India has handed over three dossiers to Pak: Rao

26 02 2010

more about “Nirupama Rao after talks with Salman …“, posted with vodpod

India has handed over three dossiers to Pak: Rao

Feb 25 2010, 05.36pm IST

NEW DELHI: India and Pakistan resumed official level dialogue after 14 months, but what started out as a promising engagement in the morning descended into acrimony after Pakistan foreign secretary Salman Bashir rebuffed India’s demand for action against Lashkar leader Hafiz Saeed.Bashir dismissed what sources called here a strong Indian dossier on Hafiz Saeed as “literature, not evidence”, seriously endangering the future of the engagement.India on Thursday asked for 33 terrorists — Pakistani nationals as well as Indian fugitives, including two serving Pakistan army officers, Major Iqbal and Major Samir Ali — to be handed over, giving three dossiers to Bashir. Pakistan foreign secretary, however, seemed to make light of India’s insistence on action against 26/11 masterminds, saying that Pakistan did not want to be sermoned on terrorism.

Apart from the fact that the two countries are talking to each other again, the differences between them remained as wide as ever. The Indian side said 85% of the talk time was taken up by terrorism, while the Pakistani side said the talks discussed Kashmir “extensively”. It also insisted on raising the issue of alleged Indian interference in Balochistan and sharing of Indus waters. Bashir pressed for resumption of the composite dialogue process and said several times that talks shouldn’t remain hostage to any “one issue”.

The clear dissonance does not augur well for any meaningful engagement. While Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao took an expansive view of the talks saying India had gone in with an “open mind”, describing them as “constructive and candid”, Bashir, while conceding that the talks were “useful” shot out, “we don’t like being sermoned on terrorism”.

Government sources later said, while India was not “lecturing”, Pakistan had to move on terror for the relationship to move forward. The Indian side also raised the issue of the beheading of two Sikhs by Taliban in west Pakistan.

As expected, India focused on terrorism and Pakistan on Kashmir. That India was prepared for. However, Bashir’s subsequent belligerence put an entirely different complexion on things, leaving the Indian government furious.

Having weathered criticism in India about restarting dialogue with Pakistan at this time, Bashir’s public contention that Pakistan was “not desperate” for a dialogue may make it difficult for the UPA government to sell increased engagement. However, sources said India had initiated talks at a time of its own choosing and would pursue it in its national interest.

High level sources said, in September 2009, when the foreign secretaries last met in NewYork, Pakistan was insistent on a dialogue. But in the subsequent months, with Pakistan’s increased “utility” to the US’s war in Afghanistan, Islamabad now seems to believe that it does not really need to bend over backwards to accommodate Indian concerns. That, said sources, became very clear in the grandstanding by the Pakistani delegation after the talks.

While the composite dialogue is still a while away, India will watch out for the actions that Pakistan takes in the weeks to come. India handed over three dossiers to Pakistan — one of these deals with individuals involved in the Mumbai attacks; the two others comprise information on HuJI and Brigade 313 commander Ilyas Kashmiri, one of David Headley’s handlers, as well as Khalistan elements currently based in Pakistan.

LeT chief Hafiz Saeed came in for specific discussion, and Rao referred to the February 5 rallies by Saeed “which openly incited terrorist violence against India…. It was emphasized that India could not but take a serious note of such actions”. Pakistan said their laws did not allow for prosecution for such speeches, but Rao maintained that Saeed could have been booked under Pakistan’s anti-terrorism act.

India is particularly angry with Bashir’s formulation of the information on Saeed as “literature” which does not have any legal basis. “We got a brief paper from India on Saeed but it was more of literature than evidence. JuD is listed under the UN 1267 Al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee and its assets remain frozen,” said Bashir. Indian sources later said the dossier was “not brief” and definitely constituted evidence. Clearly, the road ahead on India-Pakistan ties is more rocky than India imagined.
Asked if Pakistan can treat Saeed’s public threats to launch more 26/11-type attacks as evidence against him, Bashir merely said that he didn’t have the legal background required to answer it.

The two sides were clearly not on the same page when it came to describing the core issue for the talks. Rao, while briefing reporters, tried to play down the Kashmir issue. “The issue came up briefly, along expected lines. We reiterated our national position on the issue,” said Rao.

This, however, was brushed aside by Bashir later when he clearly expressed reservationsover what Rao had said. “It remains the core issue and we drew India’s attention to that. One cannot be dismissive of this issue,” he said, adding that Pakistan will continue to politically and morally support the “movement” in the state.

Apart from terror, India raised the issue of infiltration and ceasefire violations. Pakistan took up Balochistan with India and conveyed concerns over what he claimed was information that India was trying to fuel trouble in the region. Rao, however, said the Indian side had told Pakistan that New Delhi had no intention to interfere in any other country’s affairs. Pakistan also raised the Sir Creek, Siachen and water issues.

There was no announcement of any meeting in the near future with Rao only stating that Bashir had told her that he would like her to visit Pakistan. “In line with our graduated and step by step approach, our aims were modest; we had a useful discussion, during which I spelt out forthrightly our concerns on terrorism emanating from Pakistan against India,” said Rao.

India also called upon Pakistan to investigate the claim made by a hitherto unknown organization, Lashkar-e-Toiba Al Alami and a separate claim by Ilyas Kashmiri’s owning responsibility for the recent Pune blast. Additional information on terrorist activities against India emanating from Pakistan was also handed over to the Pakistani side for investigation and appropriate action.





India has handed over three dossiers to Pak: Rao

26 02 2010

India has handed over three dossiers to Pak: Rao

Feb 25 2010, 05.36pm IST
NEW DELHI: India and Pakistan resumed official level dialogue after 14 months, but what started out as a promising engagement in the morning descended into acrimony after Pakistan foreign secretary Salman Bashir rebuffed India’s demand for action against Lashkar leader Hafiz Saeed.Bashir dismissed what sources called here a strong Indian dossier on Hafiz Saeed as “literature, not evidence”, seriously endangering the future of the engagement.India on Thursday asked for 33 terrorists — Pakistani nationals as well as Indian fugitives, including two serving Pakistan army officers, Major Iqbal and Major Samir Ali — to be handed over, giving three dossiers to Bashir. Pakistan foreign secretary, however, seemed to make light of India’s insistence on action against 26/11 masterminds, saying that Pakistan did not want to be sermoned on terrorism.

Apart from the fact that the two countries are talking to each other again, the differences between them remained as wide as ever. The Indian side said 85% of the talk time was taken up by terrorism, while the Pakistani side said the talks discussed Kashmir “extensively”. It also insisted on raising the issue of alleged Indian interference in Balochistan and sharing of Indus waters. Bashir pressed for resumption of the composite dialogue process and said several times that talks shouldn’t remain hostage to any “one issue”.

The clear dissonance does not augur well for any meaningful engagement. While Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao took an expansive view of the talks saying India had gone in with an “open mind”, describing them as “constructive and candid”, Bashir, while conceding that the talks were “useful” shot out, “we don’t like being sermoned on terrorism”.

Government sources later said, while India was not “lecturing”, Pakistan had to move on terror for the relationship to move forward. The Indian side also raised the issue of the beheading of two Sikhs by Taliban in west Pakistan.

As expected, India focused on terrorism and Pakistan on Kashmir. That India was prepared for. However, Bashir’s subsequent belligerence put an entirely different complexion on things, leaving the Indian government furious.

Having weathered criticism in India about restarting dialogue with Pakistan at this time, Bashir’s public contention that Pakistan was “not desperate” for a dialogue may make it difficult for the UPA government to sell increased engagement. However, sources said India had initiated talks at a time of its own choosing and would pursue it in its national interest.

High level sources said, in September 2009, when the foreign secretaries last met in NewYork, Pakistan was insistent on a dialogue. But in the subsequent months, with Pakistan’s increased “utility” to the US’s war in Afghanistan, Islamabad now seems to believe that it does not really need to bend over backwards to accommodate Indian concerns. That, said sources, became very clear in the grandstanding by the Pakistani delegation after the talks.

While the composite dialogue is still a while away, India will watch out for the actions that Pakistan takes in the weeks to come. India handed over three dossiers to Pakistan — one of these deals with individuals involved in the Mumbai attacks; the two others comprise information on HuJI and Brigade 313 commander Ilyas Kashmiri, one of David Headley’s handlers, as well as Khalistan elements currently based in Pakistan.

LeT chief Hafiz Saeed came in for specific discussion, and Rao referred to the February 5 rallies by Saeed “which openly incited terrorist violence against India…. It was emphasized that India could not but take a serious note of such actions”. Pakistan said their laws did not allow for prosecution for such speeches, but Rao maintained that Saeed could have been booked under Pakistan’s anti-terrorism act.

India is particularly angry with Bashir’s formulation of the information on Saeed as “literature” which does not have any legal basis. “We got a brief paper from India on Saeed but it was more of literature than evidence. JuD is listed under the UN 1267 Al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee and its assets remain frozen,” said Bashir. Indian sources later said the dossier was “not brief” and definitely constituted evidence. Clearly, the road ahead on India-Pakistan ties is more rocky than India imagined.
Asked if Pakistan can treat Saeed’s public threats to launch more 26/11-type attacks as evidence against him, Bashir merely said that he didn’t have the legal background required to answer it.

The two sides were clearly not on the same page when it came to describing the core issue for the talks. Rao, while briefing reporters, tried to play down the Kashmir issue. “The issue came up briefly, along expected lines. We reiterated our national position on the issue,” said Rao.

This, however, was brushed aside by Bashir later when he clearly expressed reservationsover what Rao had said. “It remains the core issue and we drew India’s attention to that. One cannot be dismissive of this issue,” he said, adding that Pakistan will continue to politically and morally support the “movement” in the state.

Apart from terror, India raised the issue of infiltration and ceasefire violations. Pakistan took up Balochistan with India and conveyed concerns over what he claimed was information that India was trying to fuel trouble in the region. Rao, however, said the Indian side had told Pakistan that New Delhi had no intention to interfere in any other country’s affairs. Pakistan also raised the Sir Creek, Siachen and water issues.

There was no announcement of any meeting in the near future with Rao only stating that Bashir had told her that he would like her to visit Pakistan. “In line with our graduated and step by step approach, our aims were modest; we had a useful discussion, during which I spelt out forthrightly our concerns on terrorism emanating from Pakistan against India,” said Rao.

India also called upon Pakistan to investigate the claim made by a hitherto unknown organization, Lashkar-e-Toiba Al Alami and a separate claim by Ilyas Kashmiri’s owning responsibility for the recent Pune blast. Additional information on terrorist activities against India emanating from Pakistan was also handed over to the Pakistani side for investigation and appropriate action.





More Theories About Pakistan’s New Afghan Paradigm

26 02 2010

[SEE: Pakistan Continues Its Belated Taliban Clean-Up. What Have They Been Waiting For?]

Pak crackdown on Taliban with eye on Af role?

TNN, Feb 20, 2010, 01.52am IST

NEW DELHI: The alacrity with which Pakistan has acted against the Taliban in the past few weeks, leading to the arrest of Mullah Omar’s number two Mullah Abdul Baradar among several others, has left many wondering if this is just a ploy by Islamabad to assert its position as a key player in the ongoing negotiations led by Saudi Arabia for reconciliation and reintegration in Afghanistan. Baradar was arrested from Karachi in a joint Pakistan-US operation after a tip-off from the CIA about his location. Baradar was acknowledged as one of the key negotiators for Taliban and it remains to be seen how his arrest impacts the negotiations.

According to leading experts on Afghanistan, Baradar had not just drifted away from Pakistan but was also inclined to negotiating independently for reconciliation which might have offended Islamabad.

Well known Afghan expert Ahmed Rashid believes that Baradar’s arrest is meant to send a strong message to the Taliban as well as the US. “If there’s going to be any talks or dialogue between Kabul and the Taliban, Pakistan will have to be the main broker or mediator… you know, ‘don’t go into talks without telling us, because we (the Pakistanis) are the key players here’,” Rashid was quoted as saying by a news channel.

According to eminent security experts like K Subrahmanyam and B Raman, however, Pakistan had acted against the Taliban only under immense pressure from the US and that India could afford to wait and watch for now. ‘‘I think it’s more a case of Obama asserting himself. If Pakistan acts against somebody like Baradar, the question of negotiating does not arise at all. The best thing for India would be to wait and watch because we don’t know if Pakistan is really serious or is just playing another game,’’ said Subrahmanyam.

According to Raman, Pakistan was forced to arrest Baradar by the US because of the spate of attacks on coalition forces’ convoys in the Karachi region and that India could benefit if the Afghan Taliban, as a result of Baradar’s arrest, starts to target the Pakistani army. ‘‘As we know, the entire shura of Taliban has shifted from Quetta to Karachi leading to the port city’s radicalisation. Baradar had to be arrested under US pressure because of the deterioration in the situation in Karachi. Afghan Taliban has so far never targeted the Pakistan army but if they do, it will benefit India,’’ said Raman.





C.I.A. and Pakistan Work Together, but Do So Warily

25 02 2010

C.I.A. and Pakistan Work Together, but Do So Warily

By MARK MAZZETTI and JANE PERLEZ

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Inside a secret detention center in an industrial pocket of the Pakistani capital called I/9, teams of Pakistani and American spies have kept a watchful eye on a senior Talibanleader captured last month. With the other eye, they watch each other.

Pakistan Press Information Department, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, left, with Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the director of Pakistan’s intelligence service.

The C.I.A. and its Pakistani counterpart, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, have a long and often tormented relationship. And even now, they are moving warily toward conflicting goals, with each maneuvering to protect its influence after the shooting stops in Afghanistan.

