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

Neocons open up Pakistani Warfront

Expand Messages
  • World View
    The Neocons open up the Pakistani Warfront bob finch: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk Sun, 13 Jan 2008 The Jewish Neocons success in raising the issue of Pakistan s
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 25, 2008
      The Neocons' open up the Pakistani Warfront
      bob finch: carbonomics@...
      Sun, 13 Jan 2008


      The Jewish Neocons' success in raising the issue of Pakistan's Nuclear
      Weapons.

      America's jewish neocons, and their allies throughout the western
      world, have always had the goal of eradicating pakistan's nuclear
      weapons and provoking the disintegration of pakistan as part of their
      plan to rearrange the greater middle east for the sake of jewish
      supremacism. Uncharacteristically for them, they've rarely discussed
      this objective. Firstly, because even in terms of their own grandiose
      warmongering designs, such a goal has been politically for many years
      far beyond their reach. And, secondly, because if they'd put pakistan
      in their cross hairs this would have made it obvious just how insanely
      ambitious they were about manipulating america into invading the whole
      of the greater middle east not just afghanistan, iraq, and iran, but
      syria, saudi arabia, egypt, and pakistan. For many years after
      pakistan developed nuclear weapons, the neocons had little traction
      over pakistan's politics to stand any chance of achieving their twin
      objectives. This situation changed over the summer of 2007. It has
      changed dramatically since the assassination of benazir bhutto.

      The september 11, 2001 pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings gave the
      neocons their first significant degree of leverage over pakistani
      politics to enable them to believe they might eventually achieve their
      strategic objectives. The bush regime warned musharraf it would nuke
      pakistan if he did not join america in the so-called `war against
      terrorism' and help to crush his former proxies, the taliban. In the
      1990s, successive pakistani governments had set up the taliban and
      provided it with the logistical support to take control of
      afghanistan. Pakistani leaders saw it as a means of protecting their
      country's interests in afghanistan. So when the bush regime forced
      musharraf to join the `war against terrorism' it was in effect forcing
      him to act against his country's own interests. But he had little
      other option than to fall in line.

      The jewish neocons pushed america and other western states into the
      invasions of afghanistan and iraq. Although these invasions have
      turned out to be economically, militarily, and politically, disastrous
      for america they have been highly beneficial to the jews-only state in
      palestine. The jewish neocons have been condemned for these disasters
      but they have always known that once the american military had been
      planted in the middle east this would give them the opportunity to
      stir up trouble throughout the region. This gamble is now paying off
      in spectacular fashion as regards pakistan.

      When the war in afghanistan spilt over into pakistan this opened up
      new opportunities for the jewish neocons to interfere in pakistani
      politics. After america's invasion of afghanistan, al qaeda and most
      of the taliban fled to the tribal areas of pakistan. They used these
      areas as hideouts to recouperate, reorganize, and rearm, themselves.
      This enabled them to launch new attacks on nato troops in afghanistan
      which started turning the war in their favour. The bush regime forced
      musharraf, against his considered judgment, to launch an invasion of
      the tribal areas to capture or kill al qaeda/taliban fighters and
      prevent them from using the area as a sanctuary.

      The invasion of the tribal areas was deeply unpopular in pakistan.
      "The White House and much of Congress seem unaware that most
      Pakistanis, regardless of their political outlook, oppose their
      country's role in the Bush administration's war on terrorism." (Rajan
      Menon `Leave Pakistan alone'
      http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesB85.html
      September 6, 2007). It undermined musharraf's popularity. It pushed
      tribal leaders into the war alongside al quaeda/taliban. And it
      boosted popular support for al quaeda/taliban.

      The pakistani military suffered considerable losses during the
      invasion and this provided musharraf with the excuse to ignore
      american pleas to prosecute the war with even more vigour. He forged a
      truce with tribal leaders in february 2005.

      It is suspected the americans used pakistan's invasion as cover to
      launch secret attacks on al quaeda/taliban fighters in the tribal
      areas. These attacks continued after musharraf's ceasefire with
      tribal leaders. The more these secret attacks became public knowledge,
      the more they inflamed anti-american sentiments in pakistan, the
      further they boosted public opposition to musharraf's military
      dictatorship, and the more they increased popular support for al
      quaeda/taliban fighters. They also had the effect of boosting the
      numbers of pushtuns willing to fight to protect their homelands. This
      has created what simon jenkins calls the "Pashtun mujahideen" (Simon
      Jenkins `The west has not just repressed democracy. It has aided
      terror'
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2237569,00.html
      January 9, 2008).

      As pushtun mujahideen attacks on nato's occupation of afghanistan
      increased, one of america's leading jewish neocons took the
      opportunity to demand american military intervention in pakistan.
      Despite the disasters the american military had suffered in
      afghanistan and iraq, jewish neocons concluded the remedy was a new
      military adventure in pakistan. "In a perhaps not unrelated
      development, neocon and chief Iraq War propagandist Bill Kristol has
      been hired by the New York Times as a columnist in 2008. He told Fox
      News last July, "I think the president's going to have to take
      military action there over [in Pakistan] in the next few weeks or
      months. Bush has to disrupt that [al-Qaeda] sanctuary. I think,
      frankly, we won't even tell Musharraf. We'll do what we have to do in
      Western Pakistan and Musