No deal on Gwadar port, says China

ANANTH KRISHNAN

APPakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, left, and Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing on May 20, 2011

The Chinese government on Tuesday said it was unaware of any deal with Pakistan to take over operations at the Gwadar port, contradicting Pakistani officials’ claims that the project had been discussed during Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani’s recent visit to Beijing.

“It is my understanding that during the visit last week this issue was not touched upon,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu told reporters here on Tuesday.

She was responding to a question about Pakistan Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar’s statement on Saturday that China had “acceded to Pakistan’s request to take over operations” at Gwadar, following the expiration of the current agreement with the Singapore Port Authority.

He had also suggested the two sides had discussed the building of a naval base during Mr. Gilani’s visit. While Pakistan had expressed its gratitude for Chinese help in building a port, the country would be “more grateful” if the Chinese agreed to build a base, he had said.

But Ms. Jiang said she “had not heard of” this project being discussed.

She did, however, add that China would continue assisting development projects in Pakistan. “Over the years, China has provided assistance to Pakistan within its capacity,” she said. “We hope this assistance will help Pakistan to improve its livelihood and realise sustainable economic and social development and we will continue to do so in the future.”

During Mr. Gilani’s visit, the two countries agreed a deal for China to expedite providing 50 JF-17 Thunder aircraft. His visit was seen as bringing the two allies closer, amid recent tensions between the United States and Pakistan in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2.

The Defence Minister’s statement on Gwadar was seen as a further indication of China stepping up military ties, even as U.S. lawmakers called for a scaling back of support.

But even as Pakistani officials have drawn attention to both countries’ close defence ties following the strains with the U.S., Chinese officials and analysts have, contrastingly, sought to play down any suggestions that a rift was bringing the “all-weather” allies even closer.

Officials have also voiced concern that any toning down of U.S. support would lead to instability, with China expressing reluctance to provide any military support even while seeking a greater economic footprint in the region.

“The international community should give Pakistan more understanding and support,” Ms. Jiang said. “The stability and development of Pakistan is closely linked to the stability and development of the South Asia.”

Rong Ying, vice-president of the China Institute for International Studies (CIIS) and an expert on Sino-Pakistan relations, added in an interview with The Hinduthat defence ties “were not the focus” of Mr. Gilani’s visit, which, he said, would have no significant bearing on either country’s ties with the U.S.

PNS Mehran attack: Nationality of 4 terrorists identified

[Is that a tattoo on this dead terrorist’s forearm?]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/109914-attack-pns-mehran-base-paf-faisal-base-125.html#post1778631

http://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthread.php?66816-Exculsive-Image-of-Terrorist-Killed-in-PNS-Mehran-Operation.&s=0d90484d3dea8704d70bb0a98f94c316&p=406352&viewfull=1#post406352

By JAZBABLOG

KARACHI: Four terrorists killed during PNS Mehran operation had been identified in terms of their nationality as 3 among them were Uzbek and one was Afghan national.

The post mortem reports of the dead terrorists have been completed and samples of DNA test have been handed over to police. Bodies of terrorists have been shifted to Edhi mortuary.

Abdul Sattar Edhi told that they would be buried in Edhi graveyard. The identification of two bodies became possible while the bodies of remaining two are torn into pieces.

PNS Mehran Attacker Dead Bodies in Hospital

Controlling the Internet–Weaponizing the Web

Sarkozy: Gov’ts must regulate the Internet

PARIS – From wires dispatches

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy gestures, during a e-G8 conference. AP photo.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday that governments need to lay down and enforce rules in the digital world – even as they need to foster creativity and economic growth with the Internet.

The French leader acknowledged he took a risk and faced mistrust over his push for the so-called e-G8 conference when Japan’s earthquake, fiscal troubles in Europe and revolutions in the Arab world have filled the plate for the Group of Eight summit later this week in Normandy.

The two-day gathering is bringing together Internet and media world gurus like Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Paris plays host to the e-G8 at a time about simmering concerns that some countries – including several in Europe, including France – have taken measures or enacted laws that could curb Internet freedoms.

And it comes after social media played an important role in a push for greater freedoms across the Arab world – with many people mobilized and brought together through Twitter or Facebook.

Conflicting visions about the Internet – notably about how regulated it should be – has pit companies like Amazon.com and Google in opposition with governments who to protect privacy and copyrights online. Sarkozy alluded to the tensions. “We need to hear your aspirations, your needs,” Sarkozy told hundreds of business executives, creative minds and journalists at Tuileries Gardens in Paris. “You need to hear our limits, our red lines.”

Policymakers like Sarkozy say the blistering pace of growth has often left regulators behind. He said a “balance” needed to be struck to prevent misuse of the Internet – such as to protect children who might Web surf – and boost its potential as a tool for economic growth.

“That’s the meeting point, and the balance, that we are going to try to reach: to keep everything that you bring, and at the same time, understand there is a minimum value of rules that must not impede your development but will allow for us to continue together toward much higher growth rates,” said Sarkozy.

The two-day conference of top digerati is billed as the first of its kind, and is expected to draw recommendations for the G8 summit Thursday and Friday in the English Channel resort town of Deauville.

2nd Kazakh Security Services Bombing Since Joining US/Afghan Coalition

[SEE: Taliban warns Muslim Kazakhstan on entering Afghan war ]

Kazakh blast kills two outside security building

ASTANA – Agence France-Presse

A blast tore through a car Tuesday outside a security service building in the capital of Kazakhstan, killing two people in the second such incident in the usually stable Central Asian nation in a week.

Initial reports attributed the blast to a suicide bomber, but the ex-Soviet republic’s interior ministry later played down the terror link. The interior ministry said in a statement that two people died after a “spontaneous explosion” tore through the car.

“These circumstances point to the absence of signs that this was an act of terror,” the ministry statement said. Interior Minister Kalmukhanbet Kasymov later told reporters that “there is no evidence of their involvement in any religious or extremist organizations.”

The blast coincided with a visit to Astana by Alexander Lukashenko, the authoritarian president of Belarus who is negotiating an emergency loan for his ex-Soviet state. The blast went off early Tuesday morning on a square that includes a remand prison operated by the Committe of National Security, KNB, the country’s main successor to the Soviet-era KGB.

But the square also has a train station, and Kazakh state media only referred to that building when telling the nation about the location of the blast. The police also dismissed initial reports by the private Russian-based Interfax news agency that attributed the incident to a suicide bomber.

The blast came just a week after a suicide bombing outside the headquarters of the security service in the northwestern Kazakh city of Aktobe, which wounded three people including a member of the security services.

Such attacks had until now been rare in Kazakhstan, the most stable and prosperous of the Central Asian republics, whose vast mineral wealth has been overseen since the Soviet era by President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

The veteran leader won an overwhelming re-election last month that was once again criticized by observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has never recognized a Kazakh election as fair.

Nazarbayev has nevertheless enjoyed broad public support, fostering a business-friendly economic environment and building warm ties with both Russia and China as well as the United States.

The country’s parliament, which includes only members of the ruling party, recently passed a draft law allowing Kazakh servicemen to join the international coalition in Afghanistan. A top U.S. embassy official in Astana said Monday that the move should not directly threaten Kazakh security, but warned of the continuing dangers posed by the Taliban.

This Neocon Is Asking a Lot of Important Questions on Obama’s Reversal Policies

In September, Obama’s Middle East Policy Will Collapse

BARRY RUBIN

Prediction: In September, President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy blows up in his (and our) face(s). It’s totally obvious and yet no one is focusing on it.

I’m not referring to the Palestinian Authority’s bid for unilateral independence at the UN. I’m referring to the Egyptian parliamentary election.

It is totally obvious that in that election Egypt will elect a radical, anti-American, hate-Israel parliament which will then write the country’s new constitution. This is a turning point in Middle East history. And Obama is unaware of it. Quite the contrary, he declared in his State Department speech that everything is great with the “Arab spring.” Nothing can go wrong. It is the expression of a yearning for prosperity and freedom.

The Arab spring began when a frustrated man in Tunisia set himself on fire.

It will now move to the new phase: the whole Middle East will be set on fire.

Is that alarmist? Not at all, except in the sense that when one sees a fire he sets off the fire alarm.

Don’t be distracted by the question of whether Islamists will have a majority or the even narrower question of whether the Muslim Brotherhood will have a majority.

There WILL be a radical majority, there MIGHT be an Islamist majority, there won’t be a Muslim Brotherhood majority but it will ALMOST CERTAINLY be the largest single party.

Why do I say this? Well, Amr Moussa, who isn’t an Islamist and is Egypt’s most popular and important Egyptian politician says so.

There is no sign—no sign—that the moderates are organizing serious parties. Instead of getting to work, they’re complaining. Meanwhile four radical, anti-American, passionately anti-Israel forces are organizing:

–The Muslim Brotherhood, which should get one-third or more of the seats and is contesting half of them, obviously in the districts where it has the best chance of winning.

–Smaller and even more radical Islamist parties (referred to as Salafists) who could form agreements with the Brotherhood so that they won’t hurt each other’s chances.

–Left-wing neo-Marxist parties.

–Radical nationalists.

There will probably be a number of independents who will be courted and won over by one of these blocs.

Imagine the day after that election. What will the mass media say? What will the American politicians say?

–That they were wrong about the Egyptian revolution and the Muslim Brotherhood?

–That by helping to bring down the old regime, U.S. policy foisted a disaster on the region and on its own interests?

–That by celebrating how great the “Arab Spring” is and refusing to acknowledge the real threats and problems, Obama made catastrophic errors.

–That his policy has led to many advances for America’s enemies?

–That Israel is in a far worse strategic situation and certainly can’t and shouldn’t make any more concessions?

–That the Islamists are emboldened and thus both Hamas and the radicals who run Fatah are taking an even harder line?

–That the loss of faith in America by its Arab allies is now undeniably clear and they are scrambling to make their own deals with Iran and other extremists?

–That there is a real possibility of a war in which Egypt either joins directly or backs Hamas? Imagine, Egypt stays “neutral” but nobody stops thousands of Egyptian volunteers from crossing into Gaza to fight or even across the Egypt-Israel border to launch terror attacks?

–What will the Obama Administration do if in practice Egypt tears up the Israel-Egypt peace treaty even if it pretends that it isn’t doing so?

–People are insisting that if Hamas in practice becomes part of the Palestinian Authority that the United States, and certainly Congress, will cut off aid. But what will happen when the Obama Administration does everything possible to prevent an aid cut-off and nothing possible to pressure the PA into changing its policy or behavior?

These are not speculations. These things WILL happen. Nobody in the United States or Europe is seriously discussing these scenarios and what should be done about them.

And I didn’t even mention the Egyptian presidential elections or, for that matter:

–An emboldened Turkish Islamist government if it wins the June 11 elections the:re,

–A Lebanese government controlled by Syria and its clients, especially Hizballah, if it ever gets a new prime minister and cabinet installed in that country.

–The survival of an anti-American Syrian government that has murdered hundreds of its citizens and will be arresting and torturing thousands, in part due to the Obama Administration’s failure to try to overthrow it?

–The sight of Iran ever closer to nuclear weapons and admissions that the sanctions had only a limited effect?

These are not far-out scenarios. All of them have a 90 percent or more likelihood of happening.

I don’t want to take your time here for a history lesson but consider precedents:

–1952. Radical regime takes power in Egypt. U.S. realizes the threat by April 1955 but then saves the regime from being overthrown by Britain, France, and Israel in 1956. Result: Violence, disruption, and anti-American problems in the region for decades.

–1979. Radical regime takes power in Iran. U.S. policy makes a mess in dealing with the revolutionary crisis. Americans taken hostage, revolutionary Islamism flourishes, thirty plus years of violence, September 11, Islamist movement still growing.

September 2011 will be another of those moments. Mark that on your calendar. On the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the United States will be watching the triumph of the ideology and movement–not Usama bin Ladin, of course, but his smarter counterparts–in much of the Middle East.

SOURCE: The Rubin Report

Mehran Attack, Another Orchestrated Attempt To Justify Pak Nuke Seizure Operations

Pakistan militant attack – blueprint for nuclear base raid?

Military personnel keep guard under an old aircraft displayed at the Mehran naval aviation base after troops ended operations against militants in Karachi May 23, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Athar Hussain

By Alistair Scrutton

ISLAMABAD

(Reuters) – A group of highly-trained militants with night-vision goggles and the collusion of sympathetic Islamist military officials storm a heavily-guarded navy base situated only a few miles from where a unstable Pakistan stores some of its nuclear weapons.

That is the scary way of looking at the attack on the navy base in Karachi on Sunday night that destroyed two U.S.-built aircraft and killed 10 military personnel, fuelling worries about the safety of the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal.

The consensus remains that Pakistan’s 70-100 nuclear weapons are safe. Security at installations is reportedly much higher. It is almost impossible for a rogue team to launch any missiles and the vetting of staff at these bases is extremely rigorous.

But each attack in Pakistan seems to up the ante, surprising analysts and military alike about how far militants can reach into the heart of the powerful military establishment — perhaps one day doing enough to steal nuclear material for a “dirty” bomb or successfully penetrating a nuclear facility.

In Sunday’s attack, attackers scaled walls with ladders to enter PNS Mehran, one of Pakistan’s most heavily guarded bases, and held off the military for nearly 17 hours.

“It reinforces the fear that terrorists have now developed a range of tactics – foreknowledge, use of uniforms, simultaneous attacks on different entry points, etc – which enable them to penetrate high-security bases and, crucially, hold space within them for hours,” Professor Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at Bradford University, wrote in an email.

“This is a blueprint for an attack on a nuclear facility.”

The attack took place only 15 miles (24 km) away from a suspected Pakistan nuclear weapons storage site at Masroor air base, a sign of how close the nuclear arsenal is to the growing violence from the Pakistan Taliban and other militant groups.

Even in some of Pakistan’s more nationalistic media, which for years has dismissed criticism of the safety of the nuclear arsenal as foreign-inspired propaganda, doubts have surfaced.

“This easy action by the terrorists has rightly raised concerns among the nation that neither any part of the country nor our nuclear installations are safe,” Urdu newspaper Nawa-i-Waqt said in its editorial on Tuesday.

Some commentators said it was possible that the attack could only have happened with help of insiders within the base – perhaps disaffected and low-level military personnel angry at increasingly open U.S. operations on its soil.

The fear is these kind of insiders could assist an assault on a nuclear base. Even an unsuccessful attack could sow panic in the military and spark more pressure from Washington.

The Taliban hinted at local help, but remained coy to whether there were inside the base.

“Our ‘local friends’ from Karachi helped us in yesterday’s operation but I would not say whether we had friends on the base or not,” Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan told Reuters from an undisclosed location.

ONLY THE LATEST SETBACK

The attack comes after the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces sparked suspicion the al Qaeda leader may have been helped for years by sympathisers within Pakistan’s intelligence services.

Nor was this the first attack at the heart of Pakistan’s military. There was an attack at the army general headquarters in Rawalpindi in 2009. Later investigations found low ranking soldiers and officers were involved in planning the attacks.

U.S. diplomatic cables from 2006 published in local media showed then Deputy Chief of Air Staff for Operations, Air Vice Marshal Khalid Chaudhry as reporting of small scale sabotage from low ranking Islamist officials to stop aircraft being deployed in security operations along the Afghan border.

This all may lead to a nightmare scenario for the West of a small group of officials managing to steal nuclear material, load it up with conventional explosives, and set it off.

“(The) major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon,” U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson said in a 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks, according to media reports.

U.S. officials have said that they do not know everything about the size and location of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, but have publicly voiced confidence in Pakistan’s ability to secure its weapons.

There are some 10,000 soldiers guarding the facilities and only 5 percent of individuals pass strict screening tests for staff at the facilities, according to a report by Shashank Joshi of the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute think-tank.

Experts say nuclear weapons are stored separately from delivery systems – meaning any militants ability to launch weapons is almost impossible.

But analysts point to weakness in the system.

“Separate storage may provide a layer of protection against accidental launch or prevent theft of an assembled weapon, it may be easier for unauthorized people to remove a weapon’s fissile material core if it is not assembled,” The U.S. Congressional Research Service said in a report in January.

There are also concerns that any future stand-off with nuclear foe India could lead to a chaotic situation with nuclear weapons dispersed around the country, straining Pakistan’s military command structure.

Pakistan’s move to develop short range tactical nuclear weapons may also make them more vulnerable to theft or a mutiny by a group of military officers.

“If they are designed for battlefield use, they could present an easier target for terrorists to seize and use themselves,” wrote Ben Rhode, research associate for non-proliferation and disarmament at The International Institute for Strategic Studies, in an email to Reuters.

(Additional reporting by Zeeshan Haider; Editing by Chris Allbritton and Alex Richardson)

Will Female Saudi Drivers Who “Take the Risk for Reform” Have Obama’s Support?

SAUDI ARABIA: Security forces clamp down on those allegedly behind campaign to defy ban on women drivers

Saudi Arabian authorities have clamped down on women’s rights activists after a bold call by a group of women in the ultra-conservative kingdom on social media sites on the Internet to break a ban on women driving.

Saudi police arrested at least two people linked to the campaign and shut down a Facebook page meant to promote civil disobedience, according to the Abu Dhabi-based English-language newspaper the National.

Saudi security forces loyal to King Abdullah, whose family has ruled the kingdom for 80 years, arrested Manal Sharif, a 32-year-old computer security consultant, and her brother, the National reported.

On Facebook and Twitter, activists had launched a campaign calling on women in Saudi Arabia who hold international drivers’ licenses to get behind the wheel on Friday, June 17, and drive their cars to protest the country’s ban on women driving.

Their call is a daring initiative. Women who have defied the ban in the past have lost their jobs, been banned from travel and denounced by members of the country’s powerful extremist religious establishment.

The women say their planned move is not a protest nor an attempt to break the law, but rather a bid to claim basic rights as human beings.

“We women in Saudi Arabia, from all nationalities, will start driving our cars by ourselves,” read a statement posted on the group’s Facebook site, I will Drive Starting June 17, before Saudi censors took it down. “We are not here to break the law or demonstrate or challenge the authorities. We are here to claim one of our simplest rights. We have driver’s licenses and we will abide by traffic laws.”

Their Facebook group had garnered more than 11,000 supporters and around 3,000 people followthe group’s account on Twitter.

Critics say Saudi, a staunch U.S. ally and largest exporter of oil in the world, has a horrific record on human rights and women’s liberties. In addition, it’s said to be pumping cash into global Islamic organizations that promote extremist Islamic thinking across the Islamic world, including the nascent democracies in Egypt and Tunisia.

But some Saudis themselves are trying to challenge the conservativism of their own country.

On recent incident suggests things are already heating up on the women’s ban driving issue. A few days ago, 30-year-old Saudi housewife and mother Najla Hairiri told Agence-France Presse how she drove her car in the streets of the Saudi Red Sea port city of Jeddah for four days before getting stopped.

She took the decision “to defend her belief that Saudi women should be allowed to drive” and said she wasn’t afraid of being hauled into detention for flouting the driving ban because she felt she was setting a good example for her daughter and other young Saudi women.

“I don’t fear being arrested because I am setting an example that my daughter and her friends are proud of,” she said, adding that she also offers driving lessons for women.

Below is a video clip showing Saudi women’s right activist Wajeha Huwaidar driving her car in a rural part of the kingdom on International Women’s Day in 2008 and talking about the problems that come with not letting women drive in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia adheres to a strict interpretation of the ultra-conservative Wahabi version of Sunni Islam. Aside from being banned from driving, Saudi women face a myriad of other restrictions. They cannot travel on their own without getting authorization from a male guardian, cannot receive an education without male approval, and are not allowed to cast ballots in municipal elections — the only kind of elections that currently exist in the absolute monarchy.

If the call for defying the driving ban on women materializes on June 17, it will not be the first time women in Saudi Arabia will have gotten behind the wheel and taken to the streets in protest. On Nov. 6, 1990, a group of women drove through the streets of the Saudi capital Riyadh before getting pulled over and stopped.

Several of the women reportedly lost their jobs and were denounced as by powerful religious figures.

Recent comments by Saudi religious clerics about the June 17 campaign suggest the sight of women driving in the streets will go down with the religious clergymen as badly as it did in 1990.

Saudi cleric Mohammed Nujaimi told Bloomberg News that the women’s plan was “against the law” and that driving does “more harm than good” to women, because they might intermingle with males who are not their relatives, such as mechanics and gas-station attendants.

— Alexandra Sandels in Beirut

Photo: A screenshot of the Facebook group  “I Will Drive Starting June 17”. Credit: Facebook.

Obama’s Middle East Speech Plagiarizes Bush’s 2nd Inaugural On Revolutionary Democracy

Obama’s Middle East speech is the bookend to George Bush’s 2nd Inaugural address, Obama is providing the current specifics on the generalities outlined by Bush, even expressing the Bush Doctrine in his own counterpoint:

Bush–“This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary.”

Obama–“In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone.”  (The unspoken qualification is that some cases, like Libya will require bullets.)

Overlooking the obvious fact that Bush used a much more eloquent speech-writer, it is apparent that whoever cobbled together the Obama speech merely copied the highlights of Bush’s “Revolutionary-Democracy” speech/Inaugural and mixed it together with a bunch of crap about Israel, creating the big ego-injection Team Obama felt was called for. 

Bush–“So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Obama–“It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy.”

Bush–“We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

Obama–“If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States…Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with — and listen to — the voices of the people…What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion — not consent.”

.

Pakistani tribesmen settle scores through US drones–(Mehsud -vs- Wazir)

Pakistani tribesmen settle scores through US drones

By AZHAR MASOOD | ARAB NEWS

ISLAMABAD: While attacks by US unmanned planes in Pakistan have become a contentious issue, tribesmen hired by US drone operators to tip off the CIA on terror targets have been using the opportunity to settle scores with rivals.

They provide false information identifying their rivals as terror targets prompting US drone operators to hit them. Mehsud and Wazir tribes are said to be locked in the tussle and they settle their scores using US drone attacks against each other.

Drones, in many cases, have hit high-value targets. Taleban leader Baitullah Mesud was killed in a drone strike, but on many occasions the information drone operators relied on proved wrong.

Consequently, CIA established its own network on Pakistan-Afghanistan border and gave more credence to ground information provided by locally hired agents both from Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the adjoining provinces in Afghanistan.

For almost a decade US drones have been making relentless efforts to hunt down Al-Qaeda and Taleban militants hiding along the tribal belts in South and North Waziristan. At times they have accurately hit their targets but in many cases civilians have become victims. Earlier, US drone operators used to rely on information provided by sources within the Pakistan Army, but subsequently, they switched to tribesmen who formed a network eavesdropping on suspected terrorists in the tribal belt.

The shift in US strategy came after several errors where drone attacks killed civilians instead of terrorists.

The first error was when drones fired missiles at a school in Dama Dola killing 70 students. Later similar mistakes were committed. Even the field intelligence of the Pakistan Army and the CIA are unaware of the exact casualties and damage to properties caused by drone strikes.

But, with the change in strategy, more innocent people have lost their lives. The latest example was a drone attack on a Jirga (meeting of tribal leaders) in Khyber Agency.

The locally hired operatives who tip off the CIA on terror targets have now started using the opportunity to settle their scores. These CIA agents who are from Mehsud and Wazir tribes identify their rival positions as terror targets prompting US drone operators to hit those targets.

While the ISI and Pakistan Army are watching the new game carefully, reports emanating from Dera Ismail Khan suggest tribes are settling their scores through drone attacks.

Local tribesman and Afghans providing false information to US drone operators is not a new phenomenon.

These agents provide information to US drone operators in exchange for hefty remunerations. According to observers, local tribesmen will continue to keep the CIA busy as long as they get money and are also able to avenge old tribal enmity.

Genocide-ignoring lies in Obama’s Mideast speech

By: Dr Gideon Polya

Obama’s speech on the Middle East is extraordinary for its comprehensive dishonesty involving egregious deceit, lying by commission and lying by omission. Obama’s ignoring of the US-imposed Muslim Genocide (about 12 million indigenous deaths in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan) is far worse than genocide denial or holocaust denial because at least “denial” admits the possibility of public discussion.
One is reminded of Winston Churchill who completely omitted from the text of his Nobel Prize-winning, 6-volume treatise “The Second World War” any mention the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust in which he deliberately starved to death 6-7 million Indians.
Obama’s falsehoods in his 19 May 2011 Middle East speech are so numerous that one must confine analysis to the biggest lies as set out below.
Iraqi Holocaust,
raqi Genocide
Obama: “After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead”.
Reality: ignoring US interference in Iraq’s internal affairs and Israeli bombing of Iraq prior to 1990, the US has been making war on Iraq since 1990. In the Sanctions period 1990-2003, violent Iraqi deaths in the Gulf War totalled 0.2 million, avoidable deaths from war- and sanctions-imposed deprivation totalled 1.7 million and under-5 infant deaths totalled 1.2 million, 90% avoidable and due to US Alliance war crimes. Post-invasion in the period 2003-2011, violent deaths have totalled 1.5 million, post-invasion non-violent avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation total 1.2 million, under-5 infant deaths total 0.8 million (90% avoidable and due to US Alliance war crimes in gross violation of the Geneva Convention) and refugees total 5-6 million. 1990-2011 has seen an Iraqi Holocaust involving 4.6 million dead, an Iraqi Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention. 50,000 US troops remain in Occupied Iraq backing a puppet Iraqi Government elected under Occupier guns and a semi-autonomous Kurdish Government in northern Iraq.
Obama’s personal contribution to this carnage in occupied Iraq in the 2.3 years since his inauguration can be crudely assessed as 2.7 million x 2.3 years/ 8.3 years of occupation = 0.75 million dead Iraqis, this including 0.9 x 0.8 million infant deaths x 2.3 years/ 8.3 years of Occupation = 0.2 million dead Iraqi infants.
Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide.
Obama: “In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead”.
Reality: the US-backed coup against a progressive secular government led ultimately to Russian invasion and war and civil war with the US backing fundamentalists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden. Excess deaths in the period of the war against the Russians and their indigenous supporters (1979-1989) totalled 2.9 million. Excess deaths in the subsequent Afghan civil war (1989-1999) totalled 3.3 million. Although the Taliban Afghan Government offered to send Osama bin Laden to a third country for investigation over the 9-11 atrocity (3,000 dead), the US preferred war that so far has killed 5.0 million Afghans, this including 1.2 million violent deaths, 3.8 non-violent avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation and 2.7 million under-5 infant deaths (90% avoidable and due to US Alliance war crimes in gross violation of the Geneva Convention). There are 3-4 million Afghan refugees and Obama’s extension of the war to Pakistan has created 2.5 million Pashtun refugees, with US bombing of Pakistan being obscenely expanded after the devastating floods that made 20 million Pakistanis homeless. According to UNICEF Under the lying Bush-Obama official version of 9-11 no Afghans were involved in the 9-11 atrocity. Indeed bin Laden denied involvement in 9-11 and was not wanted for that crime by the FBI.
Obama’s personal contribution to this carnage in Afghanistan in the 2.3 years since his inauguration can be crudely assessed as 5.0 million x 2.3 years/ 9.75 years of Occupation = 1.2 million dead Afghans, this including 0.9 x 2.7 million infant deaths x 2.3 years/ 9.75 years of Occupation = 0.6 million dead Afghan infants.
Somali Holocaust,
Somali Genocide
Obama made no reference to occupied Somalia, occupied Haiti or occupied Diego Garcia in his speech.
Reality: Somalia has been variously invaded and partly occupied by the US and thence by US-backed UN forces (December 1992- May 1995) or US surrogate forces (in the period 2006-2011) and it remains substantially occupied by US-backed foreign forces. Post-invasion excess deaths in this 18.5 year period (December 1992 – May 2011) can be crudely assessed from infant mortality data to be about 1.8 million. Excess deaths from deprivation are 1.4 times under-5 infant deaths, 69,000 under-5 year old Somali infants die each year (UNICEF) and hence on this basis total excess deaths in the post-9-11 era total 920,000. This catastrophe merits the term
Obama’s personal contribution to the post-9-11 part of the Somali Holocaust and Somali Genocide can be estimated as 1.2 million x 2.3 years in office/ 9.75 years post-9-11 = 0.3 million, this including 0.9 x 9.75 years x 60,000 under-5 infant deaths per year x 2.3 years /9.75 years = 124,000 dead Somali infants.
US-linked 9-11
atrocity and
murder of bin Laden
Obama: “And after years of war against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt Al-Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader – Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favour of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build. Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, Al-Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life.”
Reality: Osama denied involvement in 9-11 and was clearly not physically involved according to the lying Bush-Obama official version (in which all the alleged perpetrators conveniently allegedly died). Scientific evidence (notably compelling evidence for the explosive demolition of the 3 World Trade Centre buildings) and science, architecture, engineering, military and intelligence experts say that the US did 9-11 (possibly with Israeli involvement) and not “men in caves in Afghanistan”

‘US furious with Israel, but lobby too strong to oppose’

Vodpod videos no longer available.

‘US furious with Israel, but lobby too strong t…, posted with vodpod