Yet interviews in recent days show how they are working together on tactical operations, and how far the C.I.A. has extended its extraordinary secret war beyond the mountainous tribal belt and deep into Pakistan’s sprawling cities.

Beyond the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, C.I.A. operatives working with the ISI have carried out dozens of raids throughout Pakistan over the past year, working from bases in the cities of Quetta, Peshawar and elsewhere, according to Pakistani security officials.

The raids often come after electronic intercepts by American spy satellites, or tips from Pakistani informants — and the spies from the two countries then sometimes drive in the same car to pick up their quarry. Sometimes the teams go on lengthy reconnaissance missions, with the ISI operatives packing sunscreen and neon glow sticks that allow them to identify their positions at night.

Successful missions sometimes end with American and Pakistani spies toasting one another with Johnnie Walker Blue Label whisky, a gift from the C.I.A.

The C.I.A.’s drone campaign in Pakistan is well known, which is striking given that this is a covert war. But these on-the-ground activities have been shrouded in secrecy because the Pakistani government has feared the public backlash against the close relationship with the Americans.

In strengthening ties to the ISI, the C.I.A. is aligning itself with a shadowy institution that meddles in domestic politics and has a history of ties to violent militant groups in the region. A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article.

Officials in Washington and Islamabad agree that the relationship between the two spy services has steadily improved since the low point of the summer of 2008, when the C.I.A.’s deputy director traveled to Pakistan to confront ISI officials with communications intercepts indicating that the ISI was complicit in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.

The spy agencies have built trust in part through age-old tactics of espionage: killing or capturing each other’s enemies. A turning point came last August, when a C.I.A. missilekilled the militant leader Baitullah Mehsud as he lay on the roof of his compound in South Waziristan, his wife beside him massaging his back.

Mr. Mehsud for more than a year had been responsible for a wave of terror attacks in Pakistani cities, and many inside the ISI were puzzled as to why the United States had not sought to kill him. Some even suspected he was an American, or Indian, agent.

The drone attack on Mr. Mehsud is part of a joint war against militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas, where C.I.A. drones pound militants from the air as Pakistani troops fight them on the ground.

And yet for two spy agencies with a long history of mistrust, the accommodation extends only so far. For instance, when it comes to the endgame in Afghanistan, where Pakistan hopes to play a significant role as a power broker, interviews with Pakistani and American intelligence officials in Islamabad and Washington reveal that the interests of the two sides remain far apart.

Even as the ISI breaks up a number of Taliban cells, officials in Islamabad, Washington and Kabul hint that the ISI’s goal seems to be to weaken the Taliban just enough to bring them to the negotiating table, but leaving them strong enough to represent Pakistani interests in a future Afghan government.

This contrasts sharply with the American goal of battering the Taliban and strengthening Kabul’s central government and security forces, even if American officials also recognize that political reconciliation with elements of the Taliban is likely to be part of any ultimate settlement.

Tensions in the relationship surfaced in the days immediately after Mullah Baradar’s arrest, when the ISI refused to allow C.I.A. officers to interrogate the Taliban leader. Americans have since been given access to the detention center. On Wednesday, Pakistani and Afghan officials meeting in Islamabad said that a deal was being worked out to transfer Mullah Baradar to Afghan custody, which could allow the Americans unrestrained access to him.

Besides Mullah Baradar, several Taliban shadow governors and other senior leaders have been arrested inside Pakistan in recent weeks.

A top American military officer in Afghanistan on Wednesday suggested that with the arrests, the ISI could be trying to accelerate the timetable for a negotiated settlement between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

“I don’t know if they’re pushing anyone to the table, but they are certainly preparing the meal,” the officer said.

In the three decades since the C.I.A. and the ISI teamed up to funnel weapons to Afghan militias fighting the Soviets, the two spy services have soldiered though a co-dependent, yet suspicious relationship. C.I.A. officers in Islamabad rely on the Pakistani spy service for its network of informants. But they are wary of the ISI’s longstanding ties to militants like the Taliban, which Pakistani spies have seen as a necessary ally to blunt archrival India’s influence in Afghanistan.

The ISI gets millions of dollars in United States aid from its American counterpart (which allowed the Pakistan spy service to develop a counterterrorism division), yet is suspicious that the Americans and the Indians might be playing their own “double game” against Pakistan.

In Islamabad, officials are nervous about the intensification of the C.I.A.’s drone campaign in North Waziristan against the network run by Sirajuddin Haqqani, whom the ISI for years has used as a force to carry out missions in Afghanistan that serve Pakistani interests.

C.I.A. officials believe that Mr. Haqqani’s group played a role in the killing of seven Americans in Khost, Afghanistan, in late December, and since then have carried out more than a dozen drone strikes in the Haqqani network’s enclave in North Waziristan.

The ISI, an institution feared by most Pakistanis, is used to getting its way. It meddles in domestic politics and in recent months has been suspected by Western embassies in Islamabad of planting anti-American stories in Pakistani newspapers.

It has also been criticized in reports by international human rights organizations of using brutal interrogation tactics against its prisoners, though the same could certainly be said of the C.I.A. in the period of 2002 to 2004. The annual human rights report of the State Department in 2007 said “there were persistent reports that security forces, including intelligence services, tortured and abused persons.”

The head of the Pakistani military, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said in a recent briefing that it was doubtful that a centralized government would work in post-conflict Afghanistan, making it more important for Pakistan to continue to influence the Taliban in the years to come.

As a result there remains a belief among American intelligence officials that Pakistan will never completely abandon the Taliban, and officials both in Washington and Kabul admit that they are almost completely in the dark about Pakistan’s long-term strategy regarding the Taliban.

“We have a better level of cooperation,” said one top American official who met recently in Islamabad with General Kayani. “How far that goes, I can’t tell yet. We’ll know soon whether this is cooperation, or a stonewall and kind of rope a dope.”

Pir Zubair Shah contributed reporting.





Balochistan, other issues were discussed: Indian foreign secretary

25 02 2010

Balochistan, other issues were discussed: Indian foreign secretary

[IST]

New Delhi, Feb. 25 (ANI): Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao on Thursday replied in the affirmative when asked whether the issue of Balochistan figured in her talks with her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir.

Briefing media persons here after the talks here, Ms. Rao said: "Balochistan and other bilateral issues were discussed."

When probed further about Islamabad’s charge of Indian interference in Balochistan, Ms. Rao said: "Pakistan raised certain other issues and we responded appropriately, reiterating our national position on these issues."
Pakistan has repeatedly maintained that India has been fomenting unrest in Balochistan. India has rejected this charge and asked Islamabad to supply it with proof of its involvement.
Rao made it clear that New Delhi has not received any dossier from Islamabad on India’s perceived role in Balochistan.
Earlier in the day, Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir had said that both Balochistan and Kashmir would be on his agenda for Thursday’s talks.
Bashir made these remarks shortly before leaving his hotel for the talks venue.
Bashir was leading a 13-member delegation in the talks to be held with Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.
He said he had come to New Delhi with the hope of taking talks with India on key bilateral issues, including Kashmir and Balochistan, forward.
Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit told ANI and other media that Islamabad will be discussing Kashmir in the talks as it saw the issue as being a core one.
During his stay, Bashir is also scheduled to call on External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and the National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon. (ANI)





The Global Reach of the Judeo-Russian Mafia

25 02 2010

The Global Reach of the Judeo-Russian Mafia

Its been about 10 years since the Jerusalem Post admitted that the Israeli underworld had been taken over by Russian-Jewish mob bosses. But it remains the case despite official Mossad condemnations, that little has been done to interfere with the drug and slave trade the Russian-Jewish bosses have brought to Israel. Recently, even Amnesty International has slammed Israel for refusing to do much about the Jewish mob’s white slave traffic worldwide, based in Israel. Several years ago, Amnesty wrote this:

The Israeli government has failed to take adequate measures to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish human rights abuses committed against trafficked women. In general, trafficked women are effectively treated as criminals by the various Israeli agencies with whom they come in contact, rather than as victims of human rights abuses. This is so even though many of them have been subjected to human rights abuses such as enslavement or torture, including rape and other forms of sexual abuse, by traffickers, pimps or others involved in Israel’s sex industry. . . .Trafficking of women to Israel is not illegal. (AI, “Israel’s Sex Industry” 2000.)

Making matters more complex, the Jewish mafia is deep into gun running, and the Islamic “terrorist groups” in the Middle East and Central Asia are their best customers. Given this, one would think that the IDF would have taken a bite out of their operations, but, to the contrary, the Jewish mob continues to function out of Israel with little interference.

Israeli estimates place the investment of the Jewish bosses in the Israeli economy at about $20 billion US dollars since the late 1970s. This might speak a little to the refusal of Israeli law enforcement to do anything about this. Further, the boss’ financing of the Chechen rebels throughout the 1990s protected the western owned pipelines the Russian government had its eye on. Significantly, mafia bosses have been involved in running less expensive weapons to the Georgian government, a government who harbors drug gangs throughout its mountainous and only semi-accessible Panskii Gorge.

According to the respected Stratfor.com research and intelligence organization, the Israeli government estimates that roughly 10% of all Jewish immigration to Israel is criminal, yet, little is done to stem this tide other than pious denunciations. Even more, the Israeli government has admitted that mafia money went to finance much of Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign for the Prime Ministership in 1996.

Back in 1995, the then-head of the FBI Louis Freeh claimed that the Russian-Jewish mafia was the “greatest threat the American security” in the world, though, several days later, he was forced to retract his statements according to the BBC. The Israelis might have several good reasons for not only harboring, but encouraging mafia activity within its borders.

First, the substantial Jewish investment in the global arms trade permits Israel to support rebel groups worldwide through mafia channels that otherwise would be credited to Israeli government policy. For example, Russian-Jewish mafia figures are financing the Darfur separatists in Sudan (though the agency of Ukrainian-Jewish boss Viktor Bout), and the Colombian communist FARC rebels through the agency of the greatest boss of them all, the Israeli Simon Mogilevich, who bought the Hungarian anti-aircraft factories in the early 1990s, as well as a chunk of the famous Sukhoi combat jet firm in Russia. Such red-handed deals with as Miami-based Ludwig “Tarzan” Fainberg’s attempt to supply the Cali cartel with Russian submarines some time ago might suggest a heavy hand in global arms sales.

The fact that the Israeli underworld could finance some of Georgia’s arms supplies permitted the Israeli’s plausible denial once the shooting started last Summer. Further more, the mob, in suppling weapons and even training to Central Asian Islamic groups might permit the Israeli’s a modicum of control over these groups. The Mossad itself admitted in the early 1990s that Mogilevich was deep within the IDF and the Israeli state, and by 1994, this master murderer and gangster was able to get an internationally recognized licence to sell and buy weapons on the open market. Apparently, Mogilevich was (and is) very important to the IDF as a subsidiary arms supplier.

As far as Israel itself is concerned, there are now hundreds of (legal) brothels in Israel featuring Slavic girls that, according to Fainberg, go for about $10,000 to $15,000 a piece. They are bought and sold by Russian-Jewish mafia figures and sent to Israel, America and Britain to work. As of this writing, no substantial effort from Tel Aviv has sought to stem this tide.

“Tarzan” Fainberg’s drug, weapons and slave trade with Tel Aviv, Kiev and St. Petersburg, in recent years, began using the comparatively free US-Canadian border for his transactions, financing the relatively new Toronto marijuana and cocaine fad. He was recently arrested by Canadian police and, without explanation, deported to Israel where he will continue his operations without interference. He apparently travels from Miami to Tel Aviv unhindered, and he brags that he has “ties” with the American FBI.

Hence, the Russian Jewish mafia is a “smoking gun” case linking American intelligence to international drugs and slavery, along with the Israeli government. At the same time, it also links these entities to the “Arab terror” groups operating throughout the world, who are the Israeli mafia’s top arms clients. In other words, it is not out of the question that the mafia ties the entire Anglo-Israeli complex together, linking the sexual revolution, pornography, weapons, slaves and drugs together with the apparent cooperation of the American FBI and the Israeli police services.

Since the ever-struggling Israeli economy has received investments by mob figures of a substantial percentage of GDP, it is unlikely that such figures will be brought to justice in any more than a symbolic way.

Hence, as of this writing, at least two of the big three Israeli-Russian crime figures have their base in Israel, the famed Sergei Mikhailov (who the media claims is not Jewish, but had no trouble gaining and keeping Israeli citizenship) and Ludwig “Tarzan” Fainberg. Mogilevich prefers the relative calm of Hungary, but also retains Israeli citizenship.





Pathocracy: Disease

25 02 2010

more about "Pathocracy: Disease", posted with vodpod





THE CITY OF LONDON and THE FABIAN SOCIETY: HISTORY and CURRENT PLANS

25 02 2010

THE CITY OF LONDON & THE FABIAN SOCIETY: HISTORY & CURRENT PLANS

Source: JOHN CHRISTIAN scribd.com

“We are at present working discreetly, but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.” Arnold Toynbee

A—The Basis of Local Government
B—City of London Corporation
C—The Beginning of Socialism in London
D—Fabian Society
E—Fabian Society “Five Year Plan”
F—Fabian Society Privatization of the World
G—Communist “Sustainable Development”
H—World Conservation Bank
I—Communist “SmartGrowth”
J—Pauperization of Pensioners and the Middle Class

A—THE BASIS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The modern system of local and regional government can be directly traced back to Babylon, when in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time (605-562 B.C.), the city was divided up into ten distinct regions or districts ruled by princes, under whom were mayoral governors, captains, judges, treasurers, councillors and sheriffs. In modern times the system of local government that we have throughout the world is derived exclusively from the City of London Corporation.

B—CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION

The City of London Corporation is a Masonic, private, independent, sovereign state occupying approximately one square mile within the heart of the greater London area inside the old Roman walls of London.

It either directly or indirectly, controls all mayors, councils, regional councils, multi- national and trans-national banks, corporations, judicial systems (through Old Bailey, Temple Bar and the Royal Courts of Justice in London), the IMF, World Bank, Vatican Bank (through N. M. Rothschild & Sons London Italian subsidiary Torlonia), European Central Bank, United States Federal Reserve (which is privately owned and secretly controlled by eight British- controlled shareholding banks), the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland (which is also British-controlled and oversees all of the Reserve Banks around the world including our own) and last but not least, the communist European Union and communist United Nations Organization.

The supreme ruler of the City is the Lord Mayor who is elected once a year and lives in the Mansion House. The City has a resident population of about 5,000 that rises to about two million during the week when people surge in and out each day to work.

The financial centre of the world, it is often termed the ‘wealthiest square mile on earth. ‘The full title of the Square Mile’s governing body is the ‘Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of the City of London in Common Council Assembled.’


Photo: The Lord Mayor 2006

The Court of leadership consists of the Lord Mayor, 25 Aldermen and 130 Common Councilmen.

All of the giant, largely Jewish international banks and corporations in the City of London that control the world are members of one or another of the Twelve Great Livery Companies domiciled in Guildhall (or the Hall of the City of London Corporation).

As the result of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the sovereign and the City merchants and bankers made many hundreds of years ago, the Lord Mayor is officially head of the Corporation and is allowed to operate independently of the sovereign. However, the wealth of the world held in the Corporation ultimately is the Sovereign’s, because, should the gentleman’s agreement break down, the sovereign has the power to “rescind” the Corporation’s independence.

The Queen sometimes refers to the Corporation as “The Firm.”

While ostensibly the power of the monarchy appears to be diminishing as the Queen voluntarily gives her Commonwealth countries their independence and they become republics chartered to the United Nations, and she actively works toward abolishing the sovereignty of Britain as the UK is broken up and divided into regions of the European Union her City of London Corporation multi-national banks and corporations are quietly taking over the world.

Photo: A statue of a heraldic dragon tops the present-day Temple Bar marker in front of the Royal Courts of Justice.

In ancient times the City marshals and sheriffs were employed to ensure that all the “council” rates and taxes were paid to the City on behalf of the king.

After the conquest of William the Conqueror in 1066, who first brought the Jewish bankers to London from France, the Jews developed written credit agreements for the king, (in French called “mort-gages” mort ‘death’gage ‘bond’) and it was the marshal’s and sheriff’s jobs to ensure that all the interest payments of these “deathbonds” were paid to the Jews on behalf of the king.

During the reign of Richard I (the Lionheart) after the serious downturn in the economy as the result of the cost and tax impositions of the Crusades, (read “Blondel’s Song” by David Boyle to understand how 25% of the wealth of England was required in standard Silver Ingots to free Richard the Lionheart from not Saladdin but the Holy Roman Emperor!”) Many farmers, business people and peasants had defaulted on their “mort-gages” throughout England.

As the result, the Jews promptly commenced seizing the commoner’s property for not paying the interest, rates and taxes to the City and King.

Subsequently, a rapid increase in hate against the “King’s Jews” was initiated. This led to the massacre of Jews at York in 1190. New York in America was later named by British Jewish immigrant bankers in memory of the event.

For 100 years the commoner’s hate against the “King’s Jews” fermented until 1290, when, under pressure from the people, Edward III finally suspended the Mayoralty and reluctantly banished all Jews from his kingdom when 16,000 left England and didn’t begin to return until around the reign of Elizabeth I 1558-1603) when the enormous power of the City really began to accelerate with the opening of the world’s first stock exchange in London and has continued unabated to the present day.

While there have been rare occasions when the Lord Mayor and Commalty of the City, as a result of their colossal wealth and power have been able to subtly out-manoeuvre the monarch, as to their cost, Richard II, Charles I and James II were to learn to their fate generally speaking this has been the exception rather than the rule.

Ultimately, whoever successfully rules must have the “will” of the people. Historically, in the City many although certainly not all monarchs, have ruled with the “will” of their subjects.

But rarely, if ever, have the bankers, rich barons or knights been respected in this position.

More often than not they’ve been consistently hated.

Even when monarchs have done a poor job, provided they have still had the “will” of the people, the wealthy bankers’ position has been extremely “perilous” to say the least.

After forty years of misrule by Henry III, the Lord Mayor, Thomas Fitzthomas (1261- 1264) and the Aldermen defied the king.

On this particular occasion the Lord Mayor ended up being thrown into the Tower where he died.

Henry III vetoed nine Mayors in his long reign, and jailed another who died in prison.

On one occasion the threat to the Lord Mayor’s massive wealth and power has not come directly from the monarch, but from the people themselves.

Mayor Nicholas Brembre (1383-1385) had been a king’s man during the peasant’s revolt, and was knighted by Richard II for curbing the ambitions of his uncle, John of Gaunt.

But Brembre had few friends among the common people having deposed the popular Mayor Adam Stable, and when he re-imposed the hated Poll Tax which had caused the revolt, the mob turned on him.

He was given a mockery of a trial and was then hanged, drawn and quartered. Understandably, therefore, from the time of Richard II most of the “Lord Mayors” in the City of London and others in the realm became very “cautious” and “hesitant” about any proposal which could be seen as an “unreasonable demand” to levy rates or taxes for the City and king.

However, today these events have all but been forgotten. From the time of William the Conqueror in 1066 up to the time of the Reformation the City of London Corporation was Roman Catholic.

(The modern global “company” and “corporate” business system that we know today grew out of the old Roman Catholic dioceses in England which were the world’s first “corporations”).

During the reigns of Henry VIII (1491-1547) and Elizabeth I (1558-1603) when the Church of England, knights and barons took over the assets of the Catholic Church in England, the City then became Protestant.

Gradually, as the people of England apostatized and turned away from the Protestant King James Bible and Christianity in general, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, in the late 1800′s the City and Monarchy became rabidly Socialist.

C—THE BEGINNING OF SOCIALISM IN LONDON

The religion of Socialism is based primarily on the teachings of the pagan Greek philosopher and writer Plato, and especially his book The Republic, in which 400 years before the time of Christ he dreamed of a “World Republic” headed not by a president, but by a royal “world philosopher king” or “prince” like himself of course!).

Both Karl Marx and Hitler were great students of Plato. It is only inevitable that the planned reformed United Nations and EU will one day be headed by this “Philosopher Prince”.

Socialism officially first began in 1880 in London when H. M. Hyndman founded the Rose Street Club which was dedicated to the destruction of Christianity in England.
In 1884 the group changed its name and came to be called the Social Democratic Federation.

Its early members deceptively called themselves “Christian Socialists”. Later the group’s membership included the Jew, Karl Marx’s daughter, Eleanor Marx
and her husband Professor Aveling. Behind the scenes the group was largely controlled by Engels, Karl Marx’s partner.

Because Hyndman would not obey the orders of Engels, Eleanor Marx and her husband split off with William Morris the poet and others and started an opposition group which they called the Socialist League.

On January 4, 1884, members and past members of the Social Democratic Federation, the Socialist League and others founded the Fabian Society.

D—FABIAN SOCIETY

The first meeting of the Fabian Society was held at the home of Mr. E. R. Pease, a member of the London Stock Exchange.

Two of the leading members were George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb.

Other early members were Eleanor Marx, theosophist and occultist Annie Besant, and author H. G. Wells.

The name of the society was suggested by the Spiritualist, Frank Podmore, who named it after the brilliant, elderly, third century Roman general, censor and consul, Quintus Fabius (Maximus Verrucosus 303-203 BC) who was made a dictator in 221-217 BC and, with his small band of fighting guerrillas and superior cunning, successfully defended Rome by defeating Hannibal’s much bigger and mighty Carthaginian army through “gradualism” and “terrorism” during the time of the second Punic War.

Initially he kept to the hills and cunningly hampered the enemy’s progress by cutting off their food and supply lines with “delaying tactics” until Rome could assemble enough men to defend the city successfully.

During the war, his slow, “gradual,” delaying tactics were greatly disapproved of by his soldiers and the civilians and earned him the name of ‘Cunctator’ the ‘Delayer.’
But later, after the triumph, his skill and wisdom was highly appreciated. He died in his 100th year in 203 BC.

The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists take your house by directly sending in the “secret police” to knock your front door down Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly by “gradually” taking your individual rights away, by “gradually” increasing property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can’t pay them, they send in their regional “council tax inspectors” to take your house away but the end result is the same.

British PM Tony Blair and President George Bush Junior’s globalist “war on terror” is a classic Fabian Socialist strategy.

The philosophy of the Fabian Society was written in 1887 and included the statement: “The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism the abolition of private property etc.” (Of course this does not apply to the elect oligarchy at the top who end up owning the lot!).

Fabian Socialism is a “mixture” of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism all bundled together.

However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle. Sidney and Beatrice Webb published a book of 1143 pages in defense of Bolshevism. It was entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.

In April 1952 the Webbs were exposed before a US Senate Committee on the judiciary when Soviet Colonel I. M. Bogolepov, a former Red Army officer stated that the entire text had been prepared by himself in the Soviet Foreign Office. Appropriately, the defiant coat of arms of the Fabian Society (commissioned by author/playwright co-founder George Bernard Shaw) today (now archived) is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Until recently it also appeared on the Fabian glass window (now removed) in the Beatrice Webb House at Dorking, Surrey. Today the Fabian Society is among other things the intellectual wing of the British Labour Party.

Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was Chairman of the Fabian Society.

Since the 1997 British general election there have been around 200 Fabian MP’s in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost entire Labour Cabinets including Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan Milburn and Clare Short.

Headed by Tony Blair, Fabians now dominate the entire British government.

They are resident in all parties and sit on all important select committees, commissions and organizations allied to the government.

A good web-site on the subject is: www.lindsayjenkins.com/

The Fabian Society literally controls the European Union. German-born Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston since 1997, and member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, was one of two House of Commons’ Representatives on the European Convention and a member of the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The Presidium was the drafting body that created the draft Constitution for Europe. In her book, The Making of Europe’s Constitution, published in December 2003 by the Fabian Society, p. 20-21, Gisela writes: “In the early months, the Presidium members would meet in a small room in the Justus Lipsius Building some fifteen minute walk from the European Parliament.

Attendance was limited to the thirteen members, the Secretary General Sir John Kerr, his deputy and the press officer. Sir John Kerr, a former Permanent Secretary of the British Foreign Office, conducted the proceedings inside the Presidium and in the plenary sessions of the Convention with deft diplomatic skill as might be expected from someone who John Major called ‘Machiavelli’ in his autobiography.

The best description of his talents I heard was: ‘When Kerr comes up to you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?’

On several occasions, we would retreat to the Val Duchess a small palace used by the Belgian foreign minister. It was at one of the dinners at Val Duchess that the skeleton of the draft constitution was given to members of the presidium in sealed brown envelopes the weekend before the public presentation.

We were not allowed to take the documents away with us.

Just precisely who drafted the skeleton, and when, is still unclear to me, but I gather much of the work was done by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Sir John Kerr over the summer.

There was little time for informed discussion, and even less scope for changes to be made.”

There is another important idea, a method more than a principle which becomes closely associated with Fabianism.

Sydney Webb called it ‘permeation.’ Today it would be called ‘consensus.’ Webb put it this way. Most reformers think that all they have to do in a political democracy is to obtain a majority. This is a profound mistake.

What has to be changed is not only the vote that is cast, but also the mental climate in which Parliament and Government both live and work.

That I find to be an accurate description of the approach I and my colleagues have tried to bring to the affairs of the nation in our first term of office.”

In the last century, members of the British Fabian Society dynastic banking families in the City of London financed the Communist takeover of Russia.

Trotsky in his biography refers to some of the loans from these British financiers going back as far as 1907.

By 1917 the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution were co- ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner.

E—FABIAN SOCIETY “FIVE YEAR PLAN”

The British plan to take over the world and bring in a “New World Order” began with the teachings of John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University.

Rhodes in one of his wills in 1877 left his vast fortune to Lord Nathan Rothschild as trustee to set up the Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford to indoctrinate promising young graduates for the purpose, and also establish a secret society for leading business and banking leaders around the world who would work for the City to bring in their Socialist world government.

Rothschild appointed Lord Alfred Milner to implement the plan. At first the society was called Milner’s Kindergarten, then in 1909 it came to be called The RoundTable. It was to work closely with the London School of Economics founded in 1894 by
Fabian Socialist leader Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield).

Today former Rhodes Scholars (such as Bill Clinton), Fabian Business RoundTable members, and graduates from the London School of Economics (the primary Fabian Socialist training school in the world) dominate the global banking, business and political systems in every country.

The British Fabian Society plan to takeover the world by the City of London financial community was first published in a book entitled “All These Things” by a New Zealand author and journalist, A. N. Field.

The book was first published in 1936 by Omni Publications in the United States (and censored in New Zealand). The document, called “Freedom and Planning” was secretly circulated in 1932 by the inner councils of the members of the Political Economic Plan, otherwise known as “P.E.P.” in London.

The then chairman of the organization was a City of London Jew, Israel Moses Sieff, who was the reputed author of the plan.

The headquarters of P.E.P. were at 16 Queen Anne’s Gate, London.

Mr Sieff was also chairman and financier of Marks and Spencer’s’ chain stores and vice-president of the British Zionist Society.

Similar to the experiment carried out in the in the USSR, the whole world would eventually be transferred into a Communist “United Nations” World Soviet Socialist Republic, where each country would be “regionalized” and ruled through “Regional Councils” through a United Nations dictatorship called a “Parliamentary Assembly” which would be just another name for a Soviet “Central Committee” and all independent, sovereign, national governments would be totally abolished.

Centred around City of London Jewry’s international financiers in the Bank of England subsidiary, the Bankers Industrial Development Company, the essence of the document “Freedom and Planning” was (and still is) to gradually “Sovietize” the world based on their “Five Year Plan” inaugurated in Moscow in 1927-28 in the Soviet Union.

Basically the plan involved the subtle transfer of the entire productive capacity of each country throughout the world into a series of great “State-owned” departments, which would then be “corporatized”, then “privatized” to City of London Corporation International banks and corporations which they control.

Individual property ownership would be severely restricted, with most of the land, sea, fisheries, rivers, lakes, ports, railways, communications, media, roads, electricity, energy, food, water, waste management, housing, farms, commercial property, schools, hospitals, police, social welfare, Inland Revenue etc. transferred into statutory corporations, companies or land trusts which indirectly would be owned by City of London banks.

The “peasants” would still be allowed to own their own clothes, and small assets like furniture, cars and boats etc., but the main assets of each country would be owned by their multi-national corporations and banks.

In essence the City of London Corporation would become the “One World Earth Corporation” and would privately own the world.

Similar to the experiment carried out in the in the USSR, the whole world would eventually be transferred into a Communist “United Nations” World Soviet Socialist Republic, where each country would be “regionalized” and ruled through “Regional Councils” through a United Nations dictatorship called a “Parliamentary Assembly” which would be just another name for a Soviet “Central Committee” and all independent, sovereign, national governments would be totally abolished.

F—FABIAN SOCIETY PRIVATIZATION OF THE WORLD

As the result of the P.E.P. Plan originally formulated in 1932, right now every country’s “State assets” (owned in trust by the State on behalf of the people) are being frantically “privatized” by City of London-controlled banks and corporations primarily under the directions of two leading Fabian Socialist writers Sir Roger Douglas and John Redwood.

Sir Roger Douglas’s book “Unfinished Business” and John Redwood’s book “Public Enterprise in Crisis” are the primary handbooks being used by central and local government finance ministers and officers all around the world to sell off each nation’s “family silver” and State assets with the more “sensitive” public assets being transferred into Fascist-type Public-Private Partnerships (PPP’s) which are designed to make the public masses and peasantry “think” that they have some degree of control when in reality they have none as the real ownership of the assets are held by the City of London banks and corporations who fund them.

Until relatively recently, John Redwood was head of N. M. Rothschild & Sons London global Overseas Privatization Unit that is coordinating the entire global privatization process.

Sir Roger has been contracted as a consultant by City of London Banks, the World Bank and others to advise on national privatization programs as well.

Fabian Society “Regionalization” of the World through UN and EU Control of Regional and City Councils.

All of the countries in the world currently are being “regionalized”.

Presently, for example, the whole of the United States is being “regionalized” and the EU Committee of the Regions, based in Brussels, is “regionalizing” every country in the European Union.

As the result of this radical “regionalization” process, Britain has now already been effectively abolished, having been divided up into 9 separate regions of the EU, plus Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This cunning process, which is being “gradually” implemented to destroy the power of the central national government in each country, is commonly referred to as “Devolution” by the Queen and Fabian Society.

Unlike the rest of the autonomous regions in the UK which, like most of the other regions in the EU that have become virtually powerless through their representation in the European Parliament which is now only a “talking shop”, the City of London Corporation as a separate region by itself within the Union now rules it.

This is because all of the Commissioners are appointed (not elected) to the European Commission by City of London-controlled business leaders and bankers in their respective countries.

Right now throughout the UK all city councils and regional councils are dramatically increasing their rate demand on their constituent’s properties, while at the same time they are quickly expanding their debt levels for unaffordable capital works programs via loans from City of London banks which policies are deliberately intended to prepare for the councils’ “privatization” whilst transferring the local government in each country to “regional councils” which ultimately will become or be controlled by “Regional Parliamentary Assemblies,” identical to the old structure in the former Soviet Union which first regionalized then abolished the national governments before they set up their republican socialist police state.

G—COMMUNIST “SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT”

In 1992 at the “communist” United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, co-chaired by former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and N. M. Rothschild-London agent Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong, the UN unveiled a radical environmental philosophical agenda which “inverted” the traditional values reflected in the Bible, Magna Carta and US Constitution (which put man under God at the head of his creation and dominion i.e. a man’s rights were to have superiority over those of animals, fish, plants, trees and forests etc.)

At the Earth Summit in Rio, an old pagan concept was introduced which “inverted” all of our existing, constitutional, democratic, personal and property rights and values espoused by Christianity and transferred them to the environment and the religion of mother-earth Gaia worship.

In this religion, a tree becomes more valuable than a human being. A rare bird more valuable than a hospital. This United Nations program of action unveiled in Rio was called Agenda 21. It is 300 pages long and is very complex.

Primarily it is designed to be implemented with other radical UN documents such as the Global Biodiversity Assessment (1100 pages), promoted by the UN Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II.

The first Habitat conference was held in 1974 and specifically identified private property ownership as a threat to the peace and equality of the environment.
It proposed to revolutionize the development of the land and cities of each country under strict “Soviet-style” environmental guidelines, called “Sustainable Development.”

The UN’s communist secret agenda through “environmentalism” and “sustainable development” is very cunning and has deceived a lot of well-meaning people.
Most people genuinely want to protect the environment and ensure that the earth’s resources are “sustainable” for future generations there is no doubt.

But the communist goal of “sustainable development” and “environmentalism” has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment or sustainability it is all about abolition of property rights, and ultimately, collectivization of housing and farms under corporate State control.

Under this system, farmers and property owner’s rights would be effectively extinguished and overridden by strict Environmental and Sustainable Development resource consents and laws.

They would be told where they could farm, what “sustainable” land they could “develop,” (sustainable development) what trees they could plant or cut down, what fertilizer if any they could apply, and they would need “consents” and licenses for everything under the sun.

City dwellers would be in the same dire predicament, and have their homes confiscated, or they’d be severely fined, if they cut down a heritage tree, washed their car, boat or dishes using detergent, or used the privatized corporation’s water when they shouldn’t, especially if they were nabbed under their friendly “Neighbourhood Watch Scheme,” which scheme, incidentally, was first implemented in the Soviet Union.

Socialism is very subtle.

The penalty for cutting a tree down without the appropriate government consent would become worse than murder.

Not only would you have to license your dog, to own a dog you would have to be licensed too.

Farmers would need to be licensed to operate their collectivized farms, spray weeds, care for cattle and drive their tractors under new Soviet-styled “health and safety” laws.

All tradesmen and professional workers would have to be accredited and licensed, as would all Christian pastors and churches, and any other persons or institutions that could be likely to criticize their Soviet bosses.

All potential young parents would need to have a license to have children, and if there was any family genetic weakness of some sort in their state-controlled doctor’s medical records, no license would be given.

In the end you would need a license or permit to take your boat on a lake, take your kid fishing off a wharf, or travel between towns or cities.
In other words full-blown Marxism.

The United Nations policy of “Sustainable Development” introduced in 1992 at the UNCED at Rio de Janeiro, and implemented through Habitat II and the UN World Commission on Environment and Development is taken directly from the USSR Constitution, chapter 2, article 18, which reads:

“In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.”

Not only was N. M. Rothschild agent, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN 1992 Rio Earth Summit, he personally worked with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint three of his own Earth Charter Commissioners to the 12-man advisory panel of the Johannesburg Summit.

H—WORLD CONSERVATION BANK

In September 1987, the 4th World Wilderness Congress was held in Denver, Colorado, USA, which established the World Conservation Bank.

The congress was setup by none other than London’s (late) Baron Edmond de Rothschild, chairman of Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild, Geneva, Switzerland, and one of the trustees of the International Wilderness Foundation that sponsored the conference.

Approximately 1500 of the world’s most powerful bankers and leaders attended the congress, which was chaired by Rothschild agent and Canadian multi billionaire, Maurice Strong.

At the congress, Edmond de Rothschild designated eminent financier I. Michael Sweatman to be the first president of the World Conservation Bank. Sweatman wrote the forward of the banks charter.

Leading insiders of the biggest banks and UN agencies in the world were present, including Maurice Strong “Mr Sustainable,” David Rockefeller head of the ChaseManhattan Bank “Mr Development” and Mr David Ruckleshaus head of the UN Environmental Protection Agency “Mr Environment” of course!

The World Conservation Bank is destined to become the final World Bank and the “de-coupling mechanism” for City of London parent banks to take over the assets of every country of the world.

The essence of their secret plan is this: After an orchestrated period of global financial chaos triggered by a major war in the Middle East or man-made state of emergency or natural disaster, in which most of the world’s banks will be deliberately collapsed in the process, (wiping everybody’s savings out in the crash), key City of London banking parent creditors, are going to take over all the “mort-gages” (death-bonds) and assets of the world, and transfer them to the World Conservation Bank.

The plan is very esoteric and cunning, and very difficult for most to understand. Already most government treasury departments are preparing for such an event.
As part of the preparation for this momentous event, all of the world’s individual currencies are to be merged into two or three major currency groups, two of which are the euro and US dollar.

Finally, these currencies are to be replaced with the World Conservation Bank’s new electronic global currency, the “Earth Dollar.”

This new currency is deceptively to be issued against the collateral of 34 percent of the Earth’s surface that is presently being transferred into huge UN Heritage Parks and Conservation areas in every country across the globe, under the crafty deception “Sustainable Development.”

In short, the biggest banking conspiracy and deception ever to face mankind!

George W. Hunt, (95 Camino Basque, Boulder, Colorado 80302, U.S.A.), a US businessman, attended the congress and produced a video about it exposing their wicked and incredibly deceptive plans. On his video he plays excerpts of key speeches recorded at the congress.

One such speech was made by David Lang, a leading US financier and close personal friend and business partner of Maurice Strong, who said: “When the auditor finally gets his hands into the balance sheet, I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder unfortunately which populates the earth. We have to take an almost elitist program that we can see beyond our swollen bellies and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some sort of simplistic definition.”

“CANNON-FODDER!” this is what these leading, arrogant, banking conspirators of the UN “Sustainable Development,” “SmartGrowth,” and World Conservation policies think of the world general population.

THESE are the wicked men that all the millions and millions of naïve local/central government politicians and business leaders throughout the world are now following.

I—COMMUNIST “SMARTGROWTH”

The main business facilitators and organizations of the UN Sustainable Development policies in the Asia-Pacific Region are the Pacific Rim Institute of Sustainable Management, the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Melbourne-based Sustainable Investment Research Group (SIRIS).

Equity in this group, SIRIS, coincidentally, is held by IOOF Funds Management and broking house JBWere that provide research for N.M. Rothschild & Sons’ Ethical Share Trust based in London.

The 1995 session the United Nations General Assembly passed a number of rules. Rule 61, 62 and 63 gave local government, civil organizations and private citizens the right to participate directly in the development and implementation of these documents. Directed by the IMF, World Bank, UN, and Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum, the philosophy of “sustainable development” basically says that there are too many people on planet earth and there are not enough resources to go around.

What we need to do is urgently reduce the population, preserve, conserve, and “ration” the remaining resources and that the United Nations is the only body that can do it.

The World Bank already has a huge statistical database on countries and individuals what they produce and what resources they consume, water, energy, food, raw materials, heat, waste, health, social services etc.

If the net figure is a plus, they are considered to be good productive world citizens. If it is a negative, they are in line for liquidation. These are all basically the same old Socialist/Communist ideas as the “Marxist/Leninist” philosophy and “planned economy” that permeated the old Soviet Union.

In 1992 at Rio, another key “Soviet-styled” strategy proposed by the Agenda 21 Programme of Action from the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) was “SmartGrowth.”

This agenda can be found in a UN companion book called “Global Biodiversity Assessment” published by Cambridge University Press.

It proposes to model all the cities of the world on the Israel Moses Seif P.E.P plan, and the “planned” economic system of development used by Lenin and Stalin under the old Communist Soviet system of local government. The UN “SmartGrowth” legislation in the United States was first passed in the State of Maryland in March 1997. Since then, it has been gradually introduced by city and district councils all around the worl. Of course, rarely if ever will you hear of the policy coming from a foul brood of UN international bankers. While virtually all of the general public are oblivious of this fact, usually individual councils will be happy to credit themselves as authors of the plans.

J—PAUPERIZATION OF PENSIONERS AND THE MIDDLE CLASS

Just as there is a “close relationship” between the remuneration rises of leading local body politicians with the overall level of council rate-rise demand, so there is a “close relationship” between the level of council rate-rise impositions and the financial status of people living in each council ward or constituency. The Fabian bankers already “own” the properties held by ratepayers with a “mort-gage” on them.

This includes all private homes, farms, businesses and commercial property, local and central government debt. All young people with student loans and welfare beneficiary groups also come under this category. By and large central bankers believe this group is not a worry as they are already under their strict control and firmly in their grip through welfare dependency or mort-gage “death-bond” fealty. But the one group that Fabian Socialists hate the most are the “freehold” property-owners. Hence, this group, more often than not, is the “middle class” that is predominantly comprised of middle-aged citizens and more particularly pensioners who are generally the most asset-rich.

As a result of this phenomenon, all global residential property taxation and ratepayer tax policies are now being subtly targeted against these particular groups to confiscate all their properties. Essentially the Fabian City of London banks envisage this to be achieved through a variety of measures.





India/Pakistan Talks Begin and End

25 02 2010

[How much progress could have been made in 5 hours?  That was not much time to talk about peace, but probably plenty of time to make threats or ultimatums.  Let us hope that the next phase will show some promise to the war-weary world, which hungers for a few years of peace.]

Indo-Pak foreign secretary talks begin

Updated at: 1045 PST, Thursday, February 25, 2010 

NEW DELHI: The foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan met Thursday in New Delhi for the first official talks between the rivals since the 2008 Mumbai attacks which derailed their peace dialogue.
The Pakistani delegation, comprising eight members, is headed by Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir.
Earlier, talking to media before the commencement of talks, Salman Bashir said all longstanding issues including Kashmir Row, Terrorism, Water Distribution, Insurgency in Balochistan and others will come under discussion.
He said terrorism is an international menace, which needs to be encountered at all levels.
The spokesman to Foreign Office Abdul Basit, on the occasion, said no agenda has been set for the talks therefore every issues will be discussed.
He said we are going to hold talks with a positive approach, adding that Pakistan has shown seriousness in taking concrete actions against accused of Mumbai attacks.
Later, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao shook hands with her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir at a former princely palace in the centre of the Indian capital.
"I welcome the foreign secretary of Pakistan Salman Bashir to New Delhi this morning and I look forward to our talks," Rao told reporters.
India broke off a slow-moving peace process with Pakistan after the attacks on Mumbai in November 2008, which left 166 people dead. New Delhi blamed militants based in Pakistan.
Bashir said he looked forward "to a very good, constructive engagement".

 

Pak- India foreign secretary talks conclude

Updated at: 1400 PST, Thursday, February 25, 2010 

NEW DELHI: A meeting of the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan has concluded here on Thursday.
Sources said Pakistan has focused on Kashmir issue along with issues of terrorism, Balochistan and water in the delegation level talks held at the Hyderabad House here.
India’s Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao raised the issue of terrorism and urged to speed up the action against those involved in Mumbai attacks. India also handed over more evidences to Pakistani delegation.
The Pakistani delegation comprised Afrasiab, director-general of the South Asia division and a former deputy high commissioner to India, Pakistan’s High Commissioner Shahid Malik, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit and other senior officials.
Earlier, one-on-one meeting was held between Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and his Indian counterpart Nirupama Rao at the historic Hyderabad House.
Talking to media before the commencement of talks, Salman Bashir said all longstanding issues including Kashmir, terrorism, water distribution; insurgency in Balochistan and others will come under discussion.
He said terrorism is an international menace, which needs to be encountered at all levels.
The spokesman to Foreign Office Abdul Basit, on the occasion, said no agenda has been set for the talks therefore every issues will be discussed.
He said we are going to hold talks with a positive approach, adding that Pakistan has shown seriousness in taking concrete actions against accused of Mumbai attacks.
The Pakistani delegation will also call on National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon, a former foreign secretary and a former Indian envoy to Islamabad, on Thursday evening. On Friday morning, the Pakistanis will call on External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna before heading back to Islamabad.
The Pakistani delegation comprised Afrasiab, director-general of the South Asia division and a former deputy high commissioner to India, Pakistan’s High Commissioner Shahid Malik, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit and other senior officials.





Syria Resents Hariri’s Remarks, Demands Explanation which Prompted Saudi Intervention

25 02 2010

In the Spotlight

Syria Resents Hariri’s Remarks, Demands Explanation which Prompted Saudi Intervention

A new crisis loomed between Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Syrian President Bashar Assad after recent remarks made by Hariri in which he compared Lebanese-Syrian relations with those that prevailed during Saddam Hussein’s era between Iraq and Kuwait.

A new crisis loomed between Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Syrian President Bashar Assad after recent remarks made by Hariri in which he compared Lebanese-Syrian relations with those that prevailed during Saddam Hussein’s era between Iraq and Kuwait.
Hariri said Syria had rejected diplomatic ties with Lebanon.

“Syrian behavior was similar to the one that existed between Iraq and Kuwait when former President Saddam Hussein refused to recognize Kuwait,” Hariri said in a recent interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

Syria has reportedly expressed dismay about Hariri’s remarks.

Damascus’ criticism indicated the start of a confidence crisis, the first since Hariri’s visit to Syria last Dec. 19 ties frozen after the 2005 assassination of his father, ex-PM Rafik Hariri.

Syria has had strained ties with both France and the United States since Hariri’s assassination in a massive Beirut car bombing.

Lebanon accused Syria of orchestrating the attack, one of a string targeting its critics in Lebanon.

Syria repeatedly denied the charge but two months later withdrew its troops from Lebanon, ending three decades of domination of its small neighbor.

Damascus is seeking clarification from Hariri which considered his remarks “insult” to both Lebanon and Syria.

The daily As-Safir on Thursday quoted well-informed Lebanese sources as saying that what has been expressed by the Syrian press came a day after a telephone conversation between Assad and Hariri in which the Syrian president admonished Hariri for his “verbal expressions that do not help to create a new atmosphere in relations between the two countries.”

The sources said high-level contacts between Saudi Arabia and Syria have recently been undertaken in this regard.

They said Riyadh was in the picture of Hariri’s decision to visit Syria for a second time before end of February.

However, no follow-up efforts have been taken by the Lebanese side in this regard for unknown reasons, As-Safir said.

The Syrian newspaper Al-Watan had quoted high-ranking Syrian sources as expressing dismay about Hariri’s remarks published in Corriere della Sera last Sunday.

The Syrian sources said that history and facts reveal that the late President Hafez al-Assad recognized Lebanon since the seventies, “but no one in Lebanon requested diplomatic relations with Syria in a formal or an informal way.”

They said the first to demand diplomatic ties between the two countries was Bashar Assad during a 2005 meeting of the Syrian-Lebanese Higher Council that was attended by the then President Emile Lahoud, Speaker Nabih Berri and former PM Omar Karami.





Combating the Disinformation, Psyops, and Cover-ups of the US Military

25 02 2010

[SEE: U.S. VETERAN REVEALS ATOMIC BOMBS PART I U.S. VETERAN REVEALS ATOMIC BOMBS PART II ; U.S. VETERAN REVEALS ATOMIC BOMBS PART III]

Combating the Disinformation, Psyops, and Cover-ups of the US Military

A Scrape in the Teflon US Military Propaganda: Interview with Captain Eric H. May

by Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri

February 24, 2010

Few people have heard of the Battle of Baghdad. They might remember Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraq’s information minister, warning of a surprise awaiting U.S. troops if they attacked Saddam International Airport. Later, al-Sahhaf claimed that the Iraqi Republican Guard had slaughtered U.S. troops and was in control of the entire airport. His claims, according to one intelligence officer, were true, but were countered by a US military-media campaign of evasions and distortions which switched the subject from the airport to Private Jessica Lynch and ridiculed al-Sahhaf as “Baghdad Bob.”

What came to be called the Battle of Baghdad Cover-Up (BOBCUP), was an illegal deception of the American people, as well as a desecration of the military men who had fought and died only to be pushed into the memory hole by Big Brother Bush. Captain Eric H. May, a former U.S. Army intelligence and public affairs officer, responded by investigating and confirming BOBCUP, which he reported to an Army Inspector General and to a corporate media that were both cowed and complicit. Realizing that the entire US establishment was dedicated to waging a criminal global war and erecting an oppressive homeland state, Capt. May honored his military oath “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” He formed and assumed command of a cyber intelligence group, which he named Ghost Troop to honor the unacknowledged ghosts from the Battle of Baghdad. Before long the unit swelled to several hundred members, including veterans of all services, as well as a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy and a U.S. ambassador.

Initially, Ghost Troop’s mission was to penetrate the propaganda of the corporate media, government, and military; and to provide essential information being withheld to the American people. Shortly after the Madrid bombing of 3/11, 2004, Capt. May and his chief officers determined that Madrid had been a “false flag” terrorist act carried out by the pro-war Spanish government in an attempt to turn the war weary Spanish people into hawks. They reasoned that the 9/11 attacks, which achieved the same purpose in the USA, were also false flag terrorism. Finally, they agreed that the U.S. government was routinely telling the public that there “was going to be another 9/11″ because it meant to administer it. With grim humor, Ghost Troop began to refer to this future false flag as “9/11-2B.” Using their military and media savvy to frustrate the 9/11-2B false flag became their second mission, and consumed most of their efforts.

Those who know Capt. May well consider his unique mission of conscience to be the stuff of legend. The Lone Star Iconoclast in Central Texas has long demanded that Congress investigate his uncanny ability to warn the Internet about false flag dangers: he has forecast petrochemical refinery explosions in Southeast Texas, each of which may have been a foiled terror attack, six times. He exposed a US WMD team that had infiltrated the Texas City refinery area in February 2006. Publisher W. Leon Smith credits him with saving the Republic by his leadership of Ghost Troop to prevent 9/11-2B.1

There is a growing movement in the 9/11 “truth” and patriot movements to press for Congress to award him the nation’s highest military honor. Shortly after the publication of the Iconoclast editorial, Dr. James H. Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a close collaborator and friend of the captain’s gave voice to many with his glowing accolade: “This is a completely brilliant and fully justified recommendation, which I wholeheartedly support. I have not admired anyone during my life as much as I have Captain May. He is a superb analyst and remarkable human being.”

Capt. May was a vibrant, fit man — a martial arts expert — when he began to lead Ghost Troop. He was constantly under threat from the military, the FBI and various national police and intelligence agencies. He was mysteriously stricken with ALS, commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig’s disease, subsequent to his dissidence. Despite the advanced condition of the disease, Capt. May, now a paralyzed disabled veteran, was good enough to partake in the following interview.2

*****Kim Petersen: I first became acquainted with you when you responded toDissident Voice pulling an article on damning revelations about US military atrocities in Iraq made by a purported Army Ranger, Jesse Macbeth. However, Iraq Veterans Against the War disavowed backing Macbeth, and the veracity of Mr. Macbeth’s claims of service in the US Army were questioned. Lacking substantiation of Mr. Macbeth’s claims DV pulled the article. Other media outlets followed suit. You decried this as Arab a “hideous failure of American journalism.” Do you see still Macbeth as a victim of “swiftboating”?

Captain May: In a word, yes. Jesse Macbeth is a perfect example of a crucial dissident voice who had both courage and a vital message. An Arab-American radio show host, Dr. Hesham Tillawi of Arab Voices asked me to review the Macbeth tape just before the swiftboat attacks began, and it seemed absolutely credible to me, a veteran of four decades of military service. Macbeth was specific in terminology, tactics and training. He was also specific about Middle East geography, lifestyle, habits and attitude. There had already been two local Arizona mainstream media stories about him — neither previously challenged — as a war veteran. He had already been drawing benefits from the Veterans Administration without difficulty, meaning that the military considered him much more than a training washout, the story with which they later attacked him.

When Iraq Veterans Against the War failed to support him, it was because an IVAW administrator, Amanda Braxton, a lifelong civilian, had been buffaloed by the best swiftboating attack since the presidential election of 2004. It was led by men whose records in special operations, propaganda and Republican war rallying made them seem more like mercenaries than media. When I interviewed Braxton, and she admitted that she had been frightened into turning on Macbeth. Further, she mentioned that his IVAW cohorts had never doubted that he was a war veteran. This was the best evidence of all that he was on the level.

Given my familiarity with the military system, I made calls all the way to the top level of the Army requesting confirmation from the official record supporting swiftboater claims that Macbeth had never seen the war — and found that the Army was trying to dodge any comment about him. Yes, Macbeth was swiftboated because his message was that we were using SS-style tactics against Middle Eastern Muslims — something the Middle East is well aware of. The alternative media chickened out on a crucial story, allowing the mainstream media and political establishment to cover it up. I wrote an article about it before moving on to other critical stories:

Updating a War Crime Witness: Jesse Macbeth,” Ghost Troop Archive, June 2006.

KP: I had heard about the Battle of Baghdad at Tehran’s airport from my colleague BJ Sabri, where reportedly US troops had suffered many losses, but you are the first person I know to have reported about it online. You wrote that it was kept from public consciousness, “hidden under the distraction story of Private Jessica Lynch.” The Battle of Baghdad still has not emerged into public consciousness. Why do you think this is so?

Capt.: In Ghost Troop, we never left the cover-up unchallenged. In early April of 2007, as the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Baghdad approached, The Lone Star Iconoclast published an interview with me updating my research on the cover-up. A few days later Al Jazeera published an interview with Iraqi General Al-Rawi, who had commanded Saddam’s forces at the airport. A few weeks later the U.S. Congress held hearings about media and military failure to report the truth from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the cases of Pvt. Jessica Lynch and Cpl. Pat Tillman. I believe that Ghost Troop and theIconoclast gave Al Jazeera and Congress the encouragement they needed to do as much as they did. I believe that the continuing cover-up by the mainstream and alternative media goes far to demonstrate that they are in large part controlled by the same pro-war establishment that has orchestrated everything from 9/11 to the present to turn the American dream of security into the Muslim nightmare of invasion.

BJ Sabri: There were many published emails that you wrote where you defend the right for information and to find out the truth, at least about the Battle of Baghdad; now, if that is the case, and since you were a material witness to history, and since many accounts confirm that the United States used a neutron bomb to the end the battle that cost the US military dearly, I ask you a very precise question: Did the United States use such a neutron bomb in Iraq?

Capt.: When the Battle of Baghdad occurred, I was at home in Texas, my active duty military days behind me, watching events on CNN. At that point I knew that something catastrophic had happened in Saddam International Airport, but I had no idea that it was something nuclear. Over the next couple of years I received many reports from both Arab and Western witnesses that we had used a neutron warhead. It wasn’t until I reached the anti-war Camp Casey outside George W. Bush’s Texas headquarters in Crawford in 2005 that I spoke with numerous witnesses together. They included Army and Marine veterans of the Battle of Baghdad, Arab witnesses and journalists. All their accounts, taken together, convinced me that the neutron warhead was employed. Gen. Al-Rawi confirmed the nuke in his Al Jazeera interview:

US accused of using neutron bombs,” Al Jazeera, 4/9/2007.

BJ: You say, “War is just homicide on a national scale.” Homicide against whom: U.S. military personnel, who are the aggressors or the Iraq nation — military, and civilians — who were attacked without casus belli? Still, homicide sounds ordinary in these circumstances, why not use a precise term such aspremeditated mass murder, in which both aggressors and aggressed suffered unnecessary death? In addition, whether homicide or mass murder, it seems that the criminals who planned and carried it out will go unpunished? Does this mean the United States government and military are above the law?

Capt.: I realize that my phrase “war is just homicide on a national scale” is cold-blooded, but it is a professional military man’s first premise in understanding or discussing the phenomenon. I accept your objection that I don’t offer human judgments as to who is involved in self-defense and in aggression, with its implication that such judgments must be made. I’ve been forthright elsewhere in my moral evaluation of the “Global War on Terror,” admitting that we Americans have been duped into war crime, and calling for punishment of our leaders:

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld: Geneva Conventions now, Nuremberg Principles later,” Al Jazeerah, 7/3/2006.

BJ: In your email, you write, “I am pleased to see that the anti-war is joining the infowar …” You sound like an anti-war activist. Are you really an anti-war military man? If you are anti-war, why did you take part in such war that you may have been privy to as being based on pretexts?

Capt.: I was no longer a serving soldier at the time of 9/11 or the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the most part I accepted the official propaganda. It wasn’t until realizing the cover-up of the Battle of Baghdad that I became interested in analyzing the wars or the policies behind them. I was never an anti-war military man until after I examined the post-9/11 wars in the Middle East.

My comrade in the antiwar, former Marine Corps Major William B. Fox, wrote a well researched article about my intellectual and ethical awakening:

Captain Courageous and the Quicksand War,” The Lone Star Iconoclast, 3/26/2008.

BJ: I read somewhere in the wealth of information you provided, how you imagined George W. Bush should articulate his message to the nation about the course of war. Because you put words in his mouth, you, nevertheless, injected your personal feelings about the imperialist wars “by American definition, patriotic.” What do you think now about the endless wars of what many experts contend is a Zionist-controlled United States government?

Capt.: You are referring to “Cavalrymen and Cowards,” which was a philippic I directed at Bush shortly after the Battle of Baghdad cover-up. At that point I still had no judgment about whether or not the war in Iraq was legal or illegal. I was chiding him for not having enough guts to admit facts. It’s likely that Bush himself read my words, since I interviewed with his team about becoming his speechwriter before he became president, when he was still the governor of Texas and we shared some acquaintances.

As far as those experts who consider the United States to be Gollum, mindlessly carrying out proxy wars for Zionists, at this stage of my development I would call myself one of them. Until we awaken as a nation to Israel’s machinations and manipulations against our own interests, we are in great danger ourselves, and represent a great danger to the rest of the world.

KP: Nine-11 provided a pretext for the so-called War on Terror, and Ghost Troop has been vigilant in defending against another 9-11. Does an Obama government affect the need for such vigilance?

Capt.: Not in the least. In his first year in office, Obama has demonstrated conclusively that he is a puppet for the war cabal. He needs another 9/11-style event to re-energize the dictatorial Homeland and the imperial Global War, which are nothing more than euphemisms for “Vaterland” and “World War.”

In Ghost Troop we use an operational codename for this required next 9/11: We call it “9/11-2B” — the 9/11 that the establishment assures us is going “to be.” Just this month Obama’s intelligence officials were projecting 9/11-2B in 3 to 6 months. The way we look at it, that means this puppet president wants to set up such an attack before the Congressional elections of next fall. His recent emphasis on beefing up our cyber security is an indicator that 9/11-2B will entail an attack on the Internet, the sole remaining free media, and the greatest impediment to totalitarian rule of the United States.

BJ: Going back to the issue of how you think should George W. Bush articulate his message to the nation. You stated in your article “Philippic contra George W. Bush” that he should say, “We will not rest until the mission for which they gave their lives is accomplished. We will not stop until we have vanquished tyranny and terror abroad, and brought our heroes home. That will be our tribute to the fallen. God Bless America, Garry Owen, and goodnight.” To me, you kept George Bush’s essence, but just embellished the rhetoric. Can you explain?

Now, you put words in his mouth (meaning that you, in turn, articulated your own political vision and projected it into Bush’s mind). Since you injected personal feelings about U.S. imperialist war in Iraq “by America’s definition: patriotic,” what do you think now about the endless wars?

Capt.: In the philippic against Bush I attacked him as a lying coward, and to drive the point home I wrote the words that I would have written for him had I been his speechwriter at the time of the Battle of Baghdad — which I nearly was. I was writing rhetoric, putting the best face on the facts as I then believed them to be. Please bear in mind that I was writing a historic document here by slamming the most powerful man on earth at a time when he had shown himself to be tyrannical and murderous. People who write philippics — which can only earn the name “philippic” when published to a murderous tyrant — have good reason to worry that the bold act will cost them their lives, and I believe it nearly cost me mine. A couple of days after I wrote it, political dissidents in the U.S. and UK began to be assassinated, which was the topic of a recently published article about them and me:

Captain Courageous Witnessed: Dr. Kelly Assassinated!,” Al Jazeerah, 12/10/2009.

BJ: Do you really think that these wars are about tyranny and terror? In wider sense, do you think it is about time that the American people stop following what their rulers incite them to do in the names of causes that actually do not exit except on a propagandistic level?

Capt.: I do think that these wars are about tyranny and terror: the tyranny and terror emerging from the efforts of Western psychopaths who have taken over the reins of power. They intend to do far worse deeds than they have done. The only way we can stop them is by doing what you suggest: awakening the American people to the perils of being misled by perfidious leaders and an evil establishment. I am proud to be, like you, among the dissident voices engaged in this historic struggle, in which we have transformed the Internet into the printing press of the New American Revolution.

  1. Captain Eric H. May Deserves Congressional Medal of Honor,” The Lone Star Iconoclast, 2 February 2010. []
  2. Introduction with assistance of Capt. May. []

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. They can be reached at: Petersen_sabri@yahoo.com.

:: Article nr. 63613 sent on 25-feb-2010 02:35 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=63613

Link: dissidentvoice.org/2010/02/combating-the-disinformation-propaganda-and-cover-ups
-of-the-military-industrial-complex/





NATO admits that slaughtering in cold blood 8 afghan children was a “mistake”

25 02 2010

NATO admits that slaughtering in cold blood 8 afghan children was a “mistake”

Jerome Starkey

February 24, 2010

Nato admits that deaths of 8 boys were a mistake

by Jerome Starkey, Kabul

night-time raid in eastern Afghanistan in which eight schoolboys from one family were killed was carried out on the basis of faulty intelligence and should never have been authorised, a Timesinvestigation has found.

Ten children and teenagers died when troops stormed a remote mountain compound near the border with Pakistan in December.

At the time, Nato claimed that the assault force was targeting a “known insurgent group responsible for a series of violent attacks”. Officials said that the victims were involved in making and smuggling improvised explosive devices. But Western sources close to the case now agree that the victims were all aged 12 to 18 and were not involved in insurgent activity.

Nato sources say that the raid should never have been authorised. “Knowing what we know now, it would probably not have been a justifiable attack,” an official in Kabul told The Times. “We don’t now believe that we busted a major ring.”

When reports of the raid first surfaced eight weeks ago, The Times contacted the police chief in Kunar province and then the boys’ head-master and uncle, Rahman Jan Ehsas.

Two men whose children and other relatives were killed agreed to come to Kabul to describe the incident. They provided pictures of their dead sons, a sketched map of the compound and copies of the compensation claim forms signed by local officials detailing their sons’ names, relatives and positions at school. Their story was supported by Western military sources.

Farooq Abdul Ajan, who lost two sons, two brothers, three nephews and a cousin in the raid, said that the soldiers had had no idea whom they were killing. Afghan investigators, local officials and MPs from the province all maintain that the boys were innocent.

Nato’s statement, issued four days after the event, said that troops were attacked “from several buildings” as they entered the village. Yesterday it said that “ultimately, we did determine this to be a civilian casualty incident”.

Anger is growing over civilian casualties. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander, has warned that Nato risks “strategic defeat” by causing civilian deaths. The Independent Human Rights Commission said that more than 63 civilians had died in the past two weeks, including 27 killed when US special forces ordered an airstrike on a convoy of minibuses in the central Daikundi province. Nato recently introduced a new tactical directive to limit the use of night raids, the coalition’s chief legal adviser, Colonel Richard Gross, said. “General McChrystal realised that this was one of the areas where we had to change the way we do business, or else we would not win this war,” he said.

Exactly who carried out the Narang raid is unclear. Colonel Gross said that US forces were present but did not lead the operation. Nato insists that the troops were not part of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). US forces based in Kunar denied any knowledge of the raid.

Senior Western officers have hinted that the “trigger pullers” were Afghan; the Afghan Defence Ministry said its troops were not involved. Mohammed Afzal, Narang’s district police chief, insisted that US special forces were involved.Assadullah Wafa, who led an Afghan investigation into the incident, said that relatives would get $2,000 compensation for each person killed.  (More HERE)





Ex-cop pleads guilty to Katrina coverup

25 02 2010

By Cheryl Gerber, AP

Dr. Romell Madison, left, Lance Madison and Jackie Madison Brown talk to attorney Mary Howell in New Orleans on Wednesday after Michael Lohman pleaded guilty to conspiring with fellow NOPD officers to obstruct justice by covering up a police-involved shooting that killed their brother, Ronald Madison, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Ex-cop pleads guilty to Katrina coverup

By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
NEW ORLEANS — A retired New Orleans police lieutenant pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring to cover up a deadly police-involved shooting in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The plea in U.S. District Court by Michael Lohman, 42, is part of an investigation by federal agents into several police shootings of civilians in the chaotic days immediately following Katrina. Lohman faces up to five years in prison at his sentencing May 26.

Seven officers were charged with murder or attempted murder in the Sept. 4, 2005, shootings, six days after Katrina made landfall and then battered the region. The charges were later dismissed.

The incident happened when a group of police and other law enforcement officers in a large Budget rental truck confronted six people crossing the Danziger Bridge in eastern New Orleans, according to a police report.

Police fired at several of the people, killing Ronald Madison, a 40-year-old mentally disabled man, and James Brissette, 19, the report said. The officers claimed they were fired at first, although surviving witnesses dispute that claim and say police opened fire on unarmed people.

According to federal documents unsealed Wednesday, Lohman arrived after the shooting and encouraged the supervising officers to falsify their stories to “make it appear as if the civilians who were shot on the bridge had shot first at officers.” He also approved the planting of a gun at the scene to justify the shootings, according to the documents.

On Sunday, survivors of the Danziger Bridge incident, their families and lawyers applauded the guilty plea and said they hoped more will follow.

“The fact that you have an officer who supervised these officers admitting he conspired to cover up — it doesn’t get much better than that for vindication,” said Gary Bizal, attorney for Jose Holmes, who was shot several times in the stomach during the shooting. Holmes was initially charged with shooting at officers but those charges were later dropped, Bizal said.

The case is part of a wider probe that could bring more convictions, according to prosecutors. The FBI has confirmed its investigators are looking into at least three separate incidents where police shot eight people, killing four of them and badly injuring several others. Over the past 1½ years, federal investigators have summoned dozens of New Orleans police officers to testify before federal grand juries and seized police records.

Jim Letten, U.S. Attorney for eastern Louisiana, said Lohman is expected to cooperate with investigators and federal agents will continue with all the investigations.

“We will forge ahead,” he said. “Our evidence is strong.”

Federal investigators also are looking into the shooting death of Henry Glover, whose remains were found inside an abandoned, incinerated car in Algiers, La., and Matthew McDonald, a drifter from Connecticut who was shot and killed by police in the Faubourg Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans five days after the storm, the FBI said.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Katrina autopsy: Police shot mentally disabled man in back

By James Polk, Drew Griffin and Kate Albright-Hanna
CNN

Tuesday, May 23, 2006;

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) — Autopsy results obtained by CNN show a mentally disabled man was shot in the back when he was killed by New Orleans police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

This contradicts testimony by a police sergeant that the victim had turned toward officers and was reaching into his waistband when shot.

“Clearly he was shot from behind,” said famed New York pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, who examined the body for the family’s lawyer. (Watch where the man died and details of the autopsy — 5:04)

A prosecutor said the case will go before a grand jury soon and acknowledged the investigation includes the possibility of police wrong-doing.

Ronald Madison, 40, was mentally disabled and lived at home with his mother. He had no criminal record. He was shot when police responded to a report of gunfire on a bridge over the flooded Industrial Canal on Sunday, September 4, six days after Katrina hit New Orleans last year.

It was a week of dire flooding, rampant looting, death by drowning. Police were strained, beset by suicides and desertion. Four people were killed in confrontations with police that weekend alone.

Madison’s older brother, Lance, said he and Ronald were walking across the Danziger bridge toward another brother’s dental office when teen-agers ran up behind him and opened fire that Sunday morning.

By his account, he and Ronald were running away toward the crest of the bridge when a police team, responding to the report of gunshots, arrived in a rental truck and opened fire on people on the bridge.

Police Superintendent Warren Riley told CNN, “Several of the people were shot and two were killed by our officers in a running gun battle… Most police shoot-outs last somewhere between six and twelve seconds, and it’s over with. This was a running gun battle that went on several minutes.”

One teen-ager, still unidentified, was killed near the base of the bridge. Another was critically wounded. Three other people with them were also shot and were hospitalized.

Lance Madison said a policeman pointed a rifle at Ronald and shot him as the two of them were running up the bridge. Lance said he helped carry his wounded brother to a motel on the other side of the canal and left him there as Lance kept running to seek help.

The Police Department said in a press release last fall that Ronald Madison, whom it called a second unidentified gunman, “was confronted by a New Orleans Police Officer. The suspect reached into his waist and turned toward the officer who fired one shot fatally wounding him.”

Testifying in a preliminary hearing last fall, Police Sgt. Arthur Kaufman said much the same thing: “One subject turned, reached in his waistband, turned on the officers.”

Autopsy results, made available to CNN by a source involved in the investigation, directly contradict that police account.

The findings list five separate gunshot wounds in Ronald Madison’s back. Three went through the body and exited in front. There were two other wounds in his right shoulder. None of the shots entered his body from the front.

CNN had sued the coroner of Orleans Parish to try to get official access to the autopsy report. At a court hearing on that lawsuit in New Orleans a week ago, the coroner, Dr. Frank Minyard, verified the handwritten autopsy report obtained elsewhere by CNN was indeed prepared in his office by a pathologist on his staff who listed the wounds in the victim’s right back.

Under cross-examination by a CNN lawyer, Dr. Minyard testified those five wounds in the back “were entrance wounds, yes.”

Dr. Michael Baden, chief forensic pathologist for the New York State Police, met with CNN in New York City two weeks ago to discuss his own observations when he examined Ronald Madison’s body for the family lawyer last fall. Asked if Ronald could have been facing the police when shot, Dr. Baden said, “Absolutely not.”

No weapon was found on or near Ronald Madison’s body.

Assistant District Attorney Dustin Davis, testifying in the same court hearing on the CNN lawsuit, said a grand jury has been assigned to investigate the Danziger Bridge shootings. However, the grand jury has not yet met on the case because the New Orleans Police Department has yet to complete its final report, eight months after those deaths.

The CNN attorney asked Davis, “What you are investigating in that case is whether any of the police officers may be indicted for homicide, is that correct?”

Davis answered, “That’s partially correct. We are also looking at Mr. Madison’s involvement in the incident.”

Lance Madison was arrested on the other side of the bridge where his brother was killed and was accused of shooting at the police officers in the gun battle. He, too, had no weapon when taken into custody. He was released from jail after six months because the District Attorney’s office had not initiated any prosecution, although the investigation remains pending.

Sgt. Kaufman testified at the bail hearing for Lance Madison last fall that another policeman saw Lance throw a gun into the Industrial Canal as he was going over the bridge. Lance Madison denies that. He told CNN correspondent Drew Griffin, “I had no gun, at all.” Asked if Ronald had a gun, Lance answered, “No, he didn’t.”

In a CNN interview earlier this month, Griffin told Police Chief Warren Riley, “We understand Ronald Madison was shot in the back five times.”

Riley said, “Those are things I can’t comment on and no one can comment on until the investigation is concluded.”

Griffin asked Riley if he was concerned about his officers’ actions and Riley replied, “Certainly, we do not condone our officers overreacting, even in the most chaotic time,” but he went on, “We don’t know that they overreacted. From the radio transmission, it sounds like their lives were in danger.”

Riley turned down a request by CNN to interview the officers who were involved.

A 25-year career employee at Federal Express, Lance Madison has no criminal record.

At the end of the CNN interview, Riley conceded the two Madison brothers may not have been connected with the other people on the bridge that day.

“I don’t know if those young men were innocent or not. I really don’t know if they were with that group or not,” Riley said. “I really don’t know.”





The US won’t support British claims on the Falklands sovereignty

25 02 2010

The US won’t support British claims on the Falklands sovereignty

falklands

Washington refused to support British claims on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands yesterday while the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and the UN.

Despite the close military alliance that Britain has with the United States, the Obama administration is determined not to be involved in the issue. It has also refused to support Britain’s claim that oil exploration around the islands not be sanctioned by international law, saying the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue.

Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana made a request to the General Secretary of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, to intervene in the dispute, a move that Britain strongly opposed.

“We have requested the general secretary that within the framwork of the framework of their good offices, to stress to the UK he need to abstain from further unilateral acts,” Taiana told reporters after the meeting with Ban.

Taiana said that “the UK oil exploration in the Falkland Islands, is a unilateral act in a long chain of likewise events, which we believe are illegal and contrary to international law, which calls not perform acts that would aggravate the situation.”

The chancellor said he had told Ban about “the need to comply with the requests  of the UN’s various resolutions and the Committee’s on decolonization in relation to the need to sit down and negotiate with Argentina about the sovereignty dispute over the islands. “

Upon leaving the meeting Taiana said Argentina is willing to dialogue and to comply with a UN mandate but that Britain rejected these requests.

An UN aide acknowledged, however, that Ki-moon would not be able to mediate in the opposition from Great Britain.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain’s Ambassador to the UN, said: “As British ministers have made clear, the UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands . . . We are also clear that the Falkland Islands Government is entitled to develop a hydrocarbons industry within its waters, and we support this legitimate business in Falklands’ territory.”

Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. This is in stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982.

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

Kevin Casas-Zamora, a Brookings Institution analyst and former vice-president of Costa Rica, said that President Reagan’s support for Britain in 1982 “irked a lot of people in Latin America”.

The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region”, he said.

British officials in Washington said that they were comfortable with the US response to the dispute, but indicated that any American support for mediated negotiations would not be well received. It was “up to the islanders whether they want mediation or not”, one official said.

Britain has boosted the islands’ defences since the conflict, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, said last night. “We have built a massive runway. We have emplaced forces on the ground, we have sophisticated early warning systems. It is a different package. To compare the way we dealt with the issues in 1982 with today is nonsense,” he said.

Some of these information was taken from www.timesonline.co.uk





Site of Kent State tragedy now officially a part of U.S. history

25 02 2010

Site of Kent State tragedy now officially a part of U.S. history

Wednesday,  February 24, 2010 2:51 AM
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
On May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen clashed with student demonstrators atop Blanket Hill on the Kent State University campus. The guardsmen fired at the students below them, killing four and wounding nine. Vigils have been held annually on the site.

FILE PHOTO
On May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen clashed with student demonstrators atop Blanket Hill on the Kent State University campus. The guardsmen fired at the students below them, killing four and wounding nine. Vigils have been held annually on the site.
Map

Nearly 40 years after a volley of 60 shots fired by Ohio National Guardsmen killed four students during a campus protest at Kent State University, the site has been named to the prestigious National Register of Historic Places.

The May 4, 1970, campus shootings site was added to the National Register even though it did not meet the criteria that events being recognized had to have happened at least 50 years ago.

“It was something those students deserved,” said Mark Seeman, a Kent State anthropology professor who helped write the 150-page application. “Now, this place will be recognized by the government of the U.S. as a place where history important to this nation took place.”

Jerry M. Lewis, 73, a Kent professor emeritus who was there in 1970, said what took place that day “was a very crucial event, not only of the Vietnam era, but the student-activism experience.”

The 17.24-acre site near E. Main and S. Lincoln streets, incorporating the Commons, Blanket Hill and the Southern Terrace, was nominated in December by the Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board.

Among the site’s endorsers: Gov. Ted Strickland. One of his predecessors, Gov. James A. Rhodes, ordered the Ohio National Guard troops to Kent State to quell student protests that he feared were getting out of hand.

On that day in 1970, “Kent State University was placed in an international spotlight after a student protest against the Vietnam War and the presence of the Ohio National Guard on campus ended in tragedy when the Guard shot and killed four and wounded nine Kent State students,” the Ohio Historical Society said.

That set off “the largest student strike in U.S. history, increased recruitment for the movement against the Vietnam War and affected public opinion about the war, created a legal precedent established by the trials subsequent to the shootings and for the symbolic status the event has attained as a result of a government confronting protesting citizens with unreasonable deadly force,” the society said.

Reacting to the shootings, President Richard M. Nixon said they “should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.”

Historical Society officials have not received word on the status of four other nominated sites, including the Logan Historic District, a collection of more than 200 historic buildings in Logan.

ajohnson@dispatch.com






Striking Greeks fight back against austerity plan

25 02 2010

Striking Greeks fight back against austerity plan

Thousands take to streets as hostility against EU mounts and German pressure prompts ‘Nazi’ tirade by deputy prime minister

Greek riot police clash with protesters in AthensGreek riot police clash with protesters in Athens, where demonstrations against debt-relief measures were marked with sporadic violence. Photograph: Aris Messinis/AFP/Getty Images

Tens of thousands of striking Greek workers took to the streets today, some throwing stones at police, in a defiant show of protest against austerity measures aimed at averting the debt-plagued country’s economic collapse.

Riot police responded with teargas when, in sporadic bursts, masked youths charged them in Athens city centre. The violence coincided with a general strike that shut down public services and closed off Greece to the outside world.

For trade unions the mass show of force was a warning shot to a government struggling to satisfy its eurozone partners with policies deemed vital for the nation’s fiscal health while appeasing angry workers at home.

“This is the red line,” said Nikos Goulas, head of a union that represents 20,000 workers at Athens international airport. “Greece is not Ireland. If the government does not back down there will be huge unrest,” he added, holding a banner that proclaimed: “As much as you terrorise us, these measures won’t pass.”

The protests came against a backdrop of mounting Greek hostility towards the EU, with particular venom reserved for Germany, which has pressed for harder measures to be forced on Athens.

Greece’s political elite has been outraged and hurt by hard-hitting German media coverage of the debt crisis. The cover of a German magazine, Focus, which showed the Venus de Milo making a less than complimentary finger gesture under the headline “Swindlers in the eurozone” has triggered widespread fury.

In an extraordinary tirade, the deputy prime minister, Theodore Pangalos, said Germany had no right to judge Greek finances after wreaking havoc on the economy during the four years that the country was under Nazi occupation in the second world war. Worse still, he said, Germany had failed to make adequate compensation.

“They took away the Greek gold that was at the Bank of Greece, they took away the Greek money and they never gave it back. This is an issue that has to be faced sometime,” he told the BBC.

“I don’t think they have to give back the money necessarily but they have at least to say thanks. And they shouldn’t complain so much about stealing and not being very specific about economic dealings.”

Pangalos, a former foreign minister who is widely seen as a father figure to the more mild-mannered Greek prime minister George Papandreou, said Greek public finances might never have reached such dire straits had the EU not had such weak leadership.

Italy, he added, had done much more to mask the true extent of its public debt and deficit than Greece when it entered the EU. “The quality of leadership in the union is very, very poor indeed,” he said.

today, as the diplomatic row intensified amid growing demands that George Papandreou’s Socialist government step up claims for war reparations, Berlin hit back with a tart reminder that Greece had received 115m deutschmarks in compensation by 1960.

“I must reject these accusations,” said Andreas Peschke, a spokesman at the German foreign ministry. Greece, he said, had also received around €33bn in aid from Germany “both bilaterally and in the context of the EU”.

“A discussion about the past is not helpful to solve the problems … facing us in Europe today.”

Athens has barely three weeks to prove to its EU partners that the spending cuts and tax rises it has announced are working. With the euroseverely undermined by the country’s debt crisis, the government has announced an ambitious cost-cutting programme to reduce the public deficit from 12.7% of GDP to just under the permissible EU level of 3% by 2012.

This week, as an EU monitoring team visited Athens to examine the progress being made, finance minister Giorgos Papaconstantinou hinted at further measures, saying the government “will do whatever is needed” to solve the crisis.

But if Greek workers have their way such targets may be out of reach. For low- and middle-income earners, the policies, which include a public sector wage freeze, a rise in pensionable age and higher taxes, will be particularly painful.

“I already have to make do with €345 a month,” said Kostantinos Doganis, a pensioner participating in the strike, the first mass walkout in Greece since the Socialists assumed power last October.

“These measures have not yet been passed. Once we start to feel their effect in our pockets there will be a downpour of protests, a social explosion in this country.”





Protests In Balochistan Against The Massacre Of Baloch In Karachi

25 02 2010

Protests In Balochistan Against The Massacre Of Baloch In Karachi

2010,01,10

Quetta/Karachi: Baloch political parties and student Organisations have strongly protested against the ongoing attacks on Baloch people in Karachi.

Quetta/Karachi:

Baloch political parties and student Organisations have strongly protested against the ongoing attacks on Baloch people in Karachi. The leading Baloch student Organisation BSO (azaad) and other parties organised protest rallies and demonstration almost all over Balochistan including Karachi, Hub, Khuzdar, Kalat, Punjgur, Turbat, Pasni,Ormara, Jeavni, Mastung and Quetta. The angry protester chanted slogans against PPP and MQM and held banners inscribed against these two parties who they believed are behind the Baloch massacre in Karachi Baloch populated areas. The protesters said that the police and Rangers were giving full protection to MQM armed terrorists whereas Baloch villages were being attacked even by the Rangers and the Police.

There are also reports that a Baloch young man has been killed in custody and the police threw his body in Gadren area of Karachi. Most Baloch political parties are of the view that PPP and MQM are equally responsible for the “what is described as genocide” of the Baloch residents in Karachi.

BalochWarna has learned from Karachi based Baloch (now living abroad) that yesterday another five Baloch have been killed including a mother of three kids (who was sitting at her home when the alleged MQM armed men attacked her house). The source was angry toward Baloch “what he described as so called” nationalists parties and said that they are playing role of silent spectators on the carnage of Baloch in Karachi. He said that Baloch parties although given calls to protest against the Baloch genocide in Karachi but they were not united, every party wants to protest on different days and score political goals while trying to be sympathetic to the Baloch of Karachi.

Balochi News.com weblog has also expressed anger toward Baloch leadership saying “that some very influential Baloch leaders have protected MQM and provided them resources when they (MQM) were under attack by previous Pakistani government”. The weblog alleged that is why today there is no strong reaction from some top leaders of Balochistan. Emphasizing on “Sardarzada” the balochinews.com wrote that many of the Sardarzadas still have strong personal affiliations with top MQM leadership.

Open in new windowQUETTA PROTEST: A large number of activists of Baloch Students Organization (BSO-Azad) took out a protest rally and staged a demonstration at Manan Chowk to protest against the killing of Baloch in Karachi allegedly by MQM (Muttahida Qaumi Movement).

Protest rally led by BSO Shahal Zone President Shahzaib Baloch started from Quetta Press Club and after marching through different parts of the city culminated into demonstration at Manan Chowk.

Participants of rally were carrying placards and banners inscribed with different slogans such as “Down with MQM” and “Stop genocide of Baloch people”.

They were also shouting slogans urging for immediate arrest of culprits involved in the killing of Balochs in Karachi. Addressing on the occasion, Shahzaib Baloch strongly condemned murder of unarmed Baloch in Karachi, alleging that members of MQM were behind all these killings.

He said that through well knit plan genocide of Balochs were continued not only in Balochistan but also in Karachi. He alleged that around 30 innocent Balochs had been shot dead during two days and government had failed to provide them protection from the alleged terrorists of MQM.

He demanded that the culprits involved in this carnage should be brought to justice and MQM should be declared as a terrorist party.

Later on, protestors torched MQM’s flag and effigy of Altaf Hussain.

Open in new windowBNP (Mengal) activists have taken out a rally in Hub Balochistan against the target killing of innocent Baloch in different Baloch populated areas in Karachi. The BNP activists also demanded the immediate arrest of culprits involved this in the attacks against Baloch villages. They were holding placards which read; “Stop the genocide of Baloch people” “MQM stop terrorism” etc

Meanwhile BA (Baloch Bar) announced a judicial boycott of courts in Balochistan on 11th January 2010 whereas other Baloch political parties have announced further protests in coming days.

Open in new windowRALLY IN LYARI: Residents of Lyari, a constituency dominated by the Pakistan People’s Party, took out a rally against the Sindh government and criticized PPP leadership over the law and order situation.

Baloch nationalist organisations from Lyari staged a protest against Sindh Government and took out a rally from Baghdadi area and moved forward across the Lyari including Atth Chock, Mira Naka, Chakiwara, Dohbi Gath.

Participants of the rally chanted slogans against Sindh Government and PPP while alleged that law enforcers were targeting and arresting the innocent Baloch people of Lyari on the directives of Governor House.

It has been learnt that exchange fire between the participants of rally and law enforcement agencies also took place in which some six to seven people sustained injuries and were rushed to the hospital while enraged crowed cordoned off the Baghdadi police station where police detained some 53 innocent Baloch citizens.

Courtesy: Dawn, Balochhal, dailytawar, and Balochinews.com

Publisher: mhd

Source: Quetta/Karachi: Baloch political parties and student Organisations have strongly protested against the ongoing attacks on Baloch people in Karachi.





Baloch genocide, in karachi By MQM and Pakistani state

25 02 2010





Baloch Activist Killed in Karachi by MQM Goons

25 02 2010

Baloch Activist Killed in Karachi by MQM Goons

The Baloch in Karachi are the vanguard force of liberalism and secularism and the cementing force which unite all the indigenous forces in Karachi are being marginalised in Karachi by MQM and Muhjir Gujrati Land Mafia.

While PPP and MQM were singing the accord in Abu Dubai, the Goons of MQM were aiming their guns to the Baloch Population in Karachi. The whole PPP leader ship is in silent to save the accord between MQM and PPP, while the cheap blood of Baloch and other indegenous people in Karachi is being shed criminally.

Nisar Baloch is not the only one, two weeks ago, another Baloch activist Hasan Baloch was found dead mysteriously in the washroom of Karachi Central Jail, Police said he committed suicide. Zahid Baloch, the next door neighbour of Nisar Baloch, the leader of BNP was also killed last year under the same circumstances. Last year also, the same mafia killed Rasool Buksh Baloch in Malir Karachi who was the main voice against the land encrochment in Malir. Following report is from Hong Kong based Asian Human Rights Commission reveals unbelievable details about the land mafia in Karachi.

Read and ReflectImtiaz Baloch


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-222-2009
November 9, 2009

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

PAKISTAN: Human rights defender names his alleged murderers shortly before his death; government fails to provide protection

Mr. Nisar Baloch, aged 46, was shot dead on November 7, by motorbike riders. Police have refused to mention the names of the murderers in the First Investigation Report (FIR), owing to the fact that the accused persons belong to ruling political party, MQM, which has a background of target killings. On November 6, the day before his murder, Nisar Baloch addressed members of the press at a press conference and clearly stated that the City¡¦s Nazim (mayor) Mr. Mustafa Kamal, as well as the Town Nazim of the SITE town, had the intention to murder him. He stated further that he would be murdered the next day by the aforementioned people and by activists of the MQM Altaf Hussain group. He blamed the party in ruling alliance for their encroachment onto the land of Gutter Baghicha, an amenity plot of 1017 acres.

His death is the second incident in the victimization of housing rights defenders in the past five years in Karachi. During both incidents, the MQM was in power. The son of Baseer Naveed, radio broadcaster and leader of the resistance movement against the construction of the Lyari Express, was abducted on November 8 2004 and his body was found with torture marks on the wall of Naveed¡¦s radio station, two days after his abduction. Nisar Baloch was another activist in the movement against the construction of the Lyari Expressway, through which more than 300,000 people were supposed to be displaced.

Mr. Nisar Baloch was a well-known figure who worked against the grabbing of amenity plots by the government and other such powerful people. The land of Gutter Baghicha, a park, was declared to be an amenity plot in 1972. However, when the MQM took control of the city¡¦s mayorship in the early 1990s, parts of the Gutter Baghicha were illegally allotted to officers of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC). The local people of trans-Lyari resisted, and refused to allow the KMC to encroach upon the park. The Karachi NGO Alliance, (through which Mr. Nisar Baloch was running the people¡¦s movement against the grabbing of this parkland) got a stay order from the Sindh High Court against construction in this park. However, the MQM, which has remained in power since 1989, (whether the ruling government was civilian or military,) did not respect the court¡¦s order. The details of other land-grabbing incidents by the MQM can be read about below:

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/16-ardeshir-cowasjee-i-own-karachi-and-can-sell-it-ii-759-hs-05

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/16-ardeshir-cowasjee-i-own-karachi-and-can-sell-it-3-159-hs-06

http://dawnnews.tv/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/ardeshir-cowasjee-i-own-karachi-and-can-sell-it-4-ts-03

Clearly, the values which uphold law and order in this country have deteriorated to a state of abjection. When a man says in a press conference that he will be killed the following day by the mayors of Karachi and the SITE town, and the police fail to provide protection to him because of the political pressure they are under, it is clear that the situation is deplorable. Even the journalists present at the press conference did not take Baloch¡¦s apprehensions seriously, and did not give coverage of his concerns to the public. Furthermore, the police at the Soldier Bazar Police Station, in whose jurisdiction this murder occurred, have refused to put the name of murderer on the FIR. This is illegal, and clearly indicates that the police have become sub-servants to the cadres of ruling parties.

Housing and resettlement policies in Pakistan are unclear and ambiguous, leaving room for manipulation by those in ruling political parties, and the opportunity to grab land and convert it into commercial plots. About half of Pakistan¡¦s population lives in slum communities, and often in a state of squalor. Judicial negligence, combined with the inaction and ineffectiveness of the courts in dealing with the housing needs of the people and matters of land-grabbing, has benefited the land-grabber tremendously.

The government of Sindh should act immediately to arrest the culprits on these murder charges including, Mr. Mustafa Kamal, City Nazim and Mr. Izhar Uddin, Town Nazim of SITE town, (the name of the latter was stated by Mr. Nisar Baloch during his press conference, one day before his death,) and the high officials of the Karachi Police, including the Chief Police Officer and Station Head Officer (SHO) of the Soldier Bazar Police Station. A thorough inquiry should be conducted into the extra-judicial killing of Nisar Baloch.
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Posted on 2009-11-09
Back to [AHRC Statements 2009]





Shades of intolerance

25 02 2010

Shades of intolerance

By I.A. Rehman
Whatever the causes of deviation from the tradition of tolerance, the process needs to be reversed: I.A. Rehman.—Photo by Reuters
Whatever the causes of deviation from the tradition of tolerance, the process needs to be reversed: I.A. Rehman.—Photo by Reuters

Public complaints received by the judiciary, government functionaries and human rights organisations reveal an alarming decline in the moral values observed by our society.

In particular we are witnessing new forms of intolerance and there is little evidence of any effort to deal with this deadly social disease.

The other day an organisation calling itself the Baloch Students Action Committee (BSAC), Punjab, set up by Baloch students studying at different institutions in the province, held a press conference at which they made extremely grave allegations against a students’ body.

According to the Baloch students’ spokesmen, five of them studying at the Government Technical College, Sahiwal, were attacked one night in January this year. All five students received serious injuries.

The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken by them. The attackers were reported to be angry at the victims’ refusal to join the organisation supported by them.

Further, the BSAC said, a series of attempts were made on the lives of Baloch students at the Multan Technical College during the current month. Pistols were used in one of the attacks and ten students are alleged to have been seriously injured as a result.

The Baloch students withdrew themselves from the institution and returned to Balochistan. They are said to have briefed the media in Quetta and met some parliamentarians but they received no satisfaction.

Baloch students at Faisalabad Technical College also were attacked and seven of them received injuries.

It is possible the facts are not exactly what the BSAC has presented but the authorities cannot possibly ignore the explosive nature of the matter. The youth in Balochistan are already in an angry mood and reports of any maltreatment of Baloch students in Punjab are bound to alienate them further.

The public in Balochistan could interpret attacks on their students in Punjab as attempts to punish the Baloch community for demanding their political and economic rights.

Unfortunately, there is another dangerous aspect of the matter. The targeted killing of non-locals in Balochistan — many of them settlers from Punjab — is no secret.

Some young persons in Balochistan have accepted responsibility for these killings and they could treat attacks on Baloch students in Punjab as acts of retaliation.

The danger that this may start a vicious cycle of violence must not be ignored. Apart from the loss of life and limb that young persons from both sides are likely to suffer, the task of persuading the people of Balochistan to end their alienation from the federation will become harder.

The presence of students from Balochistan in educational institutions in other provinces offers the host federating units a good opportunity to promote national cohesion through these young guests.

For success in this direction the authorities of the institutions concerned will be required to pay extra attention to these students’ academic and extracurricular needs. The basic issue they have to deal with is intolerance.

Some days ago a nurse found two newborn babies at a garbage dump outside a large hospital in a Punjab town. She picked up the babies and took them to a few childless couples belonging to her Christian community.

When some conservative Muslim clerics heard of this matter they promptly issued an edict that the infants were Muslim and as such they could not be offered to non-Muslims for adoption. The nurse who probably saved the luckless newborns from death found herself in conflict with the law of adoption.

What should be done to her will be decided by a court and nothing should be done that might affect the course of law. But is it impossible to take note of the conduct of the fatwa producers?

How could they determine that the babies were born to a Muslim mother? And if the religion of their parents had somehow been ascertained, what did the self-appointed custodians of the Muslim community’s interests think of the members of their flock whose cruelty to two new lives was manifest?

Was any attempt made to inquire whether the babies had been abandoned out of fear of the clerics, assuming that they had been born out of wedlock, or whether the parents were too poor to bring them up?

Every year scores of unwanted babies are left at hospitals and offices of social welfare organisations. They are discreetly given over to foster parents.

One has never heard of the mullahs’ interference in these matters on the basis of belief, except for that dreadful incident of the stoning to death of an abandoned newborn in Karachi some years ago. This incident is another example of the community’s growing intolerance of the other.

The Sindhi people are legitimately proud of their tradition of tolerance. Their capacity for observing interfaith harmony can be seen in the ordinary villagers’ deference to one another’s beliefs.

Even today, after all the havoc caused by communalised politics over almost a century, one can find shrines where people belonging to different religious groups come in search of peace and deliverance.

But one cannot say how long this tradition will survive for the conservative preachers of hate and conflict seem to be enlarging their operations.

One of their latest campaigns is the demand that the remains of a non-Muslim girl, reportedly belonging to a gypsy tribe, be exhumed and thrown away because they cannot be allowed to pollute the sacred soil of the graveyard.

It is said that the non-Muslim girl had been buried in the Muslim graveyard in accordance with a centuries-old practice.

However, the standard-bearers of the new brand of militant Islam cannot be expected to respect what they denounce as heathen. This matter too is reported to be in court and no comment can be made on the merits of the case.

One should like to ask the Sindh government and also the federal government whether they will wait for matters to be decided in courts — if they can ever be decided in this manner. Do they realise their duty to take stock of the various manifestations of intolerance?

Do they have any plans to curb the monster of intolerance by promoting an adequately strong social force capable of building a tolerant society?

To say that the rise of militant groups who slaughter innocent people has had an adverse effect on the clerics is merely stating the obvious.

Whatever the causes of deviation from the tradition of tolerance, the process needs to be checked and reversed. Otherwise our society will not be able to survive the heavy dose of intolerance it is receiving.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers