PROVIDE THE US WITH A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND MERCENARIES AND YOUR NUCLEAR TROUBLES ARE OVER

PAKISTAN HAS GROUNDS FOR WAR CRIMES CHARGES AGAINST US

By: Peter Chamberlin

Delhi running terror camps in Afghanistan: India involved in Quetta killing: Faisal

India is running six terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan for subversive activities and attacks on Pakistani territory, Islamabad says.

Federal interior minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said the camps had been set up by Indian consulates functioning in Herat, Kandahar and Jalalabad. According to this Google map, these camps dotted the Durand Line:

Notice the nearly symmetrical row of pins on either side of the border that designate the fake Taliban training camps on the Afghan side, and Predator strike sites and Pakistani bases that have allowed American aircraft activity.

“There are six terrorist camps where Indian intelligence agency the Research and Analysis Wing trains Pakistani dissidents and like-minded Afghans to stir ethnic and sectarian unrest and carry out attacks in Pakistan,” Mr Hayat said.

The interior minister said investigators had found evidence of an “Indian hand” in the July 4 massacre of more than 50 Shias at a mosque in Quetta.

Further south in the Kurram Agency, interfaith warfare is being promoted by terror attacks upon Shia by mysterious forces allied with Sunni interests.

All the necessary plans have been made to cause a violent eruption in the Western Provinces, the proposed building site for the American oil and gas pipelines that will save the world. Thanks to the new US/India nuclear deal, Bush now has available 150,000 Indian troops to clear-out Pakistani opposition.

The only remaining obstacle is the ongoing battle being fought at Bejaur by Pakistan, against US/Indian fake taliban. This is why the US is against Pakistan’s approach to eliminating the fake Taliban and fake al Qaida, Pakistan is eliminating the US’s henchmen.

If Pakistan refuses to submit to Bush’s demands then there will be outright war. If Pakistan submits to Bush’s demands then there will be no more Pakistan, and then no more Iran, and then who knows?

peter.chamberlin@hotmail.com

 

 

Our secret war in Pakistan : Pakistan pushed into war

THE PLAN IS TO PUSH THE PAKISTANI INTO TAKING-UP ARMS AGAINST THEIR US ATTACKERS

Our secret war in Pakistan

Posted: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:29 AM
Filed Under: <!– Petra Cahill –>

JALALABAD, Afghanistan – U.S. military officials don’t talk about our secret war in Pakistan.

Don’t even ask, I was told, on U.S. military bases in Afghanistan at Bagram and Jalalabad.

Don’t ask about the remotely-controlled American drones armed with missiles that are now hunting across the Pakistani border, searching through the mountain peaks, valleys and dusty villages inside Pakistan for the leaders of a few dozen networks of al-Qaida fighters, Taliban militants, warlords, weapons smugglers and opium traffickers.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Nightly News video : Pakistan pushed …“, posted with vodpod

VIDEO: Pakistan struggles to maintain power in a Taliban stronghold

And certainly don’t ask about the troops on bases here in Afghanistan who don’t wear uniforms, have long beards (so they can better blend in during covert operations), tattoos and don’t mingle with regular soldiers.

They eat in their own chow halls, plan their own missions and don’t talk much. They don’t talk at all to the media. They’re the men who have been called in to cross into Pakistan when the drones can’t get deep enough to find and kill their targets.

They are elite Special Operations Forces, the most-highly trained and covert of the U.S. military. They are America’s ghost warriors. According to Pakistani villagers who claim to have witnessed their operations, the “Special Ops” work in small teams, fast roping out of helicopters, air assaulting their objective before the enemy can re-group.

Their strengths are rapid violence, stealth, mobility and surprise. The Special Operations Forces don’t receive much attention or credit in the media, but they’re leading America’s secret war inside Pakistan, at least for now.

The Army Times, a military newspaper, recently reported that the U.S. will temporarily halt ground incursions into Pakistan. The newspaper quoted an unnamed Pentagon official as saying, “We are now working with the Pakistanis to make sure that those types of ground-type insertions do not happen, at least for a period of time to give them an opportunity to do what they claim they are desiring to do.” The newspaper said the halt did not apply to the incursions by drones.

U.S. perspective
While details of American operations in Pakistan are sparse, several commanders have helped me understand the American motivation for the raids.

They say the cross-border incursions are necessary because the Pakistani government has failed to contain Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Pakistan’s tribal region – 10,000 square miles along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan – has become a no-man’s-land where radical militants train, equip, rest, regroup, refit, plan and launch attacks on American troops in Afghanistan and on the Pakistani government in Islamabad.

Pakistan has taken some action. In August, the Pakistani military launched an offensive in Bajaur, a militant stronghold near the border. The Pakistani army is also building alliances with tribal leaders who have turned on the Taliban and al-Qaida.

But Pakistan’s actions have yet to produce significant results, according to tribal elders, witnesses, and the U.S. military. The border region remains a lawless insurgent safe haven that the United States has decided it can no longer tolerate.

From the U.S. perspective, the military had to act in Pakistan, a U.S. ally, because the Pakistani government and military could not, or would not, crack down on Islamic radicals.

Pakistan’s perspective
Sipping cups of green tea in a villa in Islamabad, I recently spoke for three hours with a Pakistani military official, who also worked for several years in his country’s intelligence service, to get the other side of the story. He argued passionately that both Pakistan and the United States share the same goal – to wipe out the dangerous radicals – but that the U.S. cross-border incursions are counter-productive.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Pakistan has deployed 120,000 troops along its border with Afghanistan, stationed at 1,000 posts. He compared Pakistan’s force to just over 30,000 U.S. troops at about 100 posts on the Afghan side of the border.

“You see where the insufficiency of forces is?” he asked. “I don’t understand why [the Americans] don’t just kill the militants on their side of the border. They show us videos as proof of militants crossing into Pakistan. Why don’t they just sort them out there, in Afghanistan, instead of making videos?’”

I asked the Pakistani official about the U.S. cross-border raids. Do they help? Don’t they target the same people who plot attacks against Pakistan? Unlike the U.S. military, he had a lot to say.

The official claimed there have been about 50 drone incursions into Pakistan since this summer, along with roughly 10 “physical incursions.” He claimed the raids had killed “several hundred” civilians and were causing panic in the tribal areas.

“The villagers hear the buzzing [of the drones] and are terrified. They are scared to have weddings, funerals or any social gatherings, afraid they will be blown up by the drones,” he said.

The official also claimed the U.S. strikes undermine the Pakistani military’s ability to operate in the tribal areas. It’s a problem of logistics and terrain, he explained.

The few roads in the mountainous border area run through villages. Since the Pakistani military lacks aircraft, the roads are the army’s main supply line. The official argued that if the villagers, angered by American air strikes, turn on the Pakistani military – who are after all U.S. allies – they could cut off Pakistani troops.

“We may have to pull them out completely if [the American incursions] continue. We cannot leave the troops there, if we are cut off from supplies and can’t support them.”

Human toll
While the United States and Pakistan argue over the incursions, conditions in border villages are rapidly deteriorating. The mountain town of Swat was once known as the Switzerland of Pakistan, a resort where Pakistanis vacationed to escape the bustle of Islamabad and Karachi. Today it is a battle zone.

According to a Pakistani military spokesman, in Swat Valley Taliban and al-Qaida fighters have burned down 111 girls schools, destroyed 37 government buildings, blown up 29 bridges, incapacitated the main power plant and cut the gas supply. Villagers are often completely without power. Schools that haven’t been burned down don’t operate.

Not surprisingly, more than a quarter million refugees have escaped areas like Swat and Bajour. At least 20,000 refugees have crossed into Afghanistan. Aid workers say tens of thousands more may be coming.

What can be done?
A senior U.S. military official told me he’d heard Pakistan’s argument – leave us alone, we’ll handle it, stay out – a thousand times, but had yet to see results.

But what can the U.S. actually do?

It’s difficult to fight a secret war, especially here. The Special Operations Forces must fight in the mountains, far away from their bases in Afghanistan, against a battle-hardened enemy funded by the opium trade.

Since U.S. troops must operate covertly, they also can’t afford to lose a single man, fearing the enemy would drag his body Somalia-style through the streets, exposing their presence. The Americans also can’t leave anything behind, no equipment, no bags of MREs, no tracks, no trace they were there fighting America’s newest, most secret war.

Both American and Pakistani officials seem to agree that the only long-term solution to combating the militants in the border region is through better coordination. For now, however, there’s little trust between the two sides, and suspicions are growing.

US-led strike kills 25 Afghan civilians

If The US Has a Free Hand TO CARRY-OUT THE PSY-OP, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “WAR ON TERROR,” THEN EVERY MUSLIM MAN AND WOMAN WILL BE COMPELLED TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE PLAN TO TAKE THE WORLD THROUGH LIMITED WARFARE IS TO TAKE-UP TERRORISM AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, TO FORCE FATHERS, HUSBANDS AND BROTHERS TO JOIN THE JIHAD TO ELIMINATE THE KILLERS. THE MONSTROUS AMERICAN PLAN to Kill DOZENS AND HUNDREDS FROM THE AIR TO FORCE DOZENS ONTO THE BATTLEGROUND IS PURE EVIL.

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:57:25 GMT

US-led air strikes have killed many civilians in Afghanistan.

At least 25 civilians including women and children have been killed in an air strike by US-led forces in volatile southern Afghanistan, reports say.

“In today’s air strike by foreign forces some civilians including women and children were killed,” Helmand provincial police chief Assadullah Shirzad told AFP Thursday.

Shirzad did not give an exact number of casualties but locals claimed that at least 25 civilians were killed.

A BBC reporter said he saw the bodies of women and the children – ranging in age from six months to 15 in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah.

The families took the bodies from their village in Nad Ali district — where the air strike occurred– to the governor’s office to protest the killings.

International forces in Afghanistan have come under increased criticism since Afghan and UN officials discovered that a US-led military operation in the village of Azizabad in August killed 90 civilians, including children.

Seven years of western military presence in Afghanistan has led to more insecurity, a record opium production surge and a sharply upward sprial of civilian lives lost to errant American airstrikes and suicide bombers . More than 4,700 people have been killed in insurgency-related violence in the country this year.

Comment: Christian Democracy to Muslim Democracy

IN EVERY CASE, THE PEOPLE MUST FORCE THEIR DESIRE FOR CHANGE UPON THE RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY, WHO ALLOW GOVERNMENT TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE CHANGES; THIS WILL BE THE SAME IN THE MUSLIM NATIONS.

Comment: Christian Democracy to Muslim Democracy —Jan-Werner Mueller

Some of the philosophies used in the European Catholic transition to democracy — such as personalism — were rather nebulous, although it was probably their vagueness that helped to bring as many believers as possible on board. But the point remains that ideas matter

This summer, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) narrowly escaped being banned by the country’s constitutional court. State prosecutors alleged that the party was trying to “Islamicise” the country and ultimately introduce theocracy. Not only did AKP supporters celebrate after the decision, but those in the West who view it as a prototype “Muslim Democratic” party also breathed a sigh of relief.

The clear model for a moderately religious party — one committed to the rules of the democratic game — are the Christian Democratic parties of Western Europe and, to a lesser extent, Latin America. Yet opponents of the idea of “Muslim democracy” argue that European Catholics only turned to democracy under orders from the Vatican, and that since Muslims do not have anything like a Church hierarchy, Christian Democracy is an irrelevant example.

But history shows that political entrepreneurs and liberalising Catholic intellectuals were crucial to the creation of Christian Democracy. This suggests that Muslim reformers, given the right circumstances, might be similarly capable of bringing about Muslim democracy.

Christian Democratic parties first emerged in Belgium and Germany toward the end of the nineteenth century as narrowly focused Catholic interest groups. The Vatican initially regarded them with suspicion, perceiving parties participating in elections and parliamentary horse-trading as signs of “modernism”.

A breakthrough came with the Italian Popular Party’s founding in 1919. Its leader, Don Luigi Sturzo, wanted it to appeal to tutti i liberi e forti — all free and strong men. The Vatican, having prohibited Italian Catholics from participating in the political life of newly united Italy for almost sixty years, lifted its ban. But Mussolini soon outlawed the Popolari; in any event, the Vatican had had a strained relationship with the party and appeared more comfortable supporting pro-Catholic authoritarian regimes in countries like Austria and Portugal.

But while Christian Democracy got nowhere politically between the World Wars, momentous changes were initiated in Catholic thought. In particular, the French Catholic thinker Jacques Maritain developed arguments as to why Christians should embrace democracy and human rights.

During the 1920s, Maritain was close to the far-right Action Française. But the Pope condemned the movement in 1926 for essentially being a group of faithless Catholics more interested in authoritarian nationalism than Christianity. Maritain accepted the Pope’s verdict and began a remarkable ideological journey toward democracy.

He criticised France’s attempts to appear as a modern crusader, incurring the wrath of Catholics in the United States in particular. More importantly, he began to recast some of Aristotle’s teachings and medieval natural law doctrines to arrive at a conception of human rights. He also drew on the philosophy of “personalism”, which was highly fashionable in the 1930s, as it sought a middle way between individualist liberalism and communitarian socialism, and insisted that “persons” always had a spiritual dimension that materialistic liberalism supposedly failed to acknowledge.

After the fall of France, Maritain decided to remain in the US, where he happened to find himself after a lecture tour (the Gestapo searched his house outside Paris in vain). He authored pamphlets on the reconciliation of Christianity and democracy, which Allied bombers dropped over Europe, and he never tired of stressing that the Christian origins of America’s flourishing democracy had influenced him.

Maritain also insisted that Christians, while they should take into account religious precepts, had to act as citizens first. Acceptance of pluralism and tolerance were thus central to his vision and forbade any one-to-one translation of religion into political life. He was in fact rather sceptical of exclusively Christian parties.

Maritain participated in the drafting of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and the Second Vatican Council eventually approved many of the ideas that he had been propounding since the 1930s. He also influenced the Christian Democratic parties that governed after 1945 in Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, and, to a lesser extent, France, and which consolidated not only democracy, but also built strong welfare states in line with Catholic social doctrine. While still emphasising family values and traditional morality, they lost the whiff of incense that had clung to the Christian Democratic parties at the beginning of the century — by the 1970’s, they even began to stress that one didn’t have to be a believer to join.

Maritain’s example disproves the claim that the analogy between Christian and Muslim democracy fails. It wasn’t the Vatican that took the lead in creating Christian Democracy — it was innovative philosophers like Maritain (who never served in the Church hierarchy, though he was briefly French ambassador to the Vatican) and political entrepreneurs like Sturzo (a simple Sicilian priest).

Of course, Muslim democracy will not be brought about by intellectuals alone. After all, Christian Democracy’s success is also explained by its strongly anti-communist stance during the Cold War — and, in Italy, by the benefits of widespread corruption.

Nevertheless, some body of thought that makes democracy attractive for believers — and reassures non-believers that the faithful have accepted pluralism — had to be available. True, some of the philosophies used in the European Catholic transition to democracy — such as personalism — were rather nebulous, although it was probably their vagueness that helped to bring as many believers as possible on board. But the point remains that ideas matter. So the creation of a liberalised Islam by self-consciously moderate and democratic Muslim intellectuals is crucial. —DT-PS

Jan-Werner Mueller, a professor of politics at Princeton University, is currently an Open Society Fellow at the Central European University, Budapest. He is the author of Constitutional Patriotism