occupation and, frankly,
it is embarrassing to suggest that the state and national assets could
be at risk from a handful of private guards.

But the leaks of ‘suspicious’ activities are sustained enough to
suggest that a faction in the government or the intelligence/security
apparatus is worried. Perhaps because the state has not fully worked
out what is and isn’t permissible for the growing number of foreign
nationals
to do inside Pakistan and the tendency for the Americans to
push the envelope on occasion to see how far they can go has some
Pakistani officials trying to push back through the media. If that is
indeed the case, then it needs to be sorted out at the earliest at the
highest levels of officialdom.

We cannot afford Pakistanis regarding every white man as an American
and every American as a spy or marine, for the last thing we need is
to become more isolated from the world business, development and aid
communities.

Unless there is something in particular that the security firm
assisting the Americans is doing wrong, there is little sense in
opposing a firm that is after all providing jobs and training to
Pakistanis.

The raid on the office of a Pakistani security firm providing security
to the American embassy in Islamabad has raised more questions than it
answers. The paperwork for the weapons seized by the police, including
those requiring special permission, appears to be in order and as yet
no official has explained the illegalities the security firm is
suspected of committing.

A section of the media, however, appears convinced of the ‘guilt’ of
the security firm and the Americans and has frenziedly reported the
‘threats’ from their activities. But it is a deeply problematic
position.

First, American officials in particular face serious threats in
Pakistan and they certainly need extra security. Since the possibility
of marines protecting American officials has been vociferously
rejected by the media and denied by the government only recently that
leaves the option of private security guards. Second, private security
companies
operate by the dozen in Pakistan, protecting countless
private citizens and properties, and every company trains its
employees and provides them with weapons. So unless there is something
in particular that the security firm assisting the Americans is doing
wrong, there is little sense in opposing a firm that is after all
providing jobs and training to Pakistanis.

It appears though that the ‘wrongs’ allegedly committed are less about
legalities and technicalities and more about politics and turf wars.
There is zero risk of Islamabad being overrun by ‘American’ security.
This isn’t Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no occupation and, frankly,
it is embarrassing to suggest that the state and national assets could
be at risk from a handful of private guards.

But the leaks of ‘suspicious’ activities are sustained enough to
suggest that a faction in the government or the intelligence/security
apparatus is worried. Perhaps because the state has not fully worked
out what is and isn’t permissible for the growing number of foreign
nationals
to do inside Pakistan and the tendency for the Americans to
push the envelope on occasion to see how far they can go has some
Pakistani officials trying to push back through the media. If that is
indeed the case, then it needs to be sorted out at the earliest at the
highest levels of officialdom.

We cannot afford Pakistanis regarding every white man as an American
and every American as a spy or marine, for the last thing we need is
to become more isolated from the world business, development and aid
communities.

Source: Dawn Editorial

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Did Pakistan’s Envoy In Washington Leak Official Communication To Embarrass His Country?

Posted by yourpakistan on September 22, 2009


How can a classified letter from Washington to Islamabad end up in New Delhi?  This is another byproduct of US meddling in Pakistani politics.  An ambassador appointed with the highest American recommendation tries to take a cheap shot at the ISI and redeem himself in the eyes of the Washington establishment that brought him to power.

