The Ugly truth! by Rimofar

Why the Jordanian pilot was captured and killed?

The Ugly truth!

by Rimofar

According to an Arab military intelligence source, there are really shocking reasons behind the killing of the Jordanian pilot, Muath Al-Kaseasbeh, who was burnt alive by ISIS.

The killed pilot was said to be captured by ISIS militants while flying over the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria in one of the anti-ISIS air coalition’s strikes on ISIS.

According to the source, the Jordanian pilot noticed that the American aircrafts were dropping weapons to ISIS fighters in an organized way. That really struck the pilot, so he reported that to the air force intelligence’s management from his aircraft.

Minutes later, the pilot’s F-16AM was engaged by an American missile over an area controlled by ISIS, which made him jump out of his aircraft.

Soon later, U.S. Central Command, the body overseeing the coalition air war over Iraq and Syria, said: ‘Evidence clearly indicates that ISIL did not down the aircraft as the terrorist organization is claiming.

The statement did not give a cause for the ‘crash,’ in an attempt to raise doubts about the pilot and to imply that he dropped himself intentionally in coordination between him and ISIS.

It was a way to close the door over any attempts for investigations to know how the aircraft was down.

It was clear from the beginning that there were no attempts to rescue the pilot at that time. Instead, he was left to be taken as a hostage by ISIS. It was known that he would definitely be captivated and would be soon executed and that was the perfect way to silence him.

However, this was not the first time to be mentioned that American Planes Routinely Drops weapons to ISIS fighters.

Back in October it was reported that the United States was responsible for accidentally dropping weapons and supplies to ISIS in Syria. It was played as a mistake by the mainstream media. While the alternative media hinted that it was intentional.

Also, MP Majid al-Ghraoui, the member of the Security and Defense Committee in the Iraqi Parliament mentioned in Iraqi News that on the 3rd of last January, an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment into the hands of the ISIS group militants in southeast of Tikrit, located in Salahuddin province.

He said “The information that has reached us in the Security and Defense Committee indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin.”

He added: “The U.S. is trying to obtain more benefits and privileges from the government to set military bases in Iraq,”

Again it was reported on the 6th of February that an ‘unidentified’ aircraft had dropped boxes containing weapons and munitions to ISIS in Anbar desert near Al Ratba (320 km west of Ramadi).

An aircraft had dropped boxes containing weapons and munitions to ISIS in Anbar desert near Al Ratba

Who could do this other than US forces? Who has the power and ability to deliver those weapons? There can be no other answer than US.

U.S has a previous track record of funding terrorists to serve its benefits all over the world.

See more at:

Discover the ugly truth behind the killing of the Jordan…

According to a military intelligence source,there are shocking reasons behind the killing of the Jordanian pilot,who was burnt alive by ISIS.
Preview by Yahoo

Haneen Zoabi: Another Persecuted Truth-Teller


Posted by Lawrence Davidson on Jan 4, 2013 in Israel 

An Analysis

by Lawrence Davidson

Part I – Haneen Zoabi and Her Mission

Haneen Zoabi is an Arab Israeli member of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset.  She was elected in 2009 as a member from the Balad Party.  Balad is an Arab party that was formed in 1995 with the aim of “struggling to transform the state of Israel into a democracy for all its citizens.”  In the West, this is a perfectly normal goal.  But Israel’s Zionist ideology disqualifies it as a “Western” nation.  Thus Balad’s aim is in direct opposition to the Zionist idea of Israel as a “Jewish state,” a concept that Ms Zoabi labels “inherently racist.”

Apparently, Haneen Zoabi is fearless.  She actually lives her principles.  She has been campaigning loudly and very publicly for full citizenship rights for Israel’s Palestinians.  She has also actively opposed Israel’s settlement movement, occupation policies, and its siege of Gaza.  That last effort led her to participate in the international flotilla that sought to break the Gaza siege in May of 2010.  That was the time Israeli commandos attacked the Mavi Marmara in international waters, killing 9 Turkish activists who tried to resist the assault on their ship.

In an outright dictatorship, Ms Zoabi would be in jail or worse.  And, given the direction of Israel’s political evolution, that still might be her fate.

However, as of now she is just the worst nightmare of an ethnocentric state, and a government pushing racist policies while trying to pretend it is a democracy.  It is a nightmare for the Israel’s Zionist leadership because Zoabi, as a member of the Knesset, insists that if the Israeli Jews won’t allow full citizenship for non-Jews, as a real democracy must, then she is not going to let them pretend anymore.  Yet pretense is all that is left of Israel’s international persona. If the “Jewish state” loses the ability to posture as “the only democracy in the Middle East,” the country’s reputation in the world is, as the saying goes, fit for the dust hole.

Think of it this way.  Israel is the nation-state equivalent of Oscar Wilde’s fictional character Dorian Gray.  Gray is a man who never seems to be anything but young, good-looking, and successful.  However, hidden away in some closet there is an extraordinarily ugly and frightening portrait of him, and it is this portrait that ages and reflects the meanness and brutality of Gray’s true character.  Haneen Zoabi has uncovered such a portrait of Israel and insists on going about showing everyone the state’s real characteristics.  She wants the world to see the true picture. That is why the Israeli government is trying to destroy Haneen Zoabi.

Part II -  The Persecution

The catalyst for the campaign against Zoabi was her presence on the Mavi Marmara in 2010. Not only was she on a ship attempting to bring humanitarian assistance to over 1.6 million Gazans living under an illegal Israeli embargo, but she was also an eyewitness to nine official Israeli acts of murder.

To the acts of collective punishment, the shelling and bombing of civilian neighborhoods, and the seemingly random murder of civilians by Israeli border snipers, can now be added a deadly attack on a civilian vessel in international waters.  All of these actions are criminal under international law and they all easily fall into the category of state terrorism.  However, in the Kafkaesque world of Zionism, it is Ms Zoabi who became the “terrorist.”

When, on 2 June 2010, she returned to the Knesset following the the Mavi Marmara incident and insisted on bearing witness to Israeli offenses, she was shouted down by her “outraged” fellow members of the Knesset, most of whom saw Zoabi as a traitor.  Her efforts to describe what she had seen reduced the Knesset session to “pandemonium.”  From that point Ms Zoabi received “hundreds of threats, by letters, by email, by phone call.”  In July of 2011, while contesting statements being made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, she was ejected from the Knesset by the chamber’s Speaker who then suspended her from further participation based on a grossly exaggerated charge that she had assaulted one of the chamber’s ushers.

Meanwhile, members of the Prime Minister’s party, Likud, conspired to ban Ms Zoabi from running in the upcoming Israeli elections (scheduled for 22 January 2013).  The Knesset’s Ethics Committee voted that Zoabi hadviolated Article 7A of Israel’s “Basic Law” which states that a candidate for or member of the Knesset, “cannot reject Israel as a Jewish and democratic state…or support armed combat by an enemy state or terror organization against the State of Israel.”  Some Israelis claim that the group organizing the flotilla efforts to break the Gaza siege is a terrorist organization, but that is clearly nonsense.  On the other hand, there can be little doubt that Ms Zoabi is shouting from the rooftops the blatant fact that “Israel as Jewish and democratic state” reflects a deep and tragic contradiction.

According to such luminaries of the Israeli right as MK Danny Danon, Ms Zoabi has “spit on the state.”  She does not belong in the Knesset, according to Danon, “she belongs in Jail.” (Danon is also the politician who had the clever idea of inviting Glenn Beck, an incendiary right-wing American TV talk show personality, to address the Israeli parliament.)

Subsequently, Israel’s supreme court declared the banning of Haneen Zoabi was unconstitutional, but Danon has replied that he and his allies are ready with “plan B.” They will simply have the Knesset change the law so as to prevent future electoral campaigns by anyone like Zoabi.

Part III – Conclusion

Politicians with dictatorial leanings instinctively avoid their own reflection.  They cannot admit the consequences of their own actions and policies and they cannot tolerate others who publicly expose those consequences.  Like Dorian Gray, they restrict the ugly truth to some hidden closet.  Yet, eventually, someone like Ms Zoabi comes along and takes up the role of truth-teller.

There is another issue that her efforts bring to light.  It is that the interests of the state (understood here as a government) and the interests of the nation (the collective occupants of a country) may not always be the same.  Governments most often represent cliques or classes or elites or ideologues, etc.  Those in power, ruling in the interest of these smaller constituencies, simply assume that their own parochial interests stand for the “national interest.”

Ms Zoabi is insisting that the Israeli State cease identifying itself with the interest of a single constituency and start representing the interests of the nation as a whole.  What this is all about, she says, are “the values, the humanistic, universalistic values of freedom, of equality, of justice.”  But there is nothing “universalistic” about Zionism and so, for her efforts, she is castigated and threatened.  Such is the state that Zionism has built.

War or peace on the Indus?

by John Briscoe

John Briscoe, a South African, an expert on the subject who has in depth knowledge of the Water issue of the sub-continent; has penned a very balanced article. Worth reading. I doubt India would ever elevate itself to the level of a Big-Brother like Brazil.

War or peace on the Indus?

Saturday, April 03, 2010

John Briscoe

Anyone foolish enough to write on war or peace in the Indus needs to first banish a set of immediate suspicions. I am neither Indian nor Pakistani. I am a South African who has worked on water issues in the subcontinent for 35 years and who has lived in Bangladesh (in the 1970s) and Delhi (in the 2000s). In 2006 I published, with fine Indian colleagues, an Oxford University Press book titled India’s Water Economy: Facing a Turbulent Future and, with fine Pakistani colleagues, one titled Pakistan’s Water Economy: Running Dry.

I was the Senior Water Advisor for the World Bank who dealt with the appointment of the Neutral Expert on the Baglihar case. My last assignment at the World Bank (relevant, as described later) was as Country Director for Brazil. I am now a mere university professor, and speak in the name of no one but myself.

I have deep affection for the people of both India and Pakistan, and am dismayed by what I see as a looming train wreck on the Indus, with disastrous consequences for both countries. I will outline why there is no objective conflict of interests between the countries over the waters of the Indus Basin, make some observations of the need for a change in public discourse, and suggest how the drivers of the train can put on the brakes before it is too late.

Is there an inherent conflict between India and Pakistan?

The simple answer is no. The Indus Waters Treaty allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, but allows India to tap the considerable hydropower potential of the Chenab and Jhelum before the rivers enter Pakistan.

The qualification is that this use of hydropower is not to affect either the quantity of water reaching Pakistan or to interfere with the natural timing of those flows. Since hydropower does not consume water, the only issue is timing. And timing is a very big issue, because agriculture in the Pakistani plains depends not only on how much water comes, but that it comes in critical periods during the planting season. The reality is that India could tap virtually all of the available power without negatively affecting the timing of flows to which Pakistan is entitled.

Is the Indus Treaty a stable basis for cooperation?

If Pakistan and India had normal, trustful relations, there would be a mutually-verified monitoring process which would assure that there is no change in the flows going into Pakistan. (In an even more ideal world, India could increase low-flows during the critical planting season, with significant benefit to Pakistani farmers and with very small impacts on power generation in India.) Because the relationship was not normal when the treaty was negotiated, Pakistan would agree only if limitations on India’s capacity to manipulate the timing of flows was hardwired into the treaty. This was done by limiting the amount of "live storage" (the storage that matters for changing the timing of flows) in each and every hydropower dam that India would construct on the two rivers.

While this made sense given knowledge in 1960, over time it became clear that this restriction gave rise to a major problem. The physical restrictions meant that gates for flushing silt out of the dams could not be built, thus ensuring that any dam in India would rapidly fill with the silt pouring off the young Himalayas.

This was a critical issue at stake in the Baglihar case. Pakistan (reasonably) said that the gates being installed were in violation of the specifications of the treaty. India (equally reasonably) argued that it would be wrong to build a dam knowing it would soon fill with silt. The finding of the Neutral Expert was essentially a reinterpretation of the Treaty, saying that the physical limitations no longer made sense. While the finding was reasonable in the case of Baglihar, it left Pakistan without the mechanism – limited live storage – which was its only (albeit weak) protection against upstream manipulation of flows in India. This vulnerability was driven home when India chose to fill Baglihar exactly at the time when it would impose maximum harm on farmers in downstream Pakistan.

If Baglihar was the only dam being built by India on the Chenab and Jhelum, this would be a limited problem. But following Baglihar is a veritable caravan of Indian projects – Kishanganga, Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa… The cumulative live storage will be large, giving India an unquestioned capacity to have major impact on the timing of flows into Pakistan. (Using Baglihar as a reference, simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, suggest that once it has constructed all of the planned hydropower plants on the Chenab, India will have an ability to effect major damage on Pakistan. First, there is the one-time effect of filling the new dams. If done during the wet season this would have little effect on Pakistan. But if done during the critical low-flow period, there would be a large one-time effect (as was the case when India filled Baglihar). Second, there is the permanent threat which would be a consequence of substantial cumulative live storage which could store about one month’s worth of low-season flow on the Chenab. If, God forbid, India so chose, it could use this cumulative live storage to impose major reductions on water availability in Pakistan during the critical planting season.

Views on "the water problem" from both sides of the border and the role of the press

Living in Delhi and working in both India and Pakistan, I was struck by a paradox. One country was a vigorous democracy, the other a military regime. But whereas an important part of the Pakistani press regularly reported India’s views on the water issue in an objective way, the Indian press never did the same. I never saw a report which gave Indian readers a factual description of the enormous vulnerability of Pakistan, of the way in which India had socked it to Pakistan when filling Baglihar. How could this be, I asked? Because, a journalist colleague in Delhi told me, "when it comes to Kashmir – and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir — the ministry of external affairs instructs newspapers on what they can and cannot say, and often tells them explicitly what it is they are to say."

This apparently remains the case. In the context of the recent talks between India and Pakistan I read, in Boston, the electronic reports on the disagreement about "the water issue" in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Economic Times. (Respectively,, article112388.ece,,,

Taken together, these reports make astounding reading. Not only was the message the same in each case ("no real issue, just Pakistani shenanigans"), but the arguments were the same, the numbers were the same and the phrases were the same. And in all cases the source was "analysts" and "experts" — in not one case was the reader informed that this was reporting an official position of the Government of India.

Equally depressing is my repeated experience – most recently at a major international meeting of strategic security institutions in Delhi – that even the most liberal and enlightened of Indian analysts (many of whom are friends who I greatly respect) seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan (which is obvious and objective to an outsider).

A way forward

This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands. This asymmetry means that it is India that is driving the train, and that change must start in India. In my view, four things need to be done.

First, there must be some courageous and open-minded Indians – in government or out – who will stand up and explain to the public why this is not just an issue for Pakistan, but why it is an existential issue for Pakistan.

Second, there must be leadership from the Government of India. Here I am struck by the stark difference between the behaviour of India and that of its fellow BRIC – Brazil, the regional hegemon in Latin America.

Brazil and Paraguay have a binding agreement on their rights and responsibilities on the massive Itaipu Binacional Hydropower Project. The proceeds, which are of enormous importance to small Paraguay, played a politicised, polemical anti-Brazilian part in the recent presidential election in Paraguay. Similarly, Brazil’s and Bolivia’s binding agreement on gas also became part of an anti-Brazil presidential campaign theme.

The public and press in Brazil bayed for blood and insisted that Bolivia and Paraguay be made to pay. So what did President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva do? "Look," he said to his irate countrymen, "these are poor countries, and these are huge issues for them. They are our brothers. Yes, we are in our legal rights to be harsh with them, but we are going to show understanding and generosity, and so I am unilaterally doubling (in the case of Paraguay) and tripling (in the case of Bolivia) the payments we make to them. Brazil is a big country and a relatively rich one, so this will do a lot for them and won’t harm us much." India could, and should, in my view, similarly make the effort to see it from its neighbour’s point of view, and should show the generosity of spirit which is an integral part of being a truly great power and good neighbour.

Third, this should translate into an invitation to Pakistan to explore ways in which the principles of the Indus Waters Treaty could be respected, while providing a win for Pakistan (assurance on their flows) and a win for India (reducing the chronic legal uncertainty which vexes every Indian project on the Chenab or Jhelum). With good will there are multiple ways in which the treaty could be maintained but reinterpreted so that both countries could win.

Fourth, discussions on the Indus waters should be de-linked from both historic grievances and from the other Kashmir-related issues. Again, it is a sign of statesmanship, not weakness, to acknowledge the past and then move beyond it. This is personal for me, as someone of Irish origin. Conor Cruise O’Brien once remarked, "Santayana said that those who did not learn their history would be condemned to repeat it; in the case of Ireland we have learned our history so well that we are condemned to repeat it, again and again."

And finally, as a South African I am acutely aware that Nelson Mandela, after 27 years in prison, chose not to settle scores but to look forward and construct a better future, for all the people of his country and mine. Who will be the Indian Mandela who will do this – for the benefit of Pakistanis and Indians – on the Indus?

