“Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there stated
[the very words only of Jesus];
that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion,
before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants,
and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State;
that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions,
into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves;
that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity,
while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.”
// The strike targeted ‘a Taliban compound in Karwan Manza area of South Waziristan,’ a security official said. — File Pakistan US drone kills 16 militants in South Waziristan
DERA ISMAIL KHAN: Two separate US missile strikes slammed into the stronghold of Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud on Wednesday, killing 33 suspected fighters, security officials said.
The attacks, the suspected work of US drones, came as Pakistan reported that Maulana Fazlullah, the most-wanted Taliban commander in the Swat valley, also in the northwest, was injured during a recent army offensive.
In the first missile strike, in the early hours of the morning, six projectiles fired from an unmanned drone aircraft flattened an alleged training centre for Islamist extremists in South Waziristan, killing eight militants.
Hours later, another suspected drone targeted a convoy of vehicles carrying Taliban militants in the same province, officials said.
‘At least 25 militants have been killed in the US missile strike,’ a senior security official in the area told AFP, referring to the second attack.
Two other security officials confirmed the strikes and casualties, with one telling AFP that the death toll could still rise further.
Pakistani fighter jets have also pounded Mehsud hideouts in recent weeks, with the military vowing to hunt down the warlord’s militant network in the remote northwest region known as a base for Taliban and Al-Qaeda rebels.
The first strike hit about 35 kilometres (20 miles) northeast of the main town Wana, with two officials confirming the death toll of eight.
It was not immediately clear whether any high-value targets were killed in either strike in the mountainous region bordering Afghanistan.
On Tuesday, a US missile strike killed 16 foreign and local militants in a nearby mountain stronghold of Mehsud, who has been described by the US State Department as a key Al-Qaeda facilitator in Pakistan’s tribal belt.
Also Wednesday, the Pakistani army said it had ‘credible’ information that Fazlullah, the commander of the Taliban in the Swat valley, had been injured in Pakistani air strikes two days ago.
The radical cleric is the architect of a nearly two-year Taliban uprising to enforce sharia law in the Swat valley, where the army says it is wrapping up a two-month offensive to drive out the insurgents. — AFP
“Israel must halt West Bank settlement activity…” –President Obama on May 28, 2009 after meeting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
“I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.” Obama June 4, 2008 during his speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
On June 4, 2009 President Obama spoke to the Arab and Muslim “worlds”. On the surface at least, Obama’s speech marked a turning point in the American Administration speech on the Middle East in the last 60 years. Predictably, his even-handed-with-the-Muslims-speech was received in all the typical ways. Political operative Dick Morris characterized it as America “turning her back on Israel” while Rep Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said in reference to the settlements issue that “I don’t think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests.”
We are not witnessing the AIPAC controlled Congress waging the kind of war, which those of us who are familiar with AIPAC’s capabilities expect. Very strange indeed.
From the beginning of this conflict in the Middle East, Palestinians and many others around the world have accused America of being one-sided when it came to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This speech (for the first time) however sounded as if America actually wants to be “fair and balanced” as one infamous pro-Zionist news network likes to call itself. It is obvious–considering some of what Obama said–why many in Israel have their collective underwear in a knot. Rather than the typical “let‘s blame Israel‘s enemies for all the unrest in the Middle East“ the new president stressed that tried-and-true truism that it “takes two to tango” when he said–
“But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”
During the recent Israeli war on Gaza where over 1300 Palestinians (more than half of whom were women and children) were butchered and Gaza destroyed beyond repair, Obama did not say a word publicly or privately in criticizing the Jewish state and not even when the rest of the world was. He even went further than just remaining silent on the issue by sending a letter to Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States representative to the UN with the message that “The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot…I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.” He also added that he understood why Israel was forced to close border crossings to Gaza where over one and a half million people were left to die of hunger and lack of medicine.
We remember the barrage of attacks Obama endured back in March of 2008 while on the campaign trail in Iowa where he had a “slip of the tongue” moment, expressing compassion for the plight of the Palestinians when he said “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” As a result, Obama spent the next nine months of his campaign proving his love and commitment to Israel and the Jewish people. So what happened? Why is Obama now “turning his back” on Israel?
Those who reject the idea he is doing just that should take stock of the fact that within the Zionist community worldwide bells are ringing, whistles are blowing, and in general a hurricane of screaming and hollering is being heard ‘round the world about Obama’s “anti-Semitism”, his being a “secret Muslim”, a “Jew hater”, a ” friend of the Palestinians” and of course “anti-Israel”, as well as all the others that cannot be listed here for reasons of decorum.
Those who understand the American political system know that someone with those kind of credentials should not dream of being elected even to a neighborhood association, much less the highest office in the world. Obama was scrutinized by every Jew on the planet but yet he became the president of the USA. Confused and boggled? Its ok stick around it gets better. So how could Obama in his first term, and not in his second term and early on make the kind of speech he made to the Muslim world?
As all persons know too well by now, the Jewish people throughout history have been systematically rejected and thrown out of virtually every country in which they lived. In 1290 they were expelled from England, 1392 from France, 1492 from Spain- same year Columbus went out looking for India, and 1497 from Portugal, and the list goes on and on. The latest such experience was in the 30’s and early 40’s of the last century during the Nazi’s rein on power. The reasons cited by Hitler himself were Jewish control of money, media, and political power within Germany.
The recent Israeli-engineered/executed massacres in Lebanon and Gaza coupled with the popularity of the Internet have (finally after 6 decades) exposed Israel for what her victims have always known her to be–a murderous state with no concern for human life or the rules of law. As a result, many people around the world are now rethinking their support for the great experiment in Jewish self rule in the Middle East and the Jews in general. The latest of such evidence is the defeat of the ADL at the University of California at Santa Barbara against Professor William I. Robinson. Added to that is the world financial collapse that many squarely blame on Jewish control over money and banking. The war on Iraq for Israel (combined with the above mentioned factors) have many Jewish writers and leaders around the world (and particularly in the US) sounding sirens of warning or maybe the sound of Shofar- the Jewish Horn-in the interest of stopping the course of history from repeating itself by going against their perceived sense of “Manifest Destiny” even if only temporary.
In other words Jews in the US and around the world have realized the “existential threat” Israel poses to worldwide Jewry as a result of its behavior. Powerful Jewish interests on the left and the Right know what “the Lobby” in Washington is doing must be stopped at least temporarily until they can regroup and the world fall back asleep. More and more people in the USA are learning from the likes of Mearsheimer and Walt rather than from Fox and CNN, and those leaders know it is only a matter of time before the masses in the US start (rightly or wrongly) to better understand the realities of how their political and economic systems truly function and turn against Jewish interests in the USA. The Jewish people–as smart as they are–are trying now to change the course of history by accepting the fact that the dream of greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates must be abandoned–for the moment.
Unfortunately for the world that is not how the leadership in Israel feels. Far-right extremists in Israel now rule the country and believe they are obligated to “redeem the land” in order to redeem themselves even if it means killing every Palestinian and destroying every non-Jewish Holy Site. The charge that such assertions are mere anti-Semitic conspiracy theories no longer holds water, as Jews–both religious and irreligious–are “feeling the power” as it were and letting the cat out of the bag as to what their idea of “redeeming the land” really means. Case in point are the comments of one Rabbi Manis Friedman–fellow traveler of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman– who recently responded to the question “How should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors” by saying–
“I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral. The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. …”
Needless to say, going public with such statements in this modern informational age, where sound bites can travel the globe in a matter of seconds does not bode well for a nation trying to depict itself as a ‘light among nations’ and the only democracy in the Middle East. Obviously then, there are some within the Jewish community made very nervous by such statements and have come to realize that the Jewish state has actually become detrimental to Jewish survival in the world.
In short, the real fight we see taking place here is not one of principals as much as it is one of the preferred tactics and timing.
Some in the Jewish community believe Israel is putting the whole Jewish people in danger with its policies towards the Palestinians and it must be stopped. Despite the racist, bigoted, violent statements being leveled against him by Israelis and Jews the world over, the fact nevertheless is that Obama is “God’s messenger” sent to the Jewish people, a modern-day messiah or the “second coming of Moses” if you will. The Jews must leave this track of destruction which will lead them to the same end they have experienced in centuries past–isolation and expulsion. They must come out and be free from the grip of their perennially-mad leaders whose only real goal–apart of waging war against non-Jews–is devising new schemes for bringing persecution and oppression on their own. Obama must lead them through and out of this “Red River”.
By settling the Palestinian Israeli issue under the two states solution Israel is contained and transformed into a manageable beast. In other words what Obama is doing falls squarely within the interest of Israel in particular and the Jewish people in general. Make no mistake about it, Obama will not “bravely and couragesly” go against the Jewish community in the United States which happens to field an arsenal of WMD’s that includes but not limited to AIPAC, ADL,JDL, and JINSA. These organizations understand that it is only a matter of time before the story of the Holocaust, which was a major stepping stone in the creation of Israel is exposed, and in turn leads to the loss of its legitimacy in the eyes of the World. A huge embarrassment to all Jews and western governments in the World. Now you understand why Israel and the Jewish community would fight tooth and nail to protect the sanctity of their Holocaust narrative, a war that they themselves know it will come to an end not in their behalf.
You did not truly believe that America’s banking system could fall overnight did you? But it did. Is the economic and banking collapse in the US part of this Jewish in-fight? We may have to wait few decades before we will find out.
Of course don’t forget also that the Arab and the Muslim worlds are the only salvation left in the world for America’s economic recovery. The Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and the Russians don’t want to buy America’s Treasury Bills-which is how America issues money- anymore because they don’t believe they will ever get their money back. In the cold reality of the business world, the only remaining people susceptible to American arm-twisting is the Arab world. Therefore, catering to the Arabs will not only put pressure on Israel, but will also bring in economic benefits to an economically-beleaguered USA. The only bad thing is, economic help from Arab countries will come much faster than any thing Israel might relinquish under pressure.
Hesham Tillawi, PhD International Relations is a Palestinian American writer, Political Analyst and a TV and Radio Talk Show Host. His program Current issues with Hesham Tillawi can be viewed Live every Thursday evening at 8:00 PM Central Standard Time on Cox Cable system Channel 15 in Louisiana, Nationwide on Bridges TV, and Worldwide on Amazonas Satellite, as well as Live on the Internet at http://www.currentissues.tv and can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org Interviews then archived for on demand viewing at http://www.currentissues.tv Radio show broadcast on RBN http://www.republicbroadcasting.org every Saturday at 4-6 PM Central Time.
Andrew Winkler, The Rebel Media Group
In my previous essay ‘The Democracy Hoax, ’ I spoke about how Western style democracy, especially in its most perverted form, the Anglo-Saxon two-party system, was the political equivalent of World Wrestling Federation: a staged competition with choreographed pretend fights and pre-determined outcomes. You could also compare it with a horse race where the ruling elite owns all the horses. No matter who wins the election, our self-chosen rulers always win. The biggest hurdle for anyone dreaming of becoming the leader of the opposition, leave alone the head of government, is not to be elected or even nominated, but to convince the ruling elite that nobody else in his or her party would serve them better in that role. Once that’s achieved, everything else – money, media attention – just falls into place.
Another cruel joke of the Matrix
Which brings me to the topic of this essay, a joke
almost as cruel as the democracy hoax: the hoax of ‘free press’. Let me start by asking, what ‘freedom of press’ actually means. The concept has been passionately promoted in the 18th and 19th century as part of the struggle of Jewish media against the historic European elites and really only means – in spite of all the fairy tales told by Jews to their Gentile supporters – ‘freedom of Jewish press’. Why else are Jews so quick to ignore ‘freedom of press’ when it comes to Jewish sensitivities? (The likes of ADL and CAMERA have developped an art form out of curtailing freedom of press without throwing anyone into prison, for example by ‘lobbying’ advertisers, financial institutions and others to boycott a particular publisher.)
One of the taboo topics of Western societies is the question who owns the press. In most Western countries mainstream media are owned and controlled by Jews, in many cases as much as 90% of the market. How did the Jews gain such a strong-hold? The unfair ‘Jewish advantage’ goes far beyond the rampant tribal cross-promotion, most visibly in movies, where we are used to be constantly bombarded with Jewish brands such as Madonna, Ben&Jerry, Tiffany, Cosmo, Dell and Starbucks.
Although in theory it’s the readers and viewers who are deciding which media to consume, and 99.5% of them are Gentiles, they don’t matter all that much for the success of a media company. It’s the advertisers respectively their ad agencies – most of them Jewish – who chose which media to use for their campaigns. Everything else flows from there. The more advertising income media companies have, the most attractive products they can offer to their consumers.
I hear you asking: but what about ratings? Doesn’t the number of viewers and readers influence whether a media is used by advertisers? Much less than what most people think. Virtually all print media are wholesaled via Jewish distribution companies. If they want to push a particular media product, those distributors force their retailers to buy up to 20 times more copies than what they can actually sell.
The unsold copies then go back to the distributors for credit once the next edition comes out, and the distributors receive a credit note from the media company. Sounds harmless enough. The only problem here is that nobody tells the advertisers and their ad agencies how many of the sold copies are returned for credit. The ad agencies do know about the scam, but they are not going to let down their Jewish mates. And the more copies a media company ‘sells’ that way, the more they can charge for advertising.
I’m not saying that the official media sales figures are entirely fake. All that consumer exposure in newsagencies and supermarkets is bound to generate some real sales eventually. Anybody who understands anything about retail knows about the importance of product placement. The more copies of a particular media product consumers see on the shelves, the more likely they are going to buy it. And whose media products are Jewish media distributor pushing in such way? That’s right. Do I need to get into who owns the companies who measure TV ratings?
So whose interests are those Jewish media serving? Having all that advertising income from companies conned into believing that they are reaching far more consumers than they actually are, enables Jewish media companies not only to produce the glossiest magazines and hire the best writers and photographers.
Those advertising dollars also put Jewish media owners into a position to give generously for all sorts of Jewish causes, and they have to do so in order to get the above described support from their fellow tribesmen. That’s why Jews are renown to be such big donors. They give more than half of the funds raised by both Democratic and Republican Party in the U.S., inspite of being only one or two percent of the population. The situation in the UK and Australia, where Jewish donors control both Labour and Conservative respectively Liberal Party, is no different.
Jewish donors also give generously for seemingly unselfish causes. They donate – with a lot of media publicity, mind you – to buy toys and blankets for Israeli children hiding in bunkers from home made Palestinian rockets, usually landing in soccer fields or killing Arab Israelis. They also give to build Talmud schools to teach Jewish kids that Goyim are actually animals created by God to serve, enrich and entertain Jews, and that the 10 commandments only refer to how to treat other Jews. Those schools also make sure that all Jewish kids know that God wants his ‘chosen people’ to kill all Goyim living in the ‘promised land’, and while they are at it, kill also all neighboring people refusing to be enslaved. (I hope none of my readers considers these kind of teachings to be calling for genocide, because that would be anti-Semitic, wouldn’t it?)
Gatekeepers and corporate censors
Given the extreme Jewish control and ethno-centricity, it doesn’t surprise that no Jewish media company dares to do anything that their co-religionists might perceive as being decremental to their interests. Even more liberal newspapers such as the Guardian and the Independent in the UK, who regularly feature articles critical of some of the Jews-only state’s worst human rights abuses and acts of aggression, they firmly steer away from where it really hurts, such as the question of Israel’s right to exist or the veracity of the official version of the so-called Holocaust.
Even more important than avoiding topics decremental to Jewish interests, is the pushing of views perceived to be beneficial. Whether it is the promotion of anything that ridicules and destroys despised Christian beliefs and values of their host countries, the pushing of the dogmatic belief in the Holocaust and other obvious lies such as the fraudulent ‘Wipe Israel off the map’ mistranslation by Mossad-owned MEMRI or the U.S. government’s ’12 Arabs with box cutters’ conspiracy theory, Jewish media consistently operate in ways serving Jewish interests only, rather than the interests of the entire community they are located in.
As long as Jewish ethno-centricity, supremacy and media control continues the way it is, and has been for a while, and as long as Jewish media keep prostituting themselves to the interests of a sectarian ruling elite, there will be no such thing as ‘freedom of press’, only ‘freedom of Jewish press’, that is the freedom of Jewish media to shaft the Goyim as they please.
Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blog ZioPedia.org and founder of Jews Anonymous. He can be contacted on // <![CDATA[
var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to';
var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '=';
var addy34382 = 'editor' + '@';
addy34382 = addy34382 + 'ziopedia' + '.' + 'org';
document.write( '' );
document.write( addy34382 );
document.write( '' );
// ]]>email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org // <![CDATA[
document.write( '' );
// ]]> . You can find more of his articles in the Editorial Section of the ZioPedia.org site.
An inter-governmental agreement to build the Nabucco gas pipeline, which is aimed at decreasing the EU’s dependence on Russian gas, is due to be signed on 13 July in Ankara, the European Commission has announced.
Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria – the pipeline’s five transit countries – have agreed to sign the accord, the Commission announced on Friday (3 July). However, it is not yet clear who will take part in the ceremony. Turkish diplomatic sources reportedly said there would be presidents, prime ministers and ministers among the participants.
“I am delighted that the signature of the Nabucco Intergovernmental Agreement will go ahead on 13 July in Ankara,” Commission President José Manuel Barroso said in a written statement. He added that the Commission had played a crucial role by acting as a facilitator “to turn the long-standing talks into a concrete agreement”.
The breakthrough became possible after an agreement was apparently found with Turkey, which wants to use 15% of the transited gas for its own internal consumption. However, the details of the agreement are not yet known and need to be fine-tuned, sources said.
Romania’s Economy Minister Adriean Videanu told Reuters that the 15% issue was resolved, but he too was not aware of the details.
Joschka Fischer appointed as consultant
The Nabucco consortium has contracted former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as a senior consultant for the project.
According to Spiegel, Fischer joined the project primarily to ensure that Turkey remains on board, as he is known to have excellent relations with the country.
The German press writes that ironically, Fischer’s new position puts him on the other side of the fence from
his former boss, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Just weeks after losing his chancellor job to Angela Merkel in the 2005 elections, Schröder took a position as chairman of the board of Nord Stream, a Gazprom pipeline project designed to bring gas beneath the Baltic Sea from Russia to the northern German coast.
For his part, Fischer will be in charge of a pipeline loathed by Gazprom.
Against the winds
Turkey reiterated its support for Nabucco two days after Moscow offered Ankara the chance to “play a role” in the rival South Stream project. It is however unclear what role Turkey can play in a project which bypasses Turkish territory, as its pipe runs under the Black Sea, from the Russian port of Beregovaya to the Bulgarian city of Varna.
A recent move by Russia to buy gas from Azerbaijan is also seen as a blow to Nabucco. On 29 June, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev signed a deal in Baku to restart the flow of Azerbaijani gas to Russia from January 2010.
Under current plans, Nabucco would be fed with an initial eight billion cubic metres of gas annually from Azerbaijan, an amount that should increase to 31 bcm as new suppliers join up. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said that Azerbaijan is already producing 27 bcm annually and expects that figure to reach 30 bcm in 2009.
Meanwhile, Russia appears to be paying a “political price” for Azeri gas. The gas price agreed with Azerbaijan is higher than the $300 per 1,000 cm that Russia offered Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan earlier in the year, the Russian press reported.
The Nabucco pipeline project, expected to come onstream in 2014, aims to decrease the EU’s dependence on Russian imports by bringing Caspian gas to a hub in Austria via the Balkans.
Azerbaijan is seen as the project’s most likely first gas supplier, while in future, it would also bring supplies from the Middle East. Supplies from Iraq are currently being considered, while in future Iran could also become an important supplier.
The gas would be shipped to Europe via Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Construction of Nabucco will begin in 2011 (EurActiv 08/04/09), as the recent gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine has convinced decision-makers of the need to speed up the project.
Meanwhile, Russia is stepping up efforts to start implementing its rival ‘South Stream’ project (EurActiv 25/05/09). The country’s Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko recently announced that South Stream would more than double its planned capacity from 31 billion cubic metres per year (bcm/y) to 63bcm.
The Nabucco consortium comprises leading European energy companies: OMV of Austria, MOL of Hungary, RWE of Germany, Bulgargaz of Bulgaria, Transgaz of Romania and Botas of Turkey. But three consortium members – OMV, MOL and Bulgargaz – have already signed up to Gazprom’s South Stream pipeline, raising questions about conflicts of interest, or indeed their commitment to Nabucco.
Several EU governments, including Germany, France and Italy, which have close ties with the Kremlin as well as long-term gas contracts with Gazprom, are not convinced of the need for the new pipeline. Italy’s ENI is Gazprom’s main partner in ‘South Stream’.
Turkey has used the Nabucco project as a bargaining chip with the EU. Also, Ankara seeks to use 15% of all natural gas flowing through the pipe as part of the deal for letting it pass through Turkish territory (EurActiv 29/05/09).
- 13 July: Signing of inter-governmental agreement.
- By end 2009: Nabucco consortium plans to begin to realise engineering operations, including commissions for pipes and compressor stations.
- 2011: Actual construction begins.
- 2012: Suppliers are determined.
- 2014: Pipeline becomes operational.
- EurActiv Turkey: Nabucco’da sorumlu Bakanlik hangisi?
- Hurriyet, Turkey: Nabucco to be sealed July 13
- BBC: Europe nears gas pipeline accord
- BBC: Map showing South Steam and Nabucco gas pipelines
- Reuters: Russia offers Turkey a role in South Stream
- RFE/RL: Germany’s Gas War? Nabucco Vs. South Stream — And Schroeder Vs. Fischer
- Spiegel online: Ex-Foreign Minister to Become Nabucco Consultant
- Kyiv Post, Ukraine: Baku won’t finance Nabucco construction, but might provide gas
- The Wall Street Journal: Gazprom’s weakness: Burning through cash
- RFE/RL: Russia, Azerbaijan achieve gas breakthrough
- RIA Novosti, Russia: Russia ready to buy Azerbaijani gas at record price
- EurActiv.cz: Turecko dává zelenou dohodě o plynovodu Nabucco
- EurActiv.fr: Le projet Nabucco bientôt officialisé mais toujours controversé
- EurActiv.hu: Szerződéses formát ölt a Nabucco
- EurActiv.sk: V Ankare spustia Nabucco
- EurActiv.com.tr: Nabucco’da neler oluyor?
Intergovernmental accord for the Nabucco gas pipeline will be signed on July 13, Romania’s Economy Minister sai. Novosti Azerbaijan quoted Reuters as saying.
| The pipeline, intended to relieve European dependence on Russian gas, is expected to bring Caspian and Middle East gas to Europe as early as 2014, but the project has been delayed by lack of supplies and infighting among stakeholders.
“On July 13, the intergovernmental accord on Nabucco will be signed in Turkey,” Adriean Videanu told Reuters by telephone from Azerbaijan where he is on a two-day visit.
Turkey, which has few hydrocarbon resources of its own, has delayed the signing of transit agreements by demanding 15 percent of Nabucco’s 31 billion cubic metre capacity throughput for its domestic usage or for re-export.
Videanu said Turkey’s “15 percent issue” was now solved.
“As far as I know it is solved, but I do not know details.”
The resolution of that may help push the Nabucco project ahead of the rival Russian pipeline project South Stream by shoring up the transit conditions for the pipeline.
Representatives from Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria, the five countries through which the pipeline is planned to run, will sign the accord. Germany is the sixth Nabucco consortium member, but has no transit role.
South Stream pulled ahead of Nabucco in securing more supplies this week when Azerbaijan promised Gazprom priority in buying gas from the second phase of the major Shah Deniz project.
The $11 billion Nabucco pipeline will ship gas from Iraq, Egypt, Azerbaijan and possibly Russia and Turkmenistan to Europe.
Iran can participate in the European Union-backed pipeline if Washington normalises relations with Tehran, the U.S. Secretary of State’s Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy has said.
ISLAMABAD: For the first time, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has admitted that militants and extremists were “created and nurtured” in the country as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives. ( Watch )
But they began to haunt the country in the post-9/11 era, Zardari said in a candid admission during an interactive meeting with former senior civil servants at the presidency last night.
Militants and extremists emerged on the national scene and challenged the state not because the civil bureaucracy was weakened and demoralised, but because they “were deliberately created and nurtured as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives,” he said.
“Let us be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities,” Zardari said.
“The terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well,” he added.
Labelling Pakistan as a frontline state in the war against terrorism, Zardari pledged to eliminate this scourge from society. “I have taken charge at a difficult time and will come up to the challenges the country is facing.”
His remarks came days after his comments in an interview that the Pakistan Army would even target militants it had backed in the past for use as a proxy force against India.
The army is currently engaged in a campaign against the Taliban in the northwestern Swat valley and is gearing up for a push against Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan chief Baitullah Mehsud and his network in South Waziristan tribal region.
Zardari also stressed the need for greater national reconciliation, saying he intended to keep all political forces together because Pakistan cannot afford confrontation at this juncture.
“Dialogue is our most powerful weapon…we defeated a dictator through the power of dialogue and we intend to continue holding dialogue to resolve various issues confronting Pakistan,” he said.
“We are on the brink and we must realise that personal political games can no longer be played,” he added.
Responding to various suggestions by the former civil servants, Zardari said the government is taking several steps to improve governance, tackle militancy and extremism, improve law and order, agricultural output and power generation, strengthen institutions and devolve power.
// <![CDATA[// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[// <![CDATA[
08. July 2009. | 15:26
Turkish officials confirmed Friday that a key intergovernmental agreement on the European Union’s Nabucco gas pipeline will be signed July 13 in Ankara.
The 3,300-kilometer Nabucco pipeline is due to bring gas from the Caspian Sea to Austria via Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, while bypassing Russia, in a bid to reduce Europe’s energy dependence on Moscow.
The project, planned to become operational in 2014, will cost an estimated EUR7.9 billion.
It is in direct competition with Russia’s South Stream project, developed by Russia’s gas giant OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS) and Italy’s Eni SpA (E), which will channel Russian gas through Bulgaria to Western Europe under the Black Sea.
Critics have questioned the adequacy of gas sources for Nabucco, and the project was cast into further doubt in May when key gas suppliers Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan held off their support at a meeting in Prague. Sponsors
Minister for Information and Broadcast Qamaruzzaman Kaira Wednesday announced the completion of military operation in restive Swat and Buner districts, report said. Addressing a news briefing alongside Director General Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Athar Abbass, the minister declared that Pakistan Army has concluded its offensive in Swat and Buner districts of Malakand Division, claiming that militants had been flushed out from the areas. Athar Abass told the reporters that the troops have successfully completed the operation in the restive areas destroying all the militant training camps and their terror network, adding that all the main highways have been opened in the cleared areas. DG ISPR also confirmed the reports that Maulana Fazlullah, the chief of Taliban in Swat, has been injured after Pak jets and helicopter gunship blitzed on his hideout in Shamozai area of Swat.
[Mullen suggests Iran negotiations limited time offer, to be determined by intelligence estimates.]
|By Al Pessin
07 July 2009
|Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen (file photo)|
The top U.S. military officer says there is a narrow window of time in which to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and also to avoid a military strike on its nuclear facilities. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, said in Washington Tuesday dialogue is crucial but that time is running out.
Admiral Mullen said he is very concerned about a state sponsor of terrorist groups, such as Iran, acquiring nuclear weapons. He said it would be “incredibly destabilizing” and could cause a regional arms race.
But Mullen said he is equally concerned about a possible pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as Israel is reported to be contemplating. He said such a move could have a variety of unintended and potentially deadly consequences.
“I worry a great deal about the response of a country that gets struck and the vulnerabilities that regional countries have that are great friends of ours, their populations,” Mullen said. “And then what’s next? And then how does it end up? Does it, in fact, get contained or does it expand?”
Admiral Mullen said the way to avoid a nuclear Iran and a military strike against it is through dialogue, like the renewed contacts that President Barack Obama has proposed.
“There is a great deal that certainly depends on the dialogue and the engagement. And I think we need to do that, with all options remaining on the table – including, certainly, military options,” he said.
Mullen would not elaborate on when the United States might use a military option against Iran or what it might entail. But he said various estimates suggest that Iran is between one and three years away from developing a nuclear weapon.
“That gets back to the criticality, in my view, of solving this before Iran gets a nuclear capability or that anyone would take action to strike them. And I think that window is a very narrow window,” Mullen said.
Admiral Mullen spoke to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington Tuesday, just hours after returning from Moscow, where he participated in the U.S.-Russia summit on Monday.
He said the summit preparations included discussions of how the United States and Russia can cooperate on the Iranian issue. He would not provide details, except to say that U.S. officials urged Russia not to deliver to Iran a sophisticated air defense system it wants, which the admiral said would be “a game changer” in Middle Eastern security.
Experts say a firm plan to activate the system would put more pressure on Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before improved air defenses made an air strike more difficult.
Sundial (via Columbia University Archives) ^ | 03/10/1983 | Barack Obama
Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:30:27 PM by Ultra Sonic 007
Most students at Columbia do not have first hand knowledge of war. Military violence has been a vicarious experience, channeled into our minds through television, film, and print.
The more sensitive among us struggle to extrapolate experiences of war from our everyday experience, discussing the latest mortality statistics from Guatemala, sensitizing ourselves to our parents’ wartime memories, or incorporating into our framework of reality as depicted by a Maller[?] or a Coppola. But the taste of war — the sounds and chill, the dead bodies — are remote and far removed. We know that wars have occurred, will occur, are occurring, but bringing such experience down into our hearts, and taking continual, tangible steps to prevent war, becomes a difficult task.
Two groups on campus, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Students Against Militarism (SAM) work within these mental limits to foster awareness and practical action necessary to counter the growing threat of war. Though the emphasis of the two groups differ, they share an aversion to current government policy. These groups, visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are throwing their weight into shifting America off the dead-end track.
“Most people my age remember well the air-raid drills in school, under the desk with our heads tucked between our legs. Older people, they remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think these kinds of things left an indelible mark on our souls[?], so we’re more apt to be concerned,” says Don Kent, assistant director of programs and student activities at Earl Hall Center. Along with the community Volunteer Service Center, ARA has been Don’s primary concern, coordinating various working groups of faculty, students, and staff members, while simultaneously seeking the ever elusive funding for programs.
“When I first came here two years ago, Earl Hall had been a holding tank for five years. Paul Martin (director of Earl Hall) and I discussed our interests, and decided that ARA would be one of the programs we pushed.” Initially, most of the work was done by non-student volunteers and staff. “Hot issues, particularly El Salvador, were occupying students at the time. Consequently, we cosponsored a lot of activities with community organizations like SANE (Students Against Nuclear Energy).”
With the flowering of the nuclear freeze movement, and particularly the June 12 rally in Central Park, however student participation has expanded. One wonders whether this upsurge comes[?] from young people’s penchant for the latest ‘happenings’ or from growing awareness of the consequences of nuclear holocaust. ARA maintains a mailing list of 500 persons and Don Kent estimates that approximately half of the active members are students. Although he feels that continuity is provided by the faculty and staff members, student attendance at ARA sponsored events — in particular a November 11 convocation on the nuclear threat — reveals a deep reservoir of concern. “I think students on this campus like to think of themselves a sophisticated, and don’t appreciate small vision. So they tend to come out more for the events; they do not want to just fold leaflets.”
Mark Bigelow, a graduate intern from Union Theological Seminary who works with Don to keep ARA running smoothly, agrees. “It seems that students here are fairly aware of the nuclear problem, and it makes for an underlying frustration. We try to talk to that frustration.” Consequently, the thrust of ARA is towards generating dialogue which will give people a rational handle on this controversial subject. This includes bringing speakers like Daniel Ellsberg to campus, publishing fact sheets compiled by interested faculty, and investigating the possible development of an interdisciplinary program in the Columbia curriculum dealing with peace, disarmament, and world order.
Tied in with such a thrust is the absence of what Don calls “a party line.” By taking an almost apolitical approach to the problem, ARA hopes to get the university to take nuclear arms issues seriously. “People don’t like having their intelligence insulted,” says Don. “so we try to disseminate information and allow the individual to make his or her own decision.”
Generally, the narrow focus of the Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets. When Peter Tosh sings that “everybody’s asking for peace, but nobody’s asking for justice,” one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control ensues[?], severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself. Mark Bigelow does not think so. “We do focus primarily on catastrophic weapons. Look, we say, here’s the worst part . Let’s[?] work[?] on that. You’re not going to get rid of the military in the near future, so let’s at least work on this.”
Mark Bigelow does feel that the links are there, and points to fruitful work being done by other organizations involved with disarmament. “The Freeze is one part of a whole[?] disarmament movement. The lowest common denominator, so to speak. For instance, April 10-16 is Jobs For Peace week, with a bunch of things going on around the city. Also, the New York City Council may pass a resolution in April calling for greater social as opposed to military spending. Things like this may dispel the idea that disarmament is a white issue, because how the government spends its revenue affects everyone.”
The very real advantages of concentrating on a single issue is leading the National Freeze movement to challenge individual missile systems, while continuing the broader campaign. This year, Mark Bigelow sees the checking of Pershing II and Cruise missile deployment as crucial. “Because of their small size and mobility, their deployment will make possible arms control verification far more difficult, and will cut down warning time for the Soviets to less than ten minutes. That can only be a destabilizing factor[?].” Additionally, he sees the initiation by the U.S. of the Test Ban Treaty as a powerful first step towards a nuclear free world.
ARA encourages members to join buses to Washington and participate in a March 7-8 rally intended to push through the Freeze resolution which is making its second trip through the House. ARA also will ask United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War (UCAM), an information and lobbying network based in universities, nationwide, to serve as its advisory board in the near future. Because of its autonomy from Columbia (which does not fund political organizations), UCAM could conceivably become a more active arm of disarmament campaigns on campus, thought the ARA will continue to function solely as a vehicle for information and discussion.
Also operating out of Earl Hall Center, Students Against Militarism was formed in response to the passage of registration laws in 1980. An entirely student-run organization, SAM casts a wider net than ARA, though for the purposes of effectiveness, they have tried to lock in on one issue at a time.
“At the heart of our organization is an anti-war focus,” says junior Robert Kahn, one of SAM’s fifteen or so active members. “From there, a lot of issues shoot forth — nukes, racism, the draft, and South Africa. We have been better organized when taking one issue at a time, but we are always cognizant of other things going on, and collaborate frequently with other campus organizations like CISPES and REELPOLITIK.”
At this time, the current major issue is the Solomon Bill, the latest legislation from Congress to obtain compliance to registration. The law requires that all male students applying for federal financial aid submit proof of registration, or else the government coffers will close. Yale, Wesleyan, and Swathmore have refused to comply, and plan to offer non-registrants other forms of financial aid. SAM hopes to press Columbia into following suit, though so far President Sovern and company seem prepared to acquiesce to the bill.
Robert believes students tacitly support non-registrants, though the majority did not comply. “Several students have come up to our tables and said that had they known of the ineffectiveness of the prosecution, they would not have registered.” A measure of such underlying support is the 400 signatures on a petition protesting the Solomon Bill, which SAM collected the first four hours it appeared. Robert also points out that prior to registration, there were four separate bills circulating in the House proposing a return to the draft, but none ever got out of committees, and there have not been renewed efforts. An estimated half-million non-registrants can definitely be a powerful signal.
Prodding students into participating beyond name signing and attending events is tricky, but SAM members seem undaunted. “A lot of the problem comes not from people’s ignorance of the facts, but because the news and statistics are lifeless. That’s why we search for campus issues like the Solomon bill that have direct impact on the student body, and effectively link the campus to broader issues.” By organizing and educating the Columbia community, such activities lay the foundation for future mobilization against the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country. “The time is right to tie together social and military issues,” Robert continues, “and the more strident the Administration becomes, the more aware people are of their real interests.”
The belief that moribund institutions, rather than the individuals, are at the root of the problem, keep SAM’s energies alive. “A prerequisite for members of an organization like ours is the faith that people are fundamentally good, but you need to show them, and when you look at the work people are doing across the country, it makes you optimistic.”
Perhaps the essential goodness of humanity is an arguable proposition, but by observing the SAM meeting last Thursday night, with its solid turnout and enthusiasm, one might be persuaded that the manifestations of our better instincts can at least match the bad ones. Regarding Columbia’s possible compliance, one comment in particular hit upon an important point with the Solomon bill, “The thing we need to do is expose how Columbia is talking out of two sides of its mouth.”
Indeed, the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically, and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy. What members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse what they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part. By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience–that of war. But then, there are some things we shouldn’t have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.
[Arms reductions opening gambit on "grand chessboard," next moves aim to remove US ABM threat.]
MOSCOW (AFP) – The development of a planned US missile shield would cast serious doubt on future nuclear arms cuts, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying by news agencies on Tuesday.
“If our partners decide to create an American missile-defence system with global reach, this will undoubtedly cast serious doubt on the prospects for further strategic offensive arms reductions,” Lavrov said in an interview with Vesti-24 television, quoted by Russian news agencies.
Lavrov’s comments underscored a continuing dispute over US missile defence plans in eastern Europe that threatens to undermine talks on replacing the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on December 5.
On Monday, US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed a framework document outlining the principles of a new disarmament treaty to replace START.
Meanwhile, White House officials said Iran was the main topic in talks between US President Barack Obama and Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev, adding that Moscow now seemed more receptive to US arguments.
“Iran, in the one-on-one meeting, was the majority of the conversation,” Mike McFaul, a top adviser to Obama on Russian affairs, told journalists after the Kremlin talks between the US and Russian presidents on Monday.
“There’s a reason for that, because that is something that affects our real national security interests,” he said.
Another top official travelling with Obama on his visit to Moscow, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough, said the Russian president made plain to his guest that Moscow’s concern about Iran was rising.
“I think the president has been struck by the candour with which President Medvedev has underscored his concern about the growing threat from Iran,” McDonough said.
The United States and Russia have for years differed sharply on how to approach the Iran security issue, which is also directly linked to their disagreement on US missile defence plans in Europe.
The US officials indicated they saw signs of movement on both topics during Obama’s closed-door discussions with Medvedev on Monday.
“I think one of the important and one of the most significant things that developed today was a Russian acknowledgment that we need to study the growing ballistic missile threat,” another top Obama aide, Gary Samore, said.
“That joint assessment is going to be focused on Iran and North Korea as the two countries which pose the most direct threat to the US and its allies and to Russia as well,” he said.
During a joint news conference with Obama after their meeting, Medvedev did not mention Iran once. But the Russian leader stated: “There are negative trends in the world and they are due to the emergence of new nuclear players.”
Washington has for years argued that it needs to fortify missile defences in Europe precisely to defend allies from such a threat. Moscow however has previously rejected that argument, saying it has seen no evidence Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons and that Iran currently has no missile capable of reaching the European allies the US system would protect.
The White House detected a shift in the Russian stance on Iran, said McFaul.
“Just remember, if they wanted to have an adversarial relationship with us with Iran right now, there are all kinds of things they could do very easily that would make our situation a lot worse there.
“And they’re not doing those things.”
[Let's stop pretending that American drones hitting the Army's targets is just serendipity. SEE: Paramilitary Pretense, Who Controls the Predators?]
A barrage of missiles believed fired from a U.S. unmanned plane destroyed a Taliban training camp on a mountain close to the Afghan border on Wednesday, killing at least 10 insurgents, two intelligence officials said. It was the second such attack in 24 hours in the South Waziristan tribal area, which is the stronghold of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud and a rumored hiding place for top al-Qaida leaders. Mehsud is also being targeted by the Pakistani army, which accuses him and his followers of being behind 90 percent of the terrorist attacks in the country in recent years. Despite the apparent convergence of interests, the army insists the America missile attacks are hurting its attempts to kill or capture Meshsud because they alienate local tribesman they are trying to enlist in their campaign against him. The suspected drone fired six missiles at the mountain top training camp in the Karwan Manza area of South Waziristan before dawn Wednesday, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media. The nationality and the identity of the slain men were not immediately known. The United States is believed to have launched more than 40 missile strikes against targets in the border area since last August. Washington does not directly acknowledge launching the missiles, which have killed civilians as well as militants and contributed to anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan. The Pakistan government routinely protests the strikes as violation of the country’s sovereignty and has publicly asked the United States to give them the technology to launch their own attacks. But many analysts suspect the government _ which has received billions of dollars a year from the United States in aid since 2001 _ secretly cooperates with them.
Shireen M Mazari
Obama is certainly stretching his global goodwill to its limits. After critiquing the US invasion of Iraq when out of power, he has upped the military ante with the surge in Afghanistan; refocused on the military centric approach in Pakistan with a massive increase in drone attacks against Pakistani civilians (just so much “collateral damage” for the US of course) on the one hand, and with the successful goading of the Pakistan military through the Zardari nexus into FATA where the quagmire is already unfolding in the terrible deaths of our soldiers and innocent civilians while the terrorism issue shows no signs of abating. Pakistan has come out the worst in Obama’s policies especially in terms of the growing intrusiveness the US is acquiring in our daily lives with US inspectors now promising to hover in all our bureaucracies to see that the “aid” they are giving is spent as they see fit – not to mention the $.9 billion that will immediately go back to the US for the rebuilding of its embassy in a more imperial design.
However, it is not just Pakistan that is suffering from what is effectively a right-wing Obama agenda. Now Obama has teamed up with Russia to fool the world in terms of nuclear disarmament. The US and Russian leaders declared in a grand fashion that they have agreed to reduce their existing nuclear stockpiles but failed to tell the world that most of these reductions would be of redundant weapons which will create space for the new ones. After all, neither side avowed to stop adding to their arsenals!
An even more dangerous development has been the gradual taking over of critical international institutions by the US and its preferred personnel. We first saw the UN effectively become a tool in US hands with the Secretary-Generalship going to South Korea’s Ban Ki Moon – a look at the UN record post the Moon takeover will be self-explanatory. Now we have seen the IAEA once again coming under the US and its allies’ control with the election of Japan’s Ambassador Yukiya Amano by the IAEA BoG followed by his formal appointment by the BoG. Now the General Conference will confirm this appointment later in September. This election of Amano is unfortunate since the strong positions taken by the present DG, El Baradei stand threatened as the Japanese have always gone along with US positions – something Baradei did not do and therefore fell afoul of this super power. Competing with Amano was South Africa’s Abdul Samad Minty – a respected and strong diplomat, which is why the US had nightmares. Till the last ballot, the stalemate persisted but in the end one vote changed it all and the Indian media has been agog with how their last minute reversal to an abstention allowed Amano to win. No one will ever know but having seen Minty in action two years ago, he would have been the more desirable strong man to follow Baradei and maintain IAEA’s independent positioning on issues like Iran.
So now the US has won back control of the UN and IAEA. Apparently, the US is already using the Japanese to wield pressure where it cannot do so itself too overtly. In this connection, recently a Japanese team visited Pakistan demanding access to Dr Khan but were not successful. Now with Amano at the helm at the IAEA, what sort of Japanese pressure will we see vis a vis Pakistan? Perhaps it is time we drew more attention to Japan’s massive civil nuclear programme and its controversial reprocessing agenda.
Nor is this all in terms of US seeking to implement its nuclear agenda globally. It has got things moving again at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty (FMCT). Perhaps after what happened at the IAEA on the Indian safeguards agreement, we should not be surprised to find that our highly competent head diplomat in Geneva also buckled under (or was made to) and accepted the US-pushed programme of work for the CD. This does not specifically include the issue of existing nuclear stockpiles in relation to the FMCT so has Pakistan shifted its position to its permanent disadvantage under US pressure once again? Also, while the programme of work has identified four issues – FMCT, Nuclear Disarmament, PAROS (Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space) and Negative Security Guarantees – by delinking these issues the attempt is clearly to move on the FMCT without conditionalities relating to the other three issues. This is again a major shift because many states including China wanted linkages between the FMCT and PAROS for instance. Now it would appear that the US will again move on the FMCT as it did on the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the UN in the sixties. When states like Pakistan had raised issues of negative and positive security guarantees to be linked to the NPT, the US insisted that first the NPT should be approved and then the security guarantee issues could be dealt with. The result was that the Conference on the security guarantees followed the passage of the NPT and the US was not prepared to even provide negative security assurances in any form whatsoever to non-nuclear weapons states. For Pakistan all these issues, and none more so than the issue of reduction of existing stockpiles of fissile material, are very crucial in the context of the FMCT and even if we have to go it alone we should, because otherwise we will be at a permanent disadvantage. But the way things are unfolding it appears we may have made some fatal compromises already in this regard.
It is in this overall context of the US pushing its nuclear agenda globally that we must raise our voices of concern over what seems to have become a covert official US policy – to allow Israel to deal with Iran’s nuclear facilities. Most recently Biden (New York Times) stated that the US would not “stand in Israel’s way” if it sought to take action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. It was amusing to hear Biden talk of Israel being a “sovereign” state taking its own decisions! Now when did the US ever respect any state’s sovereignty – as we in Pakistan have continuously experienced and still do so! Be that as it may, the Biden statement was threatening because it came alongside a 5th July 2009 Sunday Times story that Israel’s Mossad chief had informed his prime minister of Saudi Arabia’s assurance to him that it would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over Saudi air space to conduct attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Early this year it had also been reported that the Mossad Chief, Dagan, had met Saudi officials.
So a new and threatening pattern is emerging even as Obama seeks to woo the world with what is now becoming his glibness rather than a serious intent to alter the course of US policies on security issues. Is it a mere coincidence that we are now seeing unprecedented violence breaking out in the Xinjiang capital of Urumqi? We know that the East Turkmenistan Movement still has its offices in New York. So what is the US intent? To send a hostile message to China? What exactly is the Obama administration up to? Is it all a matter of old wine in new bottles rather than any major shift away from a neoimperialist mindset that has been the hallmark of US global policies for some time now?
Too bad. So many had expected so much from Obama – the thinking, intelligent and more world-sensitive US president. But what we are seeing around our part of the world is more of the same – with the new veneer eroding fast. More force; more aggression; more dictation. Just as our leaders crumble once again before the US demands, the US leadership offers little that will compel us to alter our perception of a neoimperial power set on a military-centric course for this part of the world. As before, this course will bring them to ruin but must we go down the same suicidal path?
The writer is a defence analyst. Email: email@example.com
[It must be time once again for The Crown to play its right-wing nationalism card on the home front. It never ceases to amaze me just how carelessly the Queen and her minions pit one group of humans against another, in one of a thousand different configurations. The Empire has taken the lessons learned from centuries of colonization efforts (all maintained by stirring-up internal ethnic divisions within each colony to pit one group against another), fed them through the Tavistock psyop institute and applied the new scientific lessons to the homefront . In most of the colonies, the British effectively prevented national unity from ever arising through violent antagonisms and false flag attacks; at home, unity around the Crown's "mission" abroad is the goal. Unity is to be achieved by inciting violent nationalism, to rally violent patriotic thugs around the war against Islam. Attacks upon the Muslim community and violent reprisals in an escalating cycle of violence are the desired outcome of this strategy. SEE: South Asian Terrorism: All Roads
Lead To The British Empire]
There are worrying indications in British society that a violent anti-Muslim sentiment has now developed to the point at which attacks on Muslim-owned properties and institutions are imminent. There have been arrests in the last few days of 32 men across the UK and the recovery of arms and ammunition that included rocket-launchers, hand grenades and explosives as well as a quantity of handguns and automatic rifles. Not since the days of the IRA has such a large cache of illegal weaponry been obtained with the intent of use by a domestic terrorist group. Many of those arrested appear to belong to the far-right British Nationalist Party (BNP) which has a decades-long history of racist and anti-Semitic activity. British parliamentarian Muhammad Sarwar praised the police and other law-enforcement agencies for their timely action. Much to their credit the police moved in protection of minority ethnic and religious groups (Muslims were not the only targets) and a tragedy has been averted.
Almost coincidentally, Commander Shaun Sawyer of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command told a meeting of British Muslims that he was concerned about the danger to their communities and that the police were responding to the growing threat. He said of the far-right… “I fear that they will have a spectacular… they will carry out an attack that will lead to a loss of life or injury to a community somewhere. They’re not choosy about which community.” The arrest of the 32 would-be terrorists seems to bear out his concerns. As the recession bites ever-deeper the polarization of British society continues apace, and as the faded dream of multiculturalism and plurality dissipates into a reality of unemployment for many poor whites, the far-right is again resurgent. Polarities in the UK to a degree reflect our own difficulties, with the difference that here extremism is more embedded and widespread and the moderates, whoever they are, lack both voice and organisation sufficient to make a counterweight. A successful attack on a Muslim target in the UK could have appalling consequences here, and we have only to think back to the violence that grew out of the Danish cartoons story to know the truth of that. Extremism has a global connectivity – what goes ‘bang’ in the UK may be an even bigger bang here
[Secretary of State of Zionist Empire follows Israeli lead, pursues indirect route to WWIII.]
CARACAS: The United States will call for “even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a TV interview broadcast here.
“ Washington remained concerned about what she called Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons,” which could “be very destabilizing in the Middle East and beyond,” Clinton told the private television.
“We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime,” Clinton said in the interview, which was broadcast late Tuesday.
And noting the unrest in the country since the disputed June presidential election, she added: “We have seen in the last weeks that Iran has not respected its own democracy”.
War weary Americans who hoped the new Obama administration would change U.S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring the troops home must be sorely disappointed. The only Americans coming home these days are those who have died in the senseless conflict. More troops are being sent to fight a war that is understood neither by the American public nor by the people doing the fighting.
|Dick Holbrooke in Afghanistan in 2006. Understanding Holbrooke’s mission in Central Asia requires knowing who this Zionist “master of disaster” really is.|
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, July 5, to discuss U.S. military actions in the Middle East. During the interview Mullen revealed what he called the real strategy in Afghanistan: to clear, hold, and build. The first question asked of Mullen was about the military situation in Afghanistan as the U.S. Marines carry out a large offensive known as Operation Strike of the Sword or Operation Khanjar (Arabic for “dagger”):
Admiral Mike Mullen: I suspect it’s going to be tough for a while. And again, we have enough forces there now not just to clear an area but to hold it so we can build after. And that’s really the strategy.
The logical question to ask Mullen would have been, “What is it that we want to build in Afghanistan?” although John Dickerson of CBS News did not ask. If building is “really the strategy” in Afghanistan as Admiral Mullen says, what is it that so badly needs to be built?
|Americans are coming home from Afghanistan in caskets under the cover of night.|
WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN?
U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan since October 2001 when they were supposedly sent in response to 9-11, although no Afghans were involved in the terror attacks. The U.S. reportedly gave up its pursuit of Osama Bin Laden years ago. So why did the U.S. invade Afghanistan and why are we still there? Why has President Obama increased troop levels in Afghanistan? The short answer is the TAPI gas pipeline, which will carry gas from Israeli-owned and managed gas fields in Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and China.
|The TAPI pipeline needs to cross Helmand province in the south of Afghanistan.|
Turkmenistan and Afghanistan are both very rich in gas reserves. The Turkmen mineral assets are managed by the former Mossad agent Yosef Maiman. Building the TAPI pipeline is a Zionist pipe dream that will use the mineral wealth of Turkmenistan to benefit Maiman and his partners. This is the main development project that U.S. policy is trying to accomplish. Transit fees from the gas pipeline are intended to support the government in Kabul.
Mullen touched on this development in the interview:
We’ve got to move to a point where there’s security so that the economic underpinnings can start to move, development, that we can create governance so that the Afghan people can get goods and services consistently from their government.
Are we to believe that the U.S. is fighting an 8-year war in Afghanistan in order to make sure the Afghans can get “goods and services consistently from their government?” Have we spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan so we can build post offices, train stations, and power plants? What are the “economic underpinnings” that need to “start to move?” Why would the U.S. government care more about providing “goods and services” to the people of Afghanistan than, say, the people of California?
Mullen touched only lightly on the subject and CBS News was certainly not asking the questions that would allow Americans to really understand the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
“The economic development the generals talk about, including gas pipeline construction, requires stability,” Gary Leupp wrote in Counterpunch on July 6, “But Afghanistan, like Iraq, was destabilized precisely by a U.S. attack and occupation in the first place. More ominously, Pakistan has been destabilized by the invasion of the next-door country.” Why are Americans fighting wars in Central Asia for a pipeline from Turkmenistan?
To understand why Obama is pushing the war in Afghanistan, one needs to understand that the Obama administration is really a Zionist-controlled government. If this were not already abundantly clear, it can be seen by the person appointed to apply U.S. policy in the region. That person is Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke, one of Obama’s first appointments. Holbrooke, a Zionist Jew and a long-time associate of Henry Kissinger, is the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Holbrooke was a director of Maurice Greenberg’s incredibly badly-run A.I.G. insurance company from 2001-2008. A.I.G. is really a criminal enterprise, indicted on numerous charges, which insured investment banks against losses from the extremely risky financial “instruments” that caused the financial collapse of 2008. When these risky instruments failed, A.I.G. was bailed out with more than $180 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars, which it then distributed to the dodgy investment banks it had insured. A.I.G. has already cost every man, woman, and child in the United States about $600 each. Holbrooke was a key insider in this tremendous scam. Greenberg and A.I.G. are also involved in the terror attacks of 9-11 and the fraudulent “War on Terror” in many ways. The first plane that struck the World Trade Center, for example, flew directly into the secure computer room of a Greenberg-owned and managed company, Marsh.
Prior to A.I.G., Holbrooke was a vice chairman at Credit Suisse First Boston. First Boston was the place where the mortgage-based securities were first created under Laurence D. Fink. (Fink developed mortgage-based securities at First Boston in the mid-1970s when 9-11 “whistle-blower” Indira Singh worked there on the IT and risk consulting end of the business.)
On January 22, two days after taking office, Obama named Holbrooke as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. At this point, the U.S. government had already bailed-out Holbrooke’s company to the tune of some $180 billion. Yet two months later, Obama blasted A.I.G., calling their business practices “outrageous” and trying to distance his administration, which includes a former director of A.I.G., from the tremendous cost the A.I.G. bail-out imposed on the U.S. taxpayer: “Nobody here was responsible for supervising A.I.G. and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in,” the president said.
|Richard Holbrooke of A.I.G. and George Mitchell were both early Obama appointments. Obama reportedly did not talk with Holbrooke about the $180 billion bail-out of the company he had been a long-time director of. Instead he lied by saying no one in his administration was responsible for supervising A.I.G.|
Obama’s denial is clearly not true. Holbrooke, an Obama appointee, had his hands deep in the A.I.G. scam for 8 years and had made a good living doing so. Fox News reported on March 19, 2009, that Holbrooke made more than $250,000 a year as a director at A.I.G.:
Holbrooke joined AIG’s board in February 2001 and resigned in July 2008, two months before the company nearly collapsed. Over more than seven years as a board member, he may have earned as much as $800,000 in cash and company stock, according to AIG financial documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Since September, AIG has received $180 billion in taxpayer money to keep it from failing and causing more damage to the U.S. economy…
For much of his tenure on the AIG board, Holbrooke had a role in approving salaries and compensation. From 2001 until mid-2005, he was a member of the board’s compensation committee. According to AIG financial statements, the committee sets the salary for the company’s chief executive officer [Maurice Greenberg] and gives advice on how other senior managers are to be compensated.
HOLBROOKE AND VIET NAM
When critics call the conflict in Afghanistan “Obama’s Viet Nam” they are not far off. Holbrooke was a key player in the Viet Nam war from 1962 to 1969. His biography concerning Viet Nam looks like this: Joined Foreign Service US Department State, 1962, served in South Vietnam Saigon, 1963-66; staff member The White House, 1966-67; assigned US Department State; staff Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam, 1968-69. From his high-level positions in the Viet Nam conflict we can see that Holbrooke and Henry Kissinger have worked together since the mid-1960s.
Holbrooke and Kissinger have continued to work closely together at the American Academy in Berlin, which they founded in 1994. The academy is located in a lakeside mansion across from the train station in Wannsee. In 2008, Holbrooke gave the Kissinger award to George H.W. Bush. Why are Holbrooke and Kissinger giving prizes to former U.S. presidents?
|George W. Bush receiving the Kissinger Prize in 2008In an odd breach of protocol, Henry Kissinger was sent by the Obama administration to hold high-level talks with the leaders of Russia in March instead of the Secretary of State. Why was Kissinger speaking for the United States under the newly-elected Obama administration? Who really makes U.S. foreign policy?|
|Kissinger meeting Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on March 19, 2009|
Holbrooke also played a key role in the U.S.-led bombing and subsequent Balkanization of Yugoslavia, in which the formerly prosperous and socialist nation was carved up into ethnic mini-statelets. The breaking up of Yugoslavia resulted in a significant reduction in the standard of living across the nation. NATO continues to control the statelet of Kosovo, which was literally ripped off from Serbia along with Trepca, one of the richest mines in Europe.
Holbrooke, who is called “the bulldozer” by some who know him, is a pushy individual who has been involved at the highest level in one disaster after another since the early 1960s. Now he is the point man in a disastrous and senseless war in Central Asia, which has gotten much worse since he joined the effort in January 2009. Why is Holbrooke put into such positions of power in the first place? The man, after all, has a long record of creating mega-disasters.
|Holbrooke visited refugees who had been driven from Pakistan’s Swat valley in early June. “Are you glad the army came in, even though you were driven out of your homes?” Holbrooke reportedly asked the refugees.|
To understand why Holbrooke is put into these positions, it is necessary to understand who he really is. Although it is not reported in biographical sketches, Holbrooke belongs to a very highly-connected family that is related to the Rothschild and Guggenheim families, among others. It is his German Jewish family connections that have placed him in positions of power in the U.S. government.
Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke was born April 24, 1941, to Dan Holbrooke and Gertrudis “Trudi” Moos Holbrooke. Dan, his father, was a Polish Jewish immigrant who changed his name to Holbrooke. Biographical sketches claim that Dan’s original surname has been lost, which is very unlikely. Dan Holbrooke’s real name has been hidden in the same way that the family has sought to hide its Jewish roots. But why would the Holbrooke family want to hide its Jewishness?
It it because that is their secret connection to power that they want to conceal?<
Celia Mcgee of the New York Observer wrote about Holbrooke in 1998:
The son of Dan and Trudi Holbrooke, raised in Scarsdale, N.Y., schooled at Brown University, he was a son of assimilated, upper-class Jews who fled Nazi racism. “I’ve been with him plenty of times when his Jewishness was obvious,” said his friend Stanley Karnow, the journalist and author, “and he jokes about it plenty, too. It just isn’t an issue with him, or Kati.”
Holbrooke’s father, whose real name is not known, died when Holbrooke was 16. His mother comes from the influential merchant Moos family of Baden-Württemberg in southern Germany. The Moos family is engaged in leather trading and moved their business to Argentina in 1922. Holbrooke’s grandfather Samuel Moos was born in Reutlingen in 1889 and married Valesca Friedheim of Zurich. Samuel and Valesca lived in Buenos Aires where the leather-trading business is run in the name of the company founder, Elias Moos S.A. The Moos family, which is related by marriage to the Rothschild, Guggenheim, Weil, Marx, and Einstein families, traveled frequently by ship between Buenos Aires, New York, and Europe. There is even a seminar room at Tel Aviv University named in honor of Samuel and Valesca Moos. The Moos family collected nearly 1 million Swiss francs from Switzerland in 2007 for money they claimed to have lost in accounts during the war, which was multiplied by a factor of 12.
|The graves of Ludwig Rothschild and his wife Hanchen Moos in the Jewish graveyard of Gailingen, Germany.|
By understanding who Dick Holbrooke is we can see that there is a secret agenda behind the war in Afghanistan, which is likely to become much worse with his involvement.
Source: Christopher Bollyn
Please see this picture closely because, for the life of me, I can’t get over Bilawal Bhutto accompanying his father to a high-level meeting with Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai. (Can you ever imagine Obama bringing one of his daughters to a meeting like this or, for that matter, Bush one of his)??? I know there are more important crises in Pakistan right now (the refugees, the economy, the Taliban), but I can’t let this go, even though I probably should.
I just have one question: WHY IS BILAWAL SITTING THERE ? A 20 year old who does not even know how to tie his shoes – but then come to think of it neither does his father. Actually, I have one more question: what does it say about Zardari’s priorities that Bilawal is sitting closer to his father and Barack Obama than either Pakistan ’s foreign minister (Shah Mahmood Qureshi, on Bilawal’s left) or Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S. (to Qureshi’s left)?
There is no rational reason why Bilawal Bhutto should be sitting in on an extremely important meeting with extremely important leaders.
Could this be the “Divine Right Of The Kings” doctrine being implemented? Are these the new King and Crown Prince for us poor miserable Pakistanis?? ?