Pakistan Ambassador To USA

Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington Mr. Hussain Haqqani made a classified communication on July 28 with Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary and the ISI chief.
Six weeks later, on Sept. 12, as Pakistani President Asif Zardari prepared to leave for the United States for meetings with US officials, an Indian news affiliate with CNN broke the story that Ambassador Haqqani has complained about a secret blacklist of US journalists and NGO-types and strongly protested denying them visas to enter Pakistan.  Mr. Haqqani warned his government in the letter that this could hurt military hardware transfers and US aid pledges.
The stunning part of the story is that a classified internal communication to the Pakistani government found its way to CNN-IBN, an Indian television news network in New Delhi.
The leak is timed for maximum damage to Pakistan’s interests.
A Pakistani source that has worked closely with the US government, and does not want to be named, described this ‘leak’ in this way:  “I feel so bad to read the CNN-IBN claim that, and I quote—’Dated July 28, 2009, the letter [is] in CNN-IBN’s possession’.  What are we, a banana republic?”
That is not all.  The unnamed analyst adds: “Also keep in mind that this (most likely a) “classified” letter (which also “bears the seal of the Pakistan Ambassador”) was written by our Ambassador to the Foreign Secretary (classified), Interior Secretary (classified) and DG, ISI (double classified!).”
So, the big question is: Who leaked the letter and its detailed contents?
All fingers point to Ambassador Husain Haqqani, a smooth political operator who used his Washington contacts to position himself as late Benazir Bhutto’s mediator with the Bush-Cheney administration.
The leaked letter puts Mr. Haqqani in a positive light before his friends inside the Washington establishment and refocuses the American policy debate on Pakistan’s military and intelligence, both until recently a regular target for the mainstream US media and think tanks.  Mr. Haqqani worked for both before he was appointed ambassador last year by the ruling party.
President Zardari should be seething with anger because the leak could damage his most prized foreign policy goal: the US aid pledge of US $ 7.5 billion, which is yet to pass Congress.  Efforts to scuttle it were informally launched on Aug. 30 when the New York Times ran a report quoting unnamed US sources accusing Pakistan of modifying old-tech Harpoon missiles, and implicitly warned this could delay the aid package.
There is little likelihood the letter leaked from the office of the Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, or DG ISI Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha.  The content of the letter is critical of both the government the spy agency.  The stunning accuracy of the quotes from the letter, made public by CNN-IBN, strengthens suspicions this could not have leaked without Ambasador Haqqani knowing something about it.
CNN-IBN’s letter attributed precise quotes to Mr. Haqqani.  Example: “In the case of Kate Brooks, we were informed that her visa should be revoked because she was on the Black List.  The embassy has not seen this list.  I would request a copy of the same.”
“Yes, the ‘diplomatic circles’, either in DC or Islamabad, can give you a strong hint [about the content],” said the analyst who worked with the US government, “or a highly reliable clue about a story, but not exact quotes from an internal, classified and official communication between two sensitive organizations of the country.”
Mr. Haqqani, US Media
In his ‘classified’ letter that is no longer classified, Ambassador Haqqani fails to recognize the prerogative of any government, including the government of Pakistan, to decide whom to grant entry permits.
The US government follows a similar policy.  The US embassy in Islamabad routinely denies visas to Pakistanis, including journalists and political activists.  In September 2008, US revoked the visa of a Pakistani human rights defender Amina Janjua because she is critical of US policies.  This drew criticism from Amnesty International.  Early 2009, the US embassy refused to grant entry to a single Pakistani mother whose son is in detention in the US for the past three years on terrorism charges without evidence and without conviction.  Pakistani visitors, including senior government officials, are put through excessive checking procedures on arrival in the US, in what could easily be described as harassment.  But this is a US government prerogative.  No US ambassador to Islamabad has written back to the US government warning of dire consequences for following such a policy, as Amb. Haqqani has done in his case.
Exercising discretion in granting entry visas to US journalists falls within the prerogative of the government of Pakistan.  The ISI, whom Mr. Haqqani tried to vilify to please a certain lobby in Washington, D.C., follows this policy as part of its prescribed duty according to the law to protect Pakistan’s national interest.
More importantly, Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington must keep the following points in mind, which are legitimate reasons for Pakistan to pick and choose when granting visas to any US journalist:
1.Did not the mainstream US media and think tanks run a campaign over the past two years to demonize Pakistan worldwide, create a false alarm about the country, its integrity and its nuclear assets, leading many Pakistanis to question why the media of our ally was spearheading this worldwide anti-Pakistanism?
2.Was not much of this campaign an exclusive exercise by some parts of the US media?  No other country’s media engaged in such vilification of Pakistan at such a scale.  Considering how such organized demonization preceded the US invasion of Iraq, it is not difficult to conclude that this anti-Pakistan vilification campaign was not entirely innocent.
3.Is he not aware of several instances where some US ‘researchers’ and ‘journalists’ violated the terms of their entry visas and ventured into sensitive parts of Pakistan in complete violation of visa guidelines and violation of their own given reasons for visiting Pakistan?  In one case, a US citizen who introduced himself as a researcher ended up entering a sensitive part of the country, spent time there, and then published what amounts to a news report in a news publication, in essence misleading Pakistani authorities about his real identity and intentions.
Despite the unprecedented access given to the US media by all levels of the Pakistani government, parts of the US media continue a determined campaign of vilification against Pakistan, publishing unsubstantiated, derogatory, and often politically-motivated propaganda pieces that undermine Pakistan’s regional and international interest and sow confusion within the country.
As the custodian of Pakistan’s interests in Washington, why does Ambassador Haqqani insist that Islamabad should not have the right to choose who should enjoy the hospitality of the Pakistani people, especially when the number of visas denied to US applicants is insignificant compared to the number granted?
And should Ambassador Haqqani not defend this legitimate Pakistani position instead of putting his own government under pressure on behalf of Washington’s interest where it is undue?
Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington Mr. Hussain Haqqani made a classified communication on July 28 with Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary and the ISI chief.
Six weeks later, on Sept. 12, as Pakistani President Asif Zardari prepared to leave for the United States for meetings with US officials, an Indian news affiliate with CNN broke the story that Ambassador Haqqani has complained about a secret blacklist of US journalists and NGO-types and strongly protested denying them visas to enter Pakistan.  Mr. Haqqani warned his government in the letter that this could hurt military hardware transfers and US aid pledges.
The stunning part of the story is that a classified internal communication to the Pakistani government found its way to CNN-IBN, an Indian television news network in New Delhi. The leak is timed for maximum damage to Pakistan’s interests.
A Pakistani source that has worked closely with the US government, and does not want to be named, described this ‘leak’ in this way:  “I feel so bad to read the CNN-IBN claim that, and I quote—’Dated July 28, 2009, the letter [is] in CNN-IBN’s possession’.  What are we, a banana republic?”
That is not all.  The unnamed analyst adds: “Also keep in mind that this (most likely a) “classified” letter (which also “bears the seal of the Pakistan Ambassador”) was written by our Ambassador to the Foreign Secretary (classified), Interior Secretary (classified) and DG, ISI (double classified!).” So, the big question is: Who leaked the letter and its detailed contents?
All fingers point to Ambassador Husain Haqqani, a smooth political operator who used his Washington contacts to position himself as late Benazir Bhutto’s mediator with the Bush-Cheney administration. The leaked letter puts Mr. Haqqani in a positive light before his friends inside the Washington establishment and refocuses the American policy debate on Pakistan’s military and intelligence, both until recently a regular target for the mainstream US media and think tanks.  Mr. Haqqani worked for both before he was appointed ambassador last year by the ruling party.
President Zardari should be seething with anger because the leak could damage his most prized foreign policy goal: the US aid pledge of US $ 7.5 billion, which is yet to pass Congress.  Efforts to scuttle it were informally launched on Aug. 30 when the New York Times ran a report quoting unnamed US sources accusing Pakistan of modifying old-tech Harpoon missiles, and implicitly warned this could delay the aid package.
There is little likelihood the letter leaked from the office of the Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, or DG ISI Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha.  The content of the letter is critical of both the government the spy agency.  The stunning accuracy of the quotes from the letter, made public by CNN-IBN, strengthens suspicions this could not have leaked without Ambasador Haqqani knowing something about it.
CNN-IBN’s letter attributed precise quotes to Mr. Haqqani.  Example: “In the case of Kate Brooks, we were informed that her visa should be revoked because she was on the Black List.  The embassy has not seen this list.  I would request a copy of the same.”
“Yes, the ‘diplomatic circles’, either in DC or Islamabad, can give you a strong hint [about the content],” said the analyst who worked with the US government, “or a highly reliable clue about a story, but not exact quotes from an internal, classified and official communication between two sensitive organizations of the country.”
Mr. Haqqani, US Media
In his ‘classified’ letter that is no longer classified, Ambassador Haqqani fails to recognize the prerogative of any government, including the government of Pakistan, to decide whom to grant entry permits. The US government follows a similar policy.  The US embassy in Islamabad routinely denies visas to Pakistanis, including journalists and political activists.  In September 2008, US revoked the visa of a Pakistani human rights defender Amina Janjua because she is critical of US policies.  This drew criticism from Amnesty International.  Early 2009, the US embassy refused to grant entry to a single Pakistani mother whose son is in detention in the US for the past three years on terrorism charges without evidence and without conviction.  Pakistani visitors, including senior government officials, are put through excessive checking procedures on arrival in the US, in what could easily be described as harassment.  But this is a US government prerogative.  No US ambassador to Islamabad has written back to the US government warning of dire consequences for following such a policy, as Amb. Haqqani has done in his case.
Exercising discretion in granting entry visas to US journalists falls within the prerogative of the government of Pakistan.  The ISI, whom Mr. Haqqani tried to vilify to please a certain lobby in Washington, D.C., follows this policy as part of its prescribed duty according to the law to protect Pakistan’s national interest.  More importantly, Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington must keep the following points in mind, which are legitimate reasons for Pakistan to pick and choose when granting visas to any US journalist:
1. Did not the mainstream US media and think tanks run a campaign over the past two years to demonize Pakistan worldwide, create a false alarm about the country, its integrity and its nuclear assets, leading many Pakistanis to question why the media of our ally was spearheading this worldwide anti-Pakistanism?
2. Was not much of this campaign an exclusive exercise by some parts of the US media?  No other country’s media engaged in such vilification of Pakistan at such a scale.  Considering how such organized demonization preceded the US invasion of Iraq, it is not difficult to conclude that this anti-Pakistan vilification campaign was not entirely innocent.
3. Is he not aware of several instances where some US ‘researchers’ and ‘journalists’ violated the terms of their entry visas and ventured into sensitive parts of Pakistan in complete violation of visa guidelines and violation of their own given reasons for visiting Pakistan?  In one case, a US citizen who introduced himself as a researcher ended up entering a sensitive part of the country, spent time there, and then published what amounts to a news report in a news publication, in essence misleading Pakistani authorities about his real identity and intentions.
Despite the unprecedented access given to the US media by all levels of the Pakistani government, parts of the US media continue a determined campaign of vilification against Pakistan, publishing unsubstantiated, derogatory, and often politically-motivated propaganda pieces that undermine Pakistan’s regional and international interest and sow confusion within the country. As the custodian of Pakistan’s interests in Washington, why does Ambassador Haqqani insist that Islamabad should not have the right to choose who should enjoy the hospitality of the Pakistani people, especially when the number of visas denied to US applicants is insignificant compared to the number granted?
And should Ambassador Haqqani not defend this legitimate Pakistani position instead of putting his own government under pressure on behalf of Washington’s interest where it is undue?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Why Propaganda Trumps Truth

Posted by yourpakistan on September 17, 2009


An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, [“There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification, Vol. 79, No. 2. (2009), pp. 142-162. [PDF] casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda.  Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail.  Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.

hypnotism

The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.  His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted.  It is simply ignored.
Dr. Jones’ experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was one of the 20th century’s great scientists.  At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student.  Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical adsorption. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it.  Even when Polanyi was one of the UK’s ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory.  One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley.  The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was “Polanyi’s old error.” It turned out not to be an error.  Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth.  How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong.  Polanyi’s answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.
That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.
As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx’s theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy.  Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else’s work that is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground.  These readers never have any comprehension of the subject.  They are simply emotionally offended.What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11.  For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11.  How can this be, I ask them.  Did the government slip up once and tell the truth?  My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government’s 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people.  With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don’t feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called “terrorist sympathizers.” Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered “blowbacks.” Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government’s propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.
Naive people think that if the US government’s explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up.  Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding.  A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career.  If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.
An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract.  In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.
In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events.  Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists?  The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names.  Most of the people I know who are content with the government’s official explanation have never examined the evidence.  Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.
There are, of course, some kooks.  I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American.  It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized.  Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as “terrorist sympathizers” and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event.  In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously.  They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector.  This took with the left and the right.  Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government.  This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.
Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case.  In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe.   The notion that “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion.  I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government.  Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.
The US government’s response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever.  Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were.  America’s financial capability and living standards are forever lower.  Our country’s prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.The most disturbing fact of all remains:  The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.
The News Media Scam
By Ken Bowers
September 16, 2009 “Salt Lake City Conservative Examiner” — Here’s a quotation that should awaken every American.
The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.  (Michael Parenti, political scientist and author)Have you ever heard of Edward Bernays? No? That is understandable. He never sought the limelight, but he is undoubtedly one of most influential people of the Twentieth Century. When he died in 1995, the New York Times ran an obituary on him, calling him the “Father of public relations.” He truly was.He was hired to be the chief adviser to William (Bill) Paley, head of CBS radio in 1928. From that humble beginning, CBS News became the dominant news organization in the world for many years. And the elevation of CBS News to that lofty position can justly be ascribed to the amazing public relations abilities of Edward Bernays.Room does not permit a complete summary of his accomplishments. Unfortunately, Bernays not only sought to report the news but to manipulate the public into accepting what CBS News thought the public should accept. In other words, he sought to brainwash us.Think that’s crazy? Listen to what Bernays said in his own book, Propaganda, 1928:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.  Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country . . . we’re dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . it is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.  (Propaganda, Liveright Publishing Company, New York, 2005, excerpts from pp.  9-19)
Do you like the idea of being “manipulated,” having someone “pull the wires [to] control the public mind?” Or do you think that they can’t manipulate us? And what do you think of his statement that the brain-washers “constitute an invisible government?” I think it’s scary. But it happens today all the time.
In 1915, Bernays was asked to sell the idea of entering WWI to the American people and he did that successfully. Americans at that time were very much of the opinion of George Washington that we should stay out of the intrigues and quarrels of Europe. But with his pitch that we should “make the world safe for democracy,” we went over there anyway.We’ve been ripe for brainwashing ever since.
Also See:
Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of the World’s Media
Zionist, Jewish Hollywood’s Brainwashing Of America
Research: How 9/11 was done
CHARLIE SHEEN AND 9/11
Video: Uncencored 9/11 on Waqt News with Zaid Hamid
9/11 Truth: It Wasn’t Muslims Video
Jewish 911 Connections
The Zionist Elephant In The Room
Must Read: The Dajjal’s War on Humankind
The Spiritual WarThe researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs.  Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality.  They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: “In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.  It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence.  Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”
What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant “USA, USA, USA” than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.
The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break.The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government.  Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience:The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.
Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists’ findings and Hitler’s observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do?  What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented?  Scoff some more?  Become enraged?
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don’t believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of “evidence” that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner.  None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily.  Semtex produces very high temperatures.  There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex.  It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.
I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn’t one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.
What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust? People don’t even notice the contradictions.  Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust.  The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified.  In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite.  This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.
The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs.  Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality.  They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: “In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.  It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence.  Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant “USA, USA, USA” than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.

The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break.The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government.  Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience:The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.

Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists’ findings and Hitler’s observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do?  What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented?  Scoff some more?  Become enraged?

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don’t believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of “evidence” that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner.  None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily.  Semtex produces very high temperatures.  There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex.  It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.

I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn’t one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.

What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust? People don’t even notice the contradictions.  Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust.  The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified.  In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite.  This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.
911_incident

The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.  His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted.  It is simply ignored.
Dr. Jones’ experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was one of the 20th century’s great scientists.  At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student.  Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical adsorption. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it.  Even when Polanyi was one of the UK’s ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory.  One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley.  The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was “Polanyi’s old error.” It turned out not to be an error.  Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth.  How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong.  Polanyi’s answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.
That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.
As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx’s theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy.  Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else’s work that is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground.  These readers never have any comprehension of the subject.  They are simply emotionally offended.What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11.  For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11.  How can this be, I ask them.  Did the government slip up once and tell the truth?  My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government’s 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people.  With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don’t feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called “terrorist sympathizers.” Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered “blowbacks.” Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government’s propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.
Naive people think that if the US government’s explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up.  Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding.  A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career.  If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract.  In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.
In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events.  Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists?  The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names.  Most of the people I know who are content with the government’s official explanation have never examined the evidence.  Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely. There are, of course, some kooks.  I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American.  It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized.  Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as “terrorist sympathizers” and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event.  In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously.  They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector.  This took with the left and the right.  Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government.  This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.
Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case.  In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe.   The notion that “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion.  I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government.  Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.
The US government’s response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever.  Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were.  America’s financial capability and living standards are forever lower.  Our country’s prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.The most disturbing fact of all remains:  The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.
The News Media Scam
By Ken Bowers
September 16, 2009 “Salt Lake City Conservative Examiner” — Here’s a quotation that should awaken every American.
The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.  (Michael Parenti, political scientist and author)Have you ever heard of Edward Bernays? No? That is understandable. He never sought the limelight, but he is undoubtedly one of most influential people of the Twentieth Century. When he died in 1995, the New York Times ran an obituary on him, calling him the “Father of public relations.” He truly was.He was hired to be the chief adviser to William (Bill) Paley, head of CBS radio in 1928. From that humble beginning, CBS News became the dominant news organization in the world for many years. And the elevation of CBS News to that lofty position can justly be ascribed to the amazing public relations abilities of Edward Bernays.Room does not permit a complete summary of his accomplishments. Unfortunately, Bernays not only sought to report the news but to manipulate the public into accepting what CBS News thought the public should accept. In other words, he sought to brainwash us.Think that’s crazy? Listen to what Bernays said in his own book, Propaganda, 1928:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.  Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country . . . we’re dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . it is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.  (Propaganda, Liveright Publishing Company, New York, 2005, excerpts from pp.  9-19)
Do you like the idea of being “manipulated,” having someone “pull the wires [to] control the public mind?” Or do you think that they can’t manipulate us? And what do you think of his statement that the brain-washers “constitute an invisible government?” I think it’s scary. But it happens today all the time.In 1915, Bernays was asked to sell the idea of entering WWI to the American people and he did that successfully. Americans at that time were very much of the opinion of George Washington that we should stay out of the intrigues and quarrels of Europe. But with his pitch that we should “make the world safe for democracy,” we went over there anyway.We’ve been ripe for brainwashing ever since.
Also See:
1. Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of the World’s Media
2. Zionist, Jewish Hollywood’s Brainwashing Of America
3. Research: How 9/11 was done
4. CHARLIE SHEEN AND 9/11
5.Video: Uncencored 9/11 on Waqt News with Zaid Hamid
6. 9/11 Truth: It Wasn’t Muslims Video
7. Jewish 911 Connections
8. The Zionist Elephant In The Room
9. Must Read: The Dajjal’s War on Humankind
10. The Spiritual War