The writer is the Gordon McKay Professor of Environmental Engineering, Harvard University. Email: jbriscoe@seas.

Axis of Evil

TEHRAN (FNA)- Turkey’s national air carrier, Turkish Air, has been transiting Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants from North Waziristan in Pakistan to the Turkish borders with Syria, sources revealed on Saturday, mentioning that the last group were flown to Hatay on a Turkish Air Airbus flight No. 709 on September 10, 2012.


"The Turkish intelligence agency sent 93 Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists from Waziristan to Hatay province near the border with Syria on a Turkish Air Airbus flight No. 709 on September 10, 2012 and via the Karachi-Istanbul flight route," the source told FNA on Saturday, adding that the flight had a short stop in Istanbul. 
The 93 terrorists transited to the Turkish border with Syria included Al-Qaeda militants from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and a group of Arabs residing in Waziristan, he added. 
The source, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of his information, further revealed that the Turkish intelligence agency is coordinating its measures with the CIA and the Saudi and Qatari secret services.

FNA dispatches from Pakistan said new al-Qaeda members were trained in North Waziristan until a few days ago and then sent to Syria, but now they are transferring their command center to the borders between Turkey and Syria as a first step to be followed by a last move directly into the restive parts of Syria on the other side of the border. 
The al-Qaeda, backed by Turkey, the US and its regional Arab allies, had set up a new camp in Northern Waziristan in Pakistan to train Salafi and Jihadi terrorists and dispatched them to Syria via Turkish borders. 

"A new Al-Qaeda has been created in the region through the financial and logistical backup of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and a number of western states, specially the US," a source told FNA earlier this month.

Ali Mahdian told FNA that the US and the British governments have been playing with the al-Qaeda through their Arab proxy regimes in the region in a bid to materialize their goals, specially in Syria. 
He said the Saudi and Qatari regimes serve as interlocutors to facilitate the CIA and MI6 plans in Syria through instigating terrorist operations by Salafi and Arab Jihadi groups, adding that the terrorists do not know that they actually exercise the US plans.

"Turkey has also been misusing extremist Salafis and Al-Qaeda terrorists to intensify the crisis in Syria and it has recently augmented its efforts in this regard by helping the new Al-Qaeda branch set up a camp in Northern Waziristan in Pakistan to train Al-Qaeda and Taliban members as well as Turkish Salafis and Arab Jihadis who are later sent to Syria for terrorist operations," said the source. 
He said the camp in Waziristan is not just a training center, but a command center for terrorist operations against Syria. 
Yet, the source said the US and Britain are looking at the new Al-Qaeda force as an instrument to attain their goals and do not intend to support them to ascend to power, "because if Salafi elements in Syria ascend to power, they will create many problems for the US, the Western states and Turkey in future".

"Thus, the US, Britain and Turkey are looking at the Al-Qaeda as a tactical instrument," he said, and warned of the regional and global repercussions of the US and Turkish aid to the Al-Qaeda and Salafi groups. 
"Unfortunately, these group of countries have just focused on the short-term benefits that the Salafis and the Al-Qaeda can provide for them and ignore the perils of this support in the long run," he said. 

"At present, the western countries, specially Britain which hosts and controls the Jihadi Salafi groups throughout the world are paving the ground for these extremists to leave their homes – mostly in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Untied Arab Emirates (UAE) as well as those who live in Europe and the US – for Waziristan," the source added. 
In relevant remarks, Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi last week blamed certain states, the Salafis and the Al-Qaeda for terrorist operations which have claimed the lives of thousands of people in his country, and said terrorist groups supported by certain foreign actors are misusing differences in his country to bring Syria into turmoil.

Addressing the 16th heads-of-state summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) here in Tehran on Thursday, the Syrian premier noted terrorist attacks on his nation, and said the "terrorists are backed up by certain foreign states". 
"Many countries allege to be supporting peaceful solutions in Syria, but they oppose Annan’s plan in practice," he said, and cautioned, "The responsibility for the failure of this plan lies on their shoulder as they strove to keep the Syrian crisis going and falsified events."

"The world should know that the Syrian crisis, in fact, rises from foreign meddling. Certain well-known countries from inside and outside the region are seeking instability of Syria," the Syrian prime minister complained. 
Elaborating on the recent developments in Syria, al-Halqi said, "It has been proved that foreign-backed terrorist groups have been misusing events and killing the innocent people."

"These terrorists include Salafis and Al-Qaeda Takfiri groups," he reiterated, and added, "Those states that support terrorism and oppose talks should be given moral and economic punishments as they are part of the problem in Syria." 
Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011 with organized attacks by well-armed gangs against Syrian police forces and border guards being reported across the country. 

In October, calm was eventually restored in the Arab state after President Assad started a reform initiative in the country, but Israel, the US and its Arab allies are seeking hard to bring the country into chaos through any possible means. Tel Aviv, Washington and some Arab capitals have been staging various plots in the hope of stirring unrests in Syria once again. 
The US and its western and regional allies have long sought to topple Bashar al-Assad and his ruling system. Media reports said that the Syrian rebels and terrorist groups have received significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, a crime paid for by the Persian Gulf Arab states and coordinated by the United States.

The US daily, Washington Post, reported in May that the Syrian rebels and terrorist groups battling the President Bashar al-Assad’s government have received significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, a crime paid for by the Persian Gulf Arab states and coordinated by the United States. 
The newspaper, quoting opposition activists and US and foreign officials, reported that Obama administration officials emphasized the administration has expanded contacts with opposition military forces to provide the Persian Gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.

Opposition activists who several months ago said the rebels were running out of ammunition said in May that the flow of weapons – most bought on the black market in neighboring countries or from elements of the Syrian military in the past – has significantly increased after a decision by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf states to provide millions of dollars in funding each month.

Noam Chomsky: Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace


Imagine if Iran — or any other country — did a fraction of what American and Israel do at will.

September 3, 2012  | 


It is not easy to escape from one’s skin, to see the world differently from the way it is presented to us day after day. But it is useful to try. Let’s take a few examples.

The war drums are beating ever more loudly over Iran. Imagine the situation to be reversed.

Iran is carrying out a murderous and destructive low-level war against Israel with great-power participation. Its leaders announce that negotiations are going nowhere. Israel refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections, as Iran has done. Israel continues to defy the overwhelming international call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. Throughout, Iran enjoys the support of its superpower patron.

Iranian leaders are therefore announcing their intention to bomb Israel, and prominent Iranian military analysts report that the attack may happen before the U.S. elections.

Iran can use its powerful air force and new submarines sent by Germany, armed with nuclear missiles and stationed off the coast of Israel. Whatever the timetable, Iran is counting on its superpower backer to join if not lead the assault. U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta says that while we do not favor such an attack, as a sovereign country Iran will act in its best interests.

All unimaginable, of course, though it is actually happening, with the cast of characters reversed. True, analogies are never exact, and this one is unfair – to Iran.

Like its patron, Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in brazen defiance of international law and the U.N. Security Council. It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without credible pretext.

Thirty years ago Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, an act that has recently been praised, avoiding the strong evidence, even from U.S. intelligence, that the bombing did not end Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program but rather initiated it. Bombing of Iran might have the same effect.

Iran too has carried out aggression – but during the past several hundred years, only under the U.S.-backed regime of the shah, when it conquered Arab islands in the Persian Gulf.

Iran engaged in nuclear development programs under the shah, with the strong support of official Washington. The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington’s allies in the region. The most important ally, Saudi Arabia, is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime, and spends enormous funds spreading its radical Wahhabist doctrines elsewhere. The gulf dictatorships, also favored U.S. allies, have harshly repressed any popular effort to join the Arab Spring.

The Nonaligned Movement – the governments of most of the world’s population – is now meeting in Teheran. The group has vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and some members – India, for example – adhere to the harsh U.S. sanctions program only partially and reluctantly.

The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”

Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared. Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive.

Threat analysis and Situation report

By Syed Zaid Zaman Hamid

BrassTacks Threat analysis and Situation report which the treacherous media, idiotic politicians and the naive judiciary will NOT tell you:
Whatever we wrote in the last few weeks is rapidly being unfolded on all threat axis for Pakistan.

The US is now well and truly aggressive to provoke more wars within Pakistan and to force the Pak army to into a head-on collision with the tribes in North Waziristan and against Afghan resistance. The panic has already started to set in the tribes who are pondering over mass migration and exodus from the region, even towards Afghanistan where these Pakistani tribals would be easy prey for NATO and Indian military psy-ops operators to ignite their anger into rage against Pakistan and Pak army. On the other hand, NATO is literally raining missiles in North Waziristan against pro-Pakistan tribals and against Afghan resistance.

The Drone warfare is now creating a major crisis for Pakistan army as the military leadership is coming under severe pressure and criticism from the nation over their failure to stop this blatant abuse of national dignity and slaughter of innocent citizens.

“The strategy deployed by NATO/CIA/RAW is:

1. To attack and destroy Pakistan’s surveillance and early warning systems of the Navy, PAF and army to incapacitate their military capability to forewarn of any invasion on the country.

2. The second axis is to ignite the sectarian wars in Pakistan, just as in Syria and Lebanon. Dozens of Shias are being assassinated in macabre style killings all across the country. Not just that it would ignite the local sectarian wars, it would also destroy Pakistan’s relations with Iran.

3. Massive attacks on Pakistan army continue in FATA, tribal areas and in Baluchistan to keep the army bogged down in internal high intensity wars and to bleed the military’s resources to weaken it substantially so that it is not able to resist the external invasion.

4. NATO is also testing the waters and challenging the Pakistan’s defenses on the Western theatre. After the attack on Salala check post last year, NATO had stopped coming close to the Pakistan border. But now, they are aggressively intruding closer and even attacking close to the Pakistan border.

5. NATO/CIA drone strikes have become more frequent, lethal and destructive. The objective is to ignite the tribes into open rebellion against Pakistan army for being “collaborators” of the US which is killing women and children of the Pakistani tribals as massive “collateral damage”.

6. In Baluchistan, security forces are being targeted in a renewed and bloody campaign led by both TTP and the BLA. The sudden upsurge in violence and its vicious intensity is coordinated with the other axis of violence in the country. In addition to the attacks on the forces, trains, buses and energy infrastructure is also being attacked to cripple the provincial administration and critical services.

7. Chinese assets, interests and personnel in Pakistan are being targeted to disrupt the strategic relationship between Pakistan and China.

8. The panic and chaos which this urban war has created is now breaking the back of national economy and morale, throwing the entire country into fits of panic and chaos. The desperate measures being adopted by the PPP regime are only adding to the meltdown and panic.

9. Pressure is also being increased on Pakistan to declare war on the Afghan resistance and against friendly own tribes in North Waziristan. The US strategy is to deploy Pakistan to do the fighting for the NATO. As the violence touches the red hot levels in the country and the army is already over stretched, US is forcing the army leadership to open new deadlier fronts which would totally destroy not just the army but also any prospects of Pakistan having any strategic assets in the Afghan Pashtuns. The war in North Waziristan would not hurt any TTP assets which may be there as they would simply draw the army in but them melt back into Afghanistan, leaving the army to fight the local tribes and afghan resistance.

10. Massive propaganda, information war and Psy-ops have also been launched by the Indians as well as the CIA to prove that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are unsafe, the country is in a meltdown and that Pakistan is involved in spreading violence and terrorism in the neighboring countries especially against US forces in Afghanistan and India.

The war against Pakistan is now crystal clear. It has reached the last stages of deployment while the Pakistan army is well and truly surrounded but still not responding on the entire axis. Every day lost in removing this regime will be paid in massive bloodshed and destruction of the state, society and the army.

Within the government, the anarchy reigns supreme. The government and the judiciary at war with each other oblivious of the grave existential threats the nation faces. Army has remained a silent spectator of this political and judicial war and this has indeed brought the country to the brink of annihilation. Pakistan army is the last hope in this total and complete anarchy and chaos.

While the Pakistan army is indeed aware of the fatal encirclement of the state and the army, it is still reluctant to decisively intervene into the political chaos to salvage the country. The military leadership is still deliberating the crisis and has not made up their mind. In the next few weeks, they may not have the luxury of controlling the dynamics of the events, even if they want to then. Today, they can. After just a few weeks, the events would become out of control and then events would decide the destiny of the nation and the fate of its leaders.

Saddam, Qaddafi, Mubarak and now Bashar ul Asad also thought that they have infinite amount of time at their disposal. For Pakistani leaders the moment of truth just seems around the corner now.
Pakistan army is only fighting back at the military axis but have no response strategy for political chaos, economic meltdown, media war and ongoing social chaos. On the military axis, they have achieved some major success in recent days.

The following news report about the assassination of a major TTP leader in Afghanistan is a clear indication that TTP is well and truly protected in Afghanistan and their wounded are being treated in Afghan military hospitals. The news report that he has been killed in a Drone strike is non-sense as CIA does not do drones in Kunar. The militant has been eliminated by a Pak army strike after he was returning to Afghanistan from an attack inside Pakistan.

The encirclement of Pakistan is rapid and total. Now the UN is planning to send in a mission to Baluchistan to observe HR violations. Baluchistan is the prized target of the US policy towards Pakistan to cut a strategic corridor to Afghanistan bypassing the mainland. In the past also, US has been taking great interest in the internal chaos of Baluchistan to use it as a pretext to intervene. The anarchy in Baluchistan is not total also with hundreds of training camps and terrorist bases operating from Afghanistan.

Within Pakistan, the political chaos is at its peak. 27th August would be another day of infamy in Pakistan’s history as the battles between the Supreme Court and the Government threatens to bring down the state itself.
Pakistan is not too far from becoming another “Syria”. The global media war, regional encirclement, UN intervention, support to insurgencies in FATA and Baluchistan, urban war through political terrorist gangs in Karachi, psychological warfare through the paid media and direct interference into Pakistan’s social and religious circles through US AID is now tightening the grip of US and India on Pakistan’s entire social, political, economic and military fabric.

The following picture is from Syria but it may pass as from being Pakistan also. This is what happens when armies are forced to fight urban high intensity wars within own cities. This is the 4thGW, where fighting lines are not on the borders but in the major cities and towns. The soldiers are not uniformed opponents from regular armies but rag tag urban insurgents backed by regional powers. You DO NOT fight a war within your own cities or else get what the Syrians are getting now and Iraqis and Libyans tasted before them. This is what is planned for Pakistan now but the leadership and the judiciary is stone dead, deaf, dumb, blind and even collaborative to the collapse. I only wonder how the history would judge this nation which saw it coming but decided to fiddle only ??

Now even if Pak Army intervenes, the cost of recovering the nation from this anarchic state would be staggering. If the army still does not intervene, then it will be all over within the next 4 months.

Khair inshAllah. Pakistan Zindabaad.

The Bangladesh approach

Facing threat from militants and extremists, Bangladesh has launched a nationwide programme for monitoring mosques and madrasas to ensure clerics follow guidelines issued by the state-run Islamic Foundation. "We have engaged our 40,000 staff having background in Islamic studies to monitor the mosques and see if the imams or khatibs are conveying our messages against militancy in line with the real Islamic teachings," Islamic Foundation’s director general Shamim Mohammed Afzal told PTI.

He said the foundation staff would join the Muslim’s weekly special ‘juma’

congregations when the clerics were supposed to deliver lectures or sermons against religious extremism and militancy and highlighting the "spirit of love" against "hatred and violence". Islamic Foundation is an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Religious Affairs working to disseminate values and ideals of Islam and carry out related activities. Afzal said the foundation earlier distributed several million copies of two books against militancy at the 270,000 mosques and over 100,000 madrasahs.

The foundation officials said they have set up an anti-militancy cell and every week their officials monitor at least 10 mosques in Dhaka to see whether the clerics speak about militancy in their Friday sermons. "The officials were also tasked to motivate or request the independent clerics of the mosques to use their good offices and knowledge so that the youngsters were not lured by Islamist militants".

Bangladesh witnessed massive emergence of militant outfits in 2004-2005 when the country was hit by a series of blasts killing dozens of people as the groups promised to establish Islamic rule of their own brands. The situation sparked fears that the world’s fourth largest Muslim majority nation was becoming a militancy hotspot and prompted the subsequent governments to launch a massive security clampdown that resulted in trial and execution of six militant kingpins while dozens were jailed or were still being tried.

http://ibnlive. wsfeed/news/ bangladesh- starts-monitorin

g-mosques- madrasas/ 1038368.html




This can’t work in Pakistan.

USA should send Marines to monitor Pak Military-run Schools, Cadet Colleges, Academies, Cantonments and GHQ also, not only Mosques, MuDaaris, Seminaries etc in an upside down crazy country, where Pak Military Staff itself runs JehaaDi Camps and Groups as dangerous as Taliban and Al Qaeda.