[In the following report, taken from the Telegraph, the lead-in to the report makes a false claim, which is not substantiated anywhere in it. The British press often seems to take the position of trouble-maker, or pot-stirrer in Pakistan/US disagreements. This position has even been exposed in British military efforts in Afghanistan (SEE: What exactly were Mervyn Patterson and Michael Semple doing in Helmand? ). The Afghan story was about a covert effort to create a fake "Taliban," to turn into a counter-force and spy organ, to send into S. Waziristan.
Have connections within the originally British Pakistani officer corps given London the ability to manipulate events on the ground? This report, claiming both Pakistani and US confirmation (before the US completes its inquiry), is intended to escalate the situation. Why would the British Crown wish to see a conflict begin between the two "allies"? In order to finish my speculation on British trouble-making in Pakistan, I remind readers of the following incident involving known British institutional meddling--(SEE: Gen. Kayani's trip to speak before the British International Institute for Strategic Studies). The following excerpts from separate sources speak volumes about the IISS, and what it is all about. The question must be asked--
"Is Gen. Kayani a member of IISS?"]
“almost shadow UN agency, seeking to affect global diplomatic and military policy. Its current membership boasts 3,000 elite individuals garnered from the worlds of government, business and academia in over 100 countries. The IISS additionally has 200 corporate and business members representing industries such as oil, investment banking, telecommunications, media outlets, aerospace, defense, energy, environment and numerous others, as well as 35 government ministries, 55 different research facilities and military personnel.“
The IISS is the vehicle for MI6-Tavistock black propaganda, and wet jobs (an intelligence over name denoting an operation where bloodshed is required), adverse nuclear incidents and terrorism, which goes to the world’s press for dissemination, as well as to governments and military establishments.
Membership in the IISS includes representatives of 87 major wire services and press associations, as well as 138 senior editors and columnists….
The IISS is nothing more than a higher echelon opinion maker, as defined by Lippmann and Bernays. In the writing of books, and in newspapers, IISS was formed to be a coordinating centre for not only creating opinions, but to get those opinions and scenarios out much faster and to a far greater audience than could be reached by a book for example…. “
American officers gave the wrong coordinates to their Pakistani counterparts as they sought clearance for the air strike that killed 24 friendly troops last weekend, admit officials in both countries.
A destroyed border post after cross-border NATO air strike on the Pakistani border on a mountain in the Mohmand tribal district
Rob Crilly in Islamabad and Ashfaq Yusufzai in Charsadda
Nato and American officials have expressed regret but have refused to apologise until an investigation is completed into the incident near the Afghan border, which has triggered a crisis in relations between the US and Pakistan. Officials have previously offered varying accounts of the event as the two countries try to shift the blame.
But yesterday a senior Pakistani military officer told The Sunday Telegraph that a border co-ordination unit – established to avoid exactly this sort of tragedy – was given incorrect details of a suspected Taliban position.
“The strike had begun before we realised the target was a border post,” he said. “The Americans say we gave them clearance but they gave us the wrong information.” It is understood that American officers have not disputed the Pakistani account of what went wrong.
The American pilots had been confident in their targets as they flew out of the night sky, towards a mountain ridge that marked the border with Pakistan.
Afghan and US commandos hunting Taliban training camps inside the eastern edge of Afghanistan had called in air support as they came under fire from the Pakistani border.
The co-ordinates had been checked with a Pakistani officer to ensure there were no friendly troops in the area, the pilots believed, and the Apache attack helicopters and lone AC-130 gunship had been given the go-ahead to unload their deadly payload on the mountainside.
But as dawn arrived it became clear that a terrible mistake had been made.
Twenty-four Pakistani soldiers lay dead, their border posts were a smoking ruin and a crucial alliance had been poisoned, unleashing a wave of anti-American anger in Pakistan, which has halted co-operation against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.
All year their fragile alliance has lurched from crisis to crisis. In January a CIA contractor shot dead two men in Lahore.
Then a secret mission to kill Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil in May provoked an angry response, with American military trainers expelled and US diplomats complaining of harassment.
The latest calamity has provoked an angry reaction among ordinary Pakistanis, who already feel their country’s contribution to the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban is being forgotten.
Daily demonstrations are being held around the country. Protesters in Karachi have burned an effigy of Barack Obama and That leaves a weak, moderate government in Islamabad trying to maintain an awkward balancing act, placating the rabble rousers while keeping the door open to a rapprochement with Washington.
Pakistan’s leaders have closed the country’s borders to Nato supply convoys, announced a boycott of an international conference in Bonn to plot a course for the future of Afghanistan and begun a review of all relations with the US and Nato.
The Pakistani military has also offered a strong response as it tries to rebuild its reputation after a series of blows, not least failing to spot the US helicopters that brought a special forces team deep into its territory to kill the al-Qaeda leader. Last week it circulated revised rules of engagement stating that soldiers can return fire if attacked by Nato forces – although the move is seen as an attempt to assuage public opinion, rather than up the ante along the Afghan border.
Nowhere is the mix of grief and anger more obvious than among the 24 families whose sons were killed by a supposed ally.
In the north-western town of Charsadda, Asfandyar Khan told The Sunday Telegraph how proud his son Najeebullah had been in 2005 to get a soldier’s uniform and to help make his country safe.
He fought against the Pakistan Taliban, clearing them from the Swat Valley in 2009 when militants approached to little more than 60 miles from the capital Islamabad, before being transferred to the Afghan border post where he died.
“He was very happy to fight against the Taliban as he wanted to take on the Pakistan’s enemy”, said Mr Khan, sitting outside his mud brick home set among lush, green fields.
A newly dug grave is decorated with flowers.
Now he must decide whether to ask his other son to leave the army.
But most of all he wants his government to end its close association with the US and its war in Afghanistan.
“Soldiers are losing confidence over the weakness of the government. They are demoralized and only a befitting response to the US can restore the confidence in government,” he said.
Pakistan’s prime minister has said there can be no more “business as usual” with the US.
And most analysts believe the relationship is facing its toughest test since the two countries were thrown together in alliance by 9/11.
Imtiaz Gul, a journalist and author who has written about the border area, said the US had to recognise Pakistan’s sensitivity to American treatment.
“This is not about money or a bigger say in Afghanistan,” he said. “This is about a country that feels underappreciated and hurt, so the way to patch it up is about addressing that emotional need.” But with an investigation not due to report until December 23, there is no sign that this crisis will end soon.