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

ALERT: Blackwater Recruiting Agents Fluent In Urdu & Punjabi For Pakistan

Posted by yourpakistan on September 15, 2009


Blackwater USA is looking for mercenaries fluent in Urdu, Pakistan’s national language, and Punjabi, the language spoken by natives of Pakistan’s largest populated province.  The US military already deploys officers and commando units manned by people fluent in Pashto, spoken in most of western Pakistan and southern Afghanistan.  Keeping in view the denials of the US embassy in Islamabad and the expanding American presence on Pakistani soil, these recruitments are obviously not meant for running call centers.  Since Washington has unilaterally decided that Pakistan is now a ‘war theater’ after Iraq and Afghanistan, it is only natural that American terrorism will also be unleashed in Pakistan.  Blackwater is in Pakistan.

Blackwater USA has concealed its Web presence.  If you type http://www.BlackwaterUSA.com, you will be redirected to the website of an organization called U.S. Training Center , which offers military and personal security courses.  The website does not overtly say or indicate it is linked to Blackwater, but on Sept. 12 a media release was posted on the homepage defending Blackwater against accusations the private ‘army’ overbilled the US government for work in Iraq in 2006 and 2007.
The bigger news, however, is that ‘Blackwater USA’ is hiring in Pakistan.  While BlackwaterUSA.com does not exist on the Web any longer, I 3an employment form on a secured page of the private security firm’s website that clearly indicates the private mercenary army is hiring Urdu- and Punjabi-speaking agents.  This would complement the existing Pashto-speaking agents that both Blackwater private mercenary army and its employer, the US military, have on the ground in Afghanistan and – as reports increasingly indicate – in Pakistan.
Snapshots of the screen from the page titled secure.blackwaterusa.com show that the page is part of the Blackwater Employee and Applicant Resource System (BEARS).
Blackwater USA has concealed its Web presence.  If you type http://www.BlackwaterUSA.com, you will be redirected to the website of an organization called U.S. Training Center , which offers military and personal security courses.  The website does not overtly say or indicate it is linked to Blackwater, but on Sept. 12 a media release was posted on the homepage defending Blackwater against accusations the private ‘army’ overbilled the US government for work in Iraq in 2006 and 2007.
The bigger news, however, is that ‘Blackwater USA’ is hiring in Pakistan.  While BlackwaterUSA.com does not exist on the Web any longer, I 3an employment form on a secured page of the private security firm’s website that clearly indicates the private mercenary army is hiring Urdu- and Punjabi-speaking agents.  This would complement the existing Pashto-speaking agents that both Blackwater private mercenary army and its employer, the US military, have on the ground in Afghanistan and – as reports increasingly indicate – in Pakistan.
Snapshots of the screen from the page titled secure.blackwaterusa.com show that the page is part of the Blackwater Employee and Applicant Resource System (BEARS).

The snapshots shown here indicate that hiring continues as we speak for agents and for people with military training who can speak Urdu, Pakistan’s national language, and Punjabi, spoken by the natives of Pakistan’s largest populated province.  Obviously, agents with proficiency in the two languages will be operating in and around Pakistan since there is little utility for such agents anywhere else in the world. This is the latest in a pile of circumstantial evidence that supports the growing concerns within the Pakistani public opinion that private US security firms are setting up shop in Pakistan, bringing to the country the same mayhem that has engulfed Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly with the permission of influential people in the Pakistani government.
Blackwater
A petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court of Pakistan today requesting that the government of Pakistan be ordered to explain why the US embassy in Islamabad is building a fortified embassy the size of an international airport, spread over 52 to 54 acres.  The petitioner, who is a private Pakistani citizen, has accused the United States of constructing a military base in the heart of the Pakistani capital in the guise of an embassy.
On Aug. 5, PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com broke the news of how a Washington-incorporated private company that calls itself an NGO and executes contractual humanitarian work for the US government in conflict zones is suspected of acting as cover for Blackwater in Peshawar.
On Jul. 27, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur [DPA] reported that residents of an upscale suburb in Peshawar have formally complained to the Pakistani government that armed private Americans were spreading fear in the area.
We also received a statement issued by Mr. Richard Snelsire, the spokesman for the US embassy in Islamabad, denying these reports: Since 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has committed more than $3.4 billion in humanitarian and development assistance to the people of Pakistan in relief, health, education, and economic development programs. Creative Associates is one of many organizations USAID engages to deliver this assistance, which also includes the Government of Pakistan, local non-governmental, and international humanitarian institutions.  This organization has no link to any international security firm, nor is it affiliated in any way with an intelligence service.
Recent allegations against USAID partners such as Creative Associates are false, and place individuals delivering humanitarian and development assistance to the people of Pakistan at risk. Richard Snelsire
Despite these denials, the Pakistani government and the US embassy are unable to explain several incidents in Peshawar and Islamabad over the past few weeks that involved privately armed American citizens, especially accounts by private citizens confirming they have seen and interacted with these foreign agents in public places.  In at least three incidents, these privately armed Americans were released by police authorities under pressure from the government despite involvement in altercations with local Pakistanis.  In one case, an armed US citizen physically assaulted a Pakistani police officer and uttered obscenities against the host country.
The alarming part of this story is that the embassy of Pakistan in Washington is reported to have issued several hundred entry permits and visas to individuals without seeking clearance from the country’s security departments.  In one recent report, it is reported that the Pakistani ambassador issued 360 visas to US citizens in one month, sometime this year, from the ambassador’s discretionary quota of visas and again without clearance from Pakistani security departments. Who are these Americans who are arriving in Pakistan in the tens and hundreds at a time when the US embassy in Islamabad follows a strange practice where a staffer personally calls any US citizen in the United States in order to warn them about coming to Pakistan for personal reasons or pleasure, apparently because of the security situation?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

A Bloody Revolution Awaits Pakistan’s Rulers: Man Waiting In Queue For Subsidized Food Dies From Heart Attack

Posted by yourpakistan on September 14, 2009


A Bloody Revolution Awaits Pakistan’s Rulers: Man Waiting In Queue For Subsidized Food Dies From Heart Attack……. They should fear the time they would swing from lampposts in Islamabad.

dead man

Man waiting in queue for subsidized atta dies from heart attack
September 13, 2009
GOJAR KHAN: An aged man waiting in the queue for the subsidized atta for four hours died from heart attack here on Sunday.
Fifty-year-old Bisharat Hussain had stood in the queue with his wife, early in the morning, so t! hat he might leave for his duty.
Due to the intense heat and suffocation his condition started to deteriorate, however he succeeded in getting the token.
But at 10:30 am, after the arrival of the distributing truck, he fell down and passed away on way to hospital.

Man waiting in queue for subsidized atta dies from heart attack

September 13, 2009

GOJAR KHAN: An aged man waiting in the queue for the subsidized atta for four hours died from heart attack here on Sunday. Fifty-year-old Bisharat Hussain had stood in the queue with his wife, early in the morning, so t! hat he might leave for his duty. Due to the intense heat and suffocation his condition started to deteriorate, however he succeeded in getting the token. But at 10:30 am, after the arrival of the distributing truck, he fell down and passed away on way to hospital. 

News Link: http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=86923

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

PakAlert Poll: Who should be the President of Pakistan?

Posted by yourpakistan on September 12, 2009


We have started this Poll today to inquire into public opinion about the best candidate for Presidentship in Pakistan amongst the prominent personalities. We request our Pakistani and specially non-Pakistani friends to vote in here and let us know who you think is the best candidate who can bring political, economical and social stability in Pakistan. In last two hours we have received the following responses.PakAlert Poll: Who should be the President of Pakistan?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »