Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [khabor.com] Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Expand Messages
  • Syed Mirza
    Mr. Aslam, I think you did not understand my short comment. I only disagreed with the conspiracy theory of *Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 31, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Aslam,
       
      I think you did not understand my short comment. I only disagreed with the conspiracy theory of " 
      Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto".  But I never said there could not be any handy works of ISI or Paki-Military elements who ardently support Islamic agenda. World knows well that half the Army along with ISI supports and frankly protect Jihadi elements in Pakistan. In fact, ISI and Paki Army were the 'Gurus' or God father of al-Qaeda and talibans during good old days Russian occupations of Afghanistan. They were the trainer of al-Qaeda and still is! They all have same ideology derived from Islam and I don't see them separately. It is a serious mistake (wests sometimes do that foolishly) to separate all these islamic terrorists one from the other. There purpose, teachings and aim is just one--to establish Islamic paradise on earth. 
       
      My term "Jihadi elements" comprises: al-Qaeda, Talibans, Jaise Muhammad, Islamic jihad, and all those Islamic jihadi fighters in hundreds of different names existing throughout the whole world, including Bangladesh. I call them Jihadi elements--who are birds of same flock/feathers, fighting to establish Islamic caliphate everywhere in the whole world. 
       
      Mussararf was serving western interests so far half-heartedly, and west knows that very well. That was the good reason why America and the west supported coming of Benazir Butto. There is no good reason (according to my opinion) why so called Anglo-American agent will eliminate Banazir Butto when she was the only straw for them after Mussarraf to control jihadi elements in Pakistan.
       
      Mussarraf's fault in this case I see is he deliberately did not give Butto adequate protections.
       
      Now that Butto is gone, I don't believe Mussarraf can tackle Jihadis in Pakistan any more. Pakistani future is bleaker than anybody's imagination.
       
      Hope i made it some what clear to you. Thanks.
       
      Syed Mirza
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      On 12/30/07, Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@...> wrote:


      Mr Syed Mirza
      You have jumped into your  conclusion:
      Many things are done by the way of  deception --- Pakistan's ISA is notoriously expert
      for using Talebans for achieving their mischevious short-term goals: Think outside the
      box ...  don't be so quick to absolve Musharraf out of his criminal acts !!!
       
      Robert Fisk: They don't blame al-Qa'ida. They blame Musharraf
      Telltale Images: What does the regime say now? And why did it lie in the first place?

       If Musharraf regime had nothing to hide, why, why, why did it lie in the first place. See the pictures in this report which simply confirm the regime's lie about the circumstances in which Benazir was assassinated.

      More interestingly, what does the pro-Musharraf regime media outlets in the West have to say about it. For example, I got a phone call from CBC for comments on the event. When the person realised that I was critical of the regime's security agencies, rather than blindly blaming it on those whom the CBC wanted to hear about, the person said he would call me in a few minutes for recording. And that was the end of it.

      More truth has yet to surface. Musharraf regime had got emboldened with doing all kind of criminal activities from illegally detaining and torturing hundreds of people, to attacking political opponents (October 18, 2007 karachi, for example), planting bombs in anti-government rallies (Islamabad), booting the Supreme Court and playing with the constitution without any concrete pressure from outside at all. This time around, the regime is seriously stuck than ever before simply because of its lies.

      Also see:

      Criminal Records - Video Clip of the last moments before and after the attack on Benazir Bhutto - Thursday, December 27, 2007

      - Benazir aide says govt explanation 'pack of lies'
      - Pakistan Army's SSG Commandos Killed PPP Chief Benazir Bhutto
      - Who did it: Musharraf regime and neocons on one side and the rest of Pakistan on another
      - The blood is on Musharraf hands
      - Bhutto sacrificed when US military cut a deal with Musharraf on US troops in  Paksitan
      - Who killed Benazir? Come to your own conclusion.
      - Who benefits from Benazir's assassination
      - People pointing finger to the mercenary army for Bhutto's death
      - Bhutto assassinated by the semi-military regime in Islamabad?
      - Musharraf regime butchered Benazir, right in your face

      U.S. Intelligence Official Points Finger at the Musharraf Army:

      ·  Bhutto murder blamed on Pakistan agents [but with a pro-Musharraf    twist]
      ·  Hillary: Pakistan troops might have killed Bhutto
      ·  Pakistan is doomed

      Syed Aslam


      On 12/30/07, Syed Mirza <mirza.syed@... > wrote:

      This is a rubbish conspiracy theory at best. Some people seek to blame America or west for almost anything happened under the Sun. Butto was killed by the islamic jihadis only to remove obstacle in their holy path of Jihad against west. Period.
       
      Syed


       
      On 12/29/07, M.B.I. Munshi <MBIMunshi@... > wrote:


      I thought I would share this very interesting and readable theory
      surrounding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto -

      Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
      and the Destabilization of Pakistan

      by Larry Chin

      Global Research, December 29, 2007

      It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and
      its allies have been manuevering to strengthen their political control
      of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the
      "war on terrorism" across the region. The assassination of Benazir
      Bhutto does not change this agenda. In fact, it simplifies
      Bush-Cheney's options.

      Seeding chaos with a pretext

      "Delivering democracy to the Muslim world" has been the Orwellian
      rhetoric used to mask Bush-Cheney's application of pressure and force,
      its dramatic attempt at reshaping of the Pakistani government (into a
      joint Bhutto/Sharif-Musharraf) coalition, and backdoor plans for a
      military intervention. Various American destabilization plans, known
      for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of
      Pakistan's military.

      The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There
      were even reports of "chatter" among US officials about the possible
      assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well
      before the actual attempts took place.

      As succinctly summarized in Jeremy Page's article, "Who Killed Benazir
      Bhutto? The Main Suspects", the main suspects are 1) "Pakistani and
      foreign Islamist militants who saw her as a heretic and an American
      stooge", and 2) the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, a virtual
      branch of the CIA. Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused
      the ISI of being involved in the October attack.

      The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on "Al-Qaeda",
      without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American
      military-intelligence operation.

      Page's piece was one of the first to name the man who has now been
      tagged as the main suspect: Baitullah Mehsud, a purported Taliban
      militant fighting the Pakistani army out of Waziristan. Conflicting
      reports link Mehsud to "Al-Qaeda", the Afghan Taliban, and Mullah Omar
      (also see here). Other analysis links him to the terrorist A.Q . Khan.
      Mehsud's profile, and the reporting of it, echoes the propaganda
      treatment of all post-9/11 "terrorists". This in turn raises familiar
      questions about Anglo-American intelligence agency propaganda
      involvement. Is Mehsud connected to the ISI or the CIA? What did the
      ISI and the CIA know about Mehsud? More importantly, does Mehsud, or
      the manipulation of the propaganda surrounding him provide Bush-Cheney
      with a pretext for future aggression in the region?

      Classic "war on terrorism" propaganda

      While details on the Bhutto assassination continue to unfold, what is
      clear is that it was a political hit, along the lines of US agent
      Rafik Harriri in Lebanon. Like the highly suspicious Harriri hit, the
      Bhutto assassination has been depicted by corporate media as the
      martyring of a great messenger of western-style "democracy".
      Meanwhile, the US government's ruthless actions behind the scenes have
      received scant attention.

      The December 28, 2007 New York Times coverage of the Bhutto
      assassination offers the perfect example of mainstream Orwellian media
      distortion that hides the truth about Bush/Cheney agenda behind
      blatant propaganda smoke. This piece echoes White House rhetoric
      proclaiming that Bush's main objectives are to "bring democracy to the
      Muslim world" and "force out Islamist militants".

      In fact, the openly criminal Bush-Cheney administration has only
      supported and promoted the antithesis of democracy: chaos, fascism,
      and the installation of Anglo-American-friendly puppet regimes.
      In fact, the central and consistent geostrategy of Bush-Cheney, and
      their elite counterparts around the world, is the continued imposition
      and expansion of the manufactured "war on terrorism"; the continuation
      of war across the Eurasian subcontinent, with events triggered by
      false flag operations and manufactured pretexts.

      In fact, the main tools used in the "war on terrorism" remain Islamist
      militants, working on behalf of Anglo-American military intelligence
      agencies---among them, "Al-Qaeda", and Pakistan's Inter-Services
      Intelligence, the ISI. Mehsud fits this the same profile.

      Saving Bush-Cheney's Pakistan

      In an amusing quote from the same New York Times piece, Wendy
      Chamberlain, former US ambassador to Pakistan (and a central figure
      behind multinational efforts to build a trans-Afghan pipeline,
      connected to 9/11), proudly states: "We are a player in the Pakistani
      political system".

      Not only has the US continued to be a "player", but one of its top
      managers for decades.

      Each successive Pakistani leader since the early 1990s---Bhutto,
      Sharif and Musharraf---have bowed to Western interests. The ISI is a
      virtual branch of the CIA.

      While Musharraf has been, and remains, a strongman for Bush-Cheney,
      questions about his "reliability", and control---both his regime's
      control over the populace and growing popular unrest, and elite
      control over his regime---have driven Bush-Cheney attempts to force a
      clumsy (pro-US, Iraq-style) power-sharing government. As noted by
      Robert Scheer, Bush-Cheney has been playing "Russian roulette" with
      Musharraf, Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif---each of whom have been deeply
      corrupt, willing fronts for the US.

      The return of both Bhutto and the other former Prime Minister Nawaz
      Sharif has merely been an attempt by the US to hedge its regional
      power bets.

      What exactly were John Negroponte and Condoleeza Rice really setting
      up the past few months?

      Who benefits from Bhutto's murder?

      The "war on terrorism" geostrategy and propaganda milieu, the
      blueprint that has been used by elite interests since 9/11 to impose a
      continuing world war, is the clear beneficiary of the Bhutto
      assassination. Bush/Cheney and their equally complicit
      pro-war/pro-occupation counterparts in the Democratic Party
      enthusiastically support the routine use of "terror" pretexts to
      impose continued war policies.

      True to form, fear, "terrorism", "security" and military force, are
      once again, the focuses of Washington political rhetoric, and the
      around-the-clock media barrage.

      The 2008 US presidential candidates and their elite campaign advisers,
      all but a few of whom enthusiastically support the "war on terrorism",
      have taken turns pushing their respective versions of "we must stop
      the terrorists" rhetoric for brain-addled supporters. The candidates
      whose polls have slipped, led by 9/11 participant and opportunist Rudy
      Guiliani, and hawkish neoliberal Hillary Clinton, have already
      benefited from a new round of mass fear.

      Musharraf benefits from the removal of a bitter rival, but now must
      find a way to re-establish order. Musharraf now has an ideal
      justification to crack down on "terrorists" and impose full martial
      law, with Bush-Cheney working from the shadows behind Musharraf---and
      continuing to manipulate or remove his apparatus, if Musharraf proves
      too unreliable or broken to suit Anglo-American plans.

      The likely involvement of the ISI behind the Bhutto hit cannot be
      overstated. ISI's role behind every major act of "terrorism" since
      9/11 remains the central unspoken truth behind current geopolitical
      realities. Bhutto, but not Sharif or Musharraf would have threatened
      the ISI's agendas.

      Bhutto, militant Islam, and the pipelines

      Now that she has been martyred, many unflattering historical facts
      about Benazir Bhutto will be hidden or forgotten.

      Bhutto herself was intimately involved in the creation of the very
      "terror" milieu purportedly responsible for her assassination. Across
      her political career, she supported militant Islamists, the Taliban,
      the ISI, and the ambitions of Western governments.

      As noted by Michel Chossudovsky in America's "War on Terrorism", it
      was during Bhutto's second term that Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and
      the Taliban rose to prominence, welcomed into Bhutto's coalition
      government. It was at that point that ties between the JUI, the Army
      and the ISI were established.

      While Bhutto's relationship with both the ISI and the Taliban were
      marked by turmoil, it is clear that Bhutto, when in power, supported
      both---and enthusiastically supported Anglo-American interventions.
      In his two landmark books, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and
      Fundamentalism in Central Asia and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam
      in Central Asia, Ahmed Rashid richly details the Bhutto regime's
      connections to the ISI, the Taliban, "militant Islam", multinational
      oil interests, and Anglo-American officials and intelligence proxies.
      In Jihad, Rashid wrote:

      "Ironically it was not the ISI but Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the
      most liberal, secular leader in Pakistan's recent history, who
      delivered the coup de grace to a new relationship with Central Asia.
      Rather than support a wider peace process in Afghanistan that would
      have opened up a wider peace process in Afghanistan, Bhutto backed the
      Taliban, in a rash and presumptuous policy to create a new
      western-oriented trade and pipeline route from Turkmenistan through
      southern Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which the Taliban would provide
      security. The ISI soon supported this policy because its Afghan
      protégé Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had made no headway in capturing Kabul,
      and the Taliban appeared to be strong enough to do so."

      In Taliban, Rashid provided even more historical detail:

      "When Bhutto was elected as Prime Minister in 1993, she was keen to
      open a route to Central Asia. A new proposal emerged backed strongly
      by the frustrated Pakistani transport and smuggling mafia, the JUI and
      Pashtun military and political officials."

      "The Bhutto government fully backed the Taliban, but the ISI remained
      skeptical of their abilities, convinced that they would remain a
      useful but peripheral force in the south."

      "The US congress had authorized a covert $20 million budget for the
      CIA to destabilize Iran, and Tehran accused Washington of funneling
      some of these funds to the Taliban---a charge that was always denied
      by Washington . Bhutto sent several emissaries to Washington to urge
      the US to intervene more publicly on the side of Pakistan and the
      Taliban."

      Bhutto's one mistake: she vehemently supported the pipeline proposed
      by Argentinian oil company Bridas, and opposed the pipeline by Unocal
      (favored by the US). This contributed to her ouster in 1996, and the
      return of Nawaz Sharif to power. As noted by Rashid:

      "After the dismissal of the Bhutto government in 1996, the newly
      elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his oil minister Chaudry Nisar
      Ali Khan, the army and the ISI fully backed Unocal. Pakistan wanted
      more direct US support for the Taliban and urged Unocal to start
      construction quickly in order to legitimize the Taliban. Basically the
      USA and Unocal accepted the ISI's analysis and aims---that a Taliban
      victory in Afghanistan would make Unocal's job much easier and quicken
      US recognition."

      Her appealing and glamorous pro-Western image notwithstanding,
      Bhutto's true record is one of corruption and accommodation.
      The "war on terrorism" resparked

      Every major Anglo-American geostrategic crime has been preceded by a
      convenient pretext, orchestrated and carried out by "terror" proxies
      directly or indirectly connected to US military-intelligence, or
      manipulated into performing as intelligence assets. The assassination
      of Benazir Bhutto is simply one more brutal example.
      This was Pakistan's 9/11; Pakistan's JFK assassination, and its impact
      will resonate for years.

      Contrary to mainstream corporate news reporting, chaos benefits
      Bush-Cheney's "war on terrorism". Calls for "increased worldwide
      security" will pave the way for a muscular US reaction, US-led force
      and other forms of "crack down" from Bush-Cheney across the region. In
      other words, the assassination helps ensure that the US will not only
      never leave, but also increase its presence.

      The Pakistani election, if it takes place at all, is a simpler two-way
      choice: pro-US Musharraf or pro-US Sharif.

      While the success of Bush-Cheney's 9/11 agenda has met with mixed
      results, and it has met with a wide array of resistance ("terroristic"
      as well as political), there is no doubt that the propaganda
      foundation of the "war on terrorism" has remained firm, unshaken and
      routinely reinforced.

      As for Nawaz Sharif, who now emerges as the sole competitor for
      Musharraf, he, like Musharraf and Bhutto, is legendary for his
      accommodation to Anglo-American interests---pipelines, trade, and the
      continued US military presence. As Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume
      Dasquie noted in the book Forbidden Truth, the October 1999 military
      coup led by Musharraf that originally toppled Sharif's regime was
      sparked by animosity between the two camps, as well as "Sharif's
      personal corruption and political megalomania", and "concerns that
      Sharif was dancing too eagerly to Washington's tune on Kashmir and
      Afghanistan".

      In other words, Bush-Cheney wins, no matter which asset winds up on
      the throne.

      Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
      Research Articles by Larry Chin

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7699




    • Syed Aslam
      ** *wrt: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/khabor/message/7776* ** *Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto* Here lies the puzzle of
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 31, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
         
         
         
        Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
         
        Here lies the puzzle of "covert actions". You raise a thug to prey on your
        opponents ....... indoctrinate the thug for sucide bombing and teach the thug
        the art of terrorism and motivate the thug for the terrorist acts and stay behind
        the curtain as a invisible string pooler. The tactics is now backfiring on you when
        the  context has  changed ...... The thug does not know who is is real master, the
        indoctrination remains .. I doubt the numbers you have presented, but the Suicide
        Bombers in Pakistan are the FRANKESTEIN monosters created by the ISI and
        Pakistan military. No wonder this .FRANKESTEIN monosters are preying on
        its own creators ......ISI should have known better when it was raising the
        Talebans during it's infancy ........
         
        Again, don't try to plead for  criminal  Musharraf , before everything is clear.
        Don't be so quick to absolve Musharraf out of his criminal acts through your
        innuendoes!!!
        "If Musharraf regime had nothing to hide, why, why, why did it lie in the first place.
        See the pictures in the reports which simply confirm the regime's lie about the circumstances
        in which Benazir was assassinated" - See comments in message #7768
         
         
         
        S Turkman <turkman@...> ....wrote:
        Sure but why is ISI getting its own Army Soldiers killed by Suicide Bombers of its Taliban?
        Has anybody told you that Suicide Bombers are blowing-up themselves to kill Army Soldiers
        and Police at least twice a week in all parts of Pakistan?
        Do you know, more than 3000 Soldiers and Policemen have been dead in Pakistan?
        One of ISI's Bus transporting its Office Workers has been blown-up by a Suicide Bomber.
        One School Bus transsporting Children of Army Officers have been blown-up also by a Suicide
        Bomber in a Cantonment Colony area.

        Syed Aslam <Syed.Aslam3@...> wrote:

        Mr Syed Mirza
        You have jumped into your  conclusion:
        Many things are done by the way of  deception --- Pakistan's ISA is notoriously expert
        for using Talebans for achieving their mischevious short-term goals: Think outside the
        box ...  don't be so quick to absolve Musharraf out of his criminal acts !!!
         
        Robert Fisk: They don't blame al-Qa'ida. They blame Musharraf
        Telltale Images: What does the regime say now? And why did it lie in the first place?
         If Musharraf regime had nothing to hide, why, why, why did it lie in the first place. See the pictures in this report which simply confirm the regime's lie about the circumstances in which Benazir was assassinated.
        More interestingly, what does the pro-Musharraf regime media outlets in the West have to say about it. For example, I got a phone call from CBC for comments on the event. When the person realised that I was critical of the regime's security agencies, rather than blindly blaming it on those whom the CBC wanted to hear about, the person said he would call me in a few minutes for recording. And that was the end of it.
        More truth has yet to surface. Musharraf regime had got emboldened with doing all kind of criminal activities from illegally detaining and torturing hundreds of people, to attacking political opponents (October 18, 2007 karachi, for example), planting bombs in anti-government rallies (Islamabad), booting the Supreme Court and playing with the constitution without any concrete pressure from outside at all. This time around, the regime is seriously stuck than ever before simply because of its lies.
        Also see:
        Syed Aslam

        On 12/30/07, Syed Mirza < mirza.syed@...> wrote:
        This is a rubbish conspiracy theory at best. Some people seek to blame America or west for almost anything happened under the Sun. Butto was killed by the islamic jihadis only to remove obstacle in their holy path of Jihad against west. Period.
         
        Syed


         
        On 12/29/07, M.B.I. Munshi < MBIMunshi@... > wrote:

        I thought I would share this very interesting and readable theory
        surrounding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto -

        Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
        and the Destabilization of Pakistan

        by Larry Chin

        Global Research, December 29, 2007

        It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and
        its allies have been manuevering to strengthen their political control
        of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the
        "war on terrorism" across the region. The assassination of Benazir
        Bhutto does not change this agenda. In fact, it simplifies
        Bush-Cheney's options.

        Seeding chaos with a pretext

        "Delivering democracy to the Muslim world" has been the Orwellian
        rhetoric used to mask Bush-Cheney's application of pressure and force,
        its dramatic attempt at reshaping of the Pakistani government (into a
        joint Bhutto/Sharif-Musharraf) coalition, and backdoor plans for a
        military intervention. Various American destabilization plans, known
        for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of
        Pakistan's military.

        The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There
        were even reports of "chatter" among US officials about the possible
        assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well
        before the actual attempts took place.

        As succinctly summarized in Jeremy Page's article, "Who Killed Benazir
        Bhutto? The Main Suspects", the main suspects are 1) "Pakistani and
        foreign Islamist militants who saw her as a heretic and an American
        stooge", and 2) the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, a virtual
        branch of the CIA. Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused
        the ISI of being involved in the October attack.

        The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on "Al-Qaeda",
        without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American
        military-intelligence operation.

        Page's piece was one of the first to name the man who has now been
        tagged as the main suspect: Baitullah Mehsud, a purported Taliban
        militant fighting the Pakistani army out of Waziristan. Conflicting
        reports link Mehsud to "Al-Qaeda", the Afghan Taliban, and Mullah Omar
        (also see here). Other analysis links him to the terrorist A.Q . Khan.
        Mehsud's profile, and the reporting of it, echoes the propaganda
        treatment of all post-9/11 "terrorists". This in turn raises familiar
        questions about Anglo-American intelligence agency propaganda
        involvement. Is Mehsud connected to the ISI or the CIA? What did the
        ISI and the CIA know about Mehsud? More importantly, does Mehsud, or
        the manipulation of the propaganda surrounding him provide Bush-Cheney
        with a pretext for future aggression in the region?

        Classic "war on terrorism" propaganda

        While details on the Bhutto assassination continue to unfold, what is
        clear is that it was a political hit, along the lines of US agent
        Rafik Harriri in Lebanon. Like the highly suspicious Harriri hit, the
        Bhutto assassination has been depicted by corporate media as the
        martyring of a great messenger of western-style "democracy".
        Meanwhile, the US government's ruthless actions behind the scenes have
        received scant attention.

        The December 28, 2007 New York Times coverage of the Bhutto
        assassination offers the perfect example of mainstream Orwellian media
        distortion that hides the truth about Bush/Cheney agenda behind
        blatant propaganda smoke. This piece echoes White House rhetoric
        proclaiming that Bush's main objectives are to "bring democracy to the
        Muslim world" and "force out Islamist militants".

        In fact, the openly criminal Bush-Cheney administration has only
        supported and promoted the antithesis of democracy: chaos, fascism,
        and the installation of Anglo-American-friendly puppet regimes.
        In fact, the central and consistent geostrategy of Bush-Cheney, and
        their elite counterparts around the world, is the continued imposition
        and expansion of the manufactured "war on terrorism"; the continuation
        of war across the Eurasian subcontinent, with events triggered by
        false flag operations and manufactured pretexts.

        In fact, the main tools used in the "war on terrorism" remain Islamist
        militants, working on behalf of Anglo-American military intelligence
        agencies---among them, "Al-Qaeda", and Pakistan's Inter-Services
        Intelligence, the ISI. Mehsud fits this the same profile.

        Saving Bush-Cheney's Pakistan

        In an amusing quote from the same New York Times piece, Wendy
        Chamberlain, former US ambassador to Pakistan (and a central figure
        behind multinational efforts to build a trans-Afghan pipeline,
        connected to 9/11), proudly states: "We are a player in the Pakistani
        political system".

        Not only has the US continued to be a "player", but one of its top
        managers for decades.

        Each successive Pakistani leader since the early 1990s---Bhutto,
        Sharif and Musharraf---have bowed to Western interests. The ISI is a
        virtual branch of the CIA.

        While Musharraf has been, and remains, a strongman for Bush-Cheney,
        questions about his "reliability", and control---both his regime's
        control over the populace and growing popular unrest, and elite
        control over his regime---have driven Bush-Cheney attempts to force a
        clumsy (pro-US, Iraq-style) power-sharing government. As noted by
        Robert Scheer, Bush-Cheney has been playing "Russian roulette" with
        Musharraf, Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif---each of whom have been deeply
        corrupt, willing fronts for the US.

        The return of both Bhutto and the other former Prime Minister Nawaz
        Sharif has merely been an attempt by the US to hedge its regional
        power bets.

        What exactly were John Negroponte and Condoleeza Rice really setting
        up the past few months?

        Who benefits from Bhutto's murder?

        The "war on terrorism" geostrategy and propaganda milieu, the
        blueprint that has been used by elite interests since 9/11 to impose a
        continuing world war, is the clear beneficiary of the Bhutto
        assassination. Bush/Cheney and their equally complicit
        pro-war/pro-occupation counterparts in the Democratic Party
        enthusiastically support the routine use of "terror" pretexts to
        impose continued war policies.

        True to form, fear, "terrorism", "security" and military force, are
        once again, the focuses of Washington political rhetoric, and the
        around-the-clock media barrage.

        The 2008 US presidential candidates and their elite campaign advisers,
        all but a few of whom enthusiastically support the "war on terrorism",
        have taken turns pushing their respective versions of "we must stop
        the terrorists" rhetoric for brain-addled supporters. The candidates
        whose polls have slipped, led by 9/11 participant and opportunist Rudy
        Guiliani, and hawkish neoliberal Hillary Clinton, have already
        benefited from a new round of mass fear.

        Musharraf benefits from the removal of a bitter rival, but now must
        find a way to re-establish order. Musharraf now has an ideal
        justification to crack down on "terrorists" and impose full martial
        law, with Bush-Cheney working from the shadows behind Musharraf---and
        continuing to manipulate or remove his apparatus, if Musharraf proves
        too unreliable or broken to suit Anglo-American plans.

        The likely involvement of the ISI behind the Bhutto hit cannot be
        overstated. ISI's role behind every major act of "terrorism" since
        9/11 remains the central unspoken truth behind current geopolitical
        realities. Bhutto, but not Sharif or Musharraf would have threatened
        the ISI's agendas.

        Bhutto, militant Islam, and the pipelines

        Now that she has been martyred, many unflattering historical facts
        about Benazir Bhutto will be hidden or forgotten.

        Bhutto herself was intimately involved in the creation of the very
        "terror" milieu purportedly responsible for her assassination. Across
        her political career, she supported militant Islamists, the Taliban,
        the ISI, and the ambitions of Western governments.

        As noted by Michel Chossudovsky in America's "War on Terrorism", it
        was during Bhutto's second term that Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and
        the Taliban rose to prominence, welcomed into Bhutto's coalition
        government. It was at that point that ties between the JUI, the Army
        and the ISI were established.

        While Bhutto's relationship with both the ISI and the Taliban were
        marked by turmoil, it is clear that Bhutto, when in power, supported
        both---and enthusiastically supported Anglo-American interventions.
        In his two landmark books, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and
        Fundamentalism in Central Asia and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam
        in Central Asia, Ahmed Rashid richly details the Bhutto regime's
        connections to the ISI, the Taliban, "militant Islam", multinational
        oil interests, and Anglo-American officials and intelligence proxies.
        In Jihad, Rashid wrote:

        "Ironically it was not the ISI but Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the
        most liberal, secular leader in Pakistan's recent history, who
        delivered the coup de grace to a new relationship with Central Asia.
        Rather than support a wider peace process in Afghanistan that would
        have opened up a wider peace process in Afghanistan, Bhutto backed the
        Taliban, in a rash and presumptuous policy to create a new
        western-oriented trade and pipeline route from Turkmenistan through
        southern Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which the Taliban would provide
        security. The ISI soon supported this policy because its Afghan
        protégé Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had made no headway in capturing Kabul,
        and the Taliban appeared to be strong enough to do so."

        In Taliban, Rashid provided even more historical detail:

        "When Bhutto was elected as Prime Minister in 1993, she was keen to
        open a route to Central Asia. A new proposal emerged backed strongly
        by the frustrated Pakistani transport and smuggling mafia, the JUI and
        Pashtun military and political officials."

        "The Bhutto government fully backed the Taliban, but the ISI remained
        skeptical of their abilities, convinced that they would remain a
        useful but peripheral force in the south."

        "The US congress had authorized a covert $20 million budget for the
        CIA to destabilize Iran, and Tehran accused Washington of funneling
        some of these funds to the Taliban---a charge that was always denied
        by Washington . Bhutto sent several emissaries to Washington to urge
        the US to intervene more publicly on the side of Pakistan and the
        Taliban."

        Bhutto's one mistake: she vehemently supported the pipeline proposed
        by Argentinian oil company Bridas, and opposed the pipeline by Unocal
        (favored by the US). This contributed to her ouster in 1996, and the
        return of Nawaz Sharif to power. As noted by Rashid:

        "After the dismissal of the Bhutto government in 1996, the newly
        elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his oil minister Chaudry Nisar
        Ali Khan, the army and the ISI fully backed Unocal. Pakistan wanted
        more direct US support for the Taliban and urged Unocal to start
        construction quickly in order to legitimize the Taliban. Basically the
        USA and Unocal accepted the ISI's analysis and aims---that a Taliban
        victory in Afghanistan would make Unocal's job much easier and quicken
        US recognition."

        Her appealing and glamorous pro-Western image notwithstanding,
        Bhutto's true record is one of corruption and accommodation.
        The "war on terrorism" resparked

        Every major Anglo-American geostrategic crime has been preceded by a
        convenient pretext, orchestrated and carried out by "terror" proxies
        directly or indirectly connected to US military-intelligence, or
        manipulated into performing as intelligence assets. The assassination
        of Benazir Bhutto is simply one more brutal example.
        This was Pakistan's 9/11; Pakistan's JFK assassination, and its impact
        will resonate for years.

        Contrary to mainstream corporate news reporting, chaos benefits
        Bush-Cheney's "war on terrorism". Calls for "increased worldwide
        security" will pave the way for a muscular US reaction, US-led force
        and other forms of "crack down" from Bush-Cheney across the region. In
        other words, the assassination helps ensure that the US will not only
        never leave, but also increase its presence.

        The Pakistani election, if it takes place at all, is a simpler two-way
        choice: pro-US Musharraf or pro-US Sharif.

        While the success of Bush-Cheney's 9/11 agenda has met with mixed
        results, and it has met with a wide array of resistance ("terroristic"
        as well as political), there is no doubt that the propaganda
        foundation of the "war on terrorism" has remained firm, unshaken and
        routinely reinforced.

        As for Nawaz Sharif, who now emerges as the sole competitor for
        Musharraf, he, like Musharraf and Bhutto, is legendary for his
        accommodation to Anglo-American interests---pipelines, trade, and the
        continued US military presence. As Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume
        Dasquie noted in the book Forbidden Truth, the October 1999 military
        coup led by Musharraf that originally toppled Sharif's regime was
        sparked by animosity between the two camps, as well as "Sharif's
        personal corruption and political megalomania", and "concerns that
        Sharif was dancing too eagerly to Washington's tune on Kashmir and
        Afghanistan".

        In other words, Bush-Cheney wins, no matter which asset winds up on
        the throne.

        Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
        Research Articles by Larry Chin

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7699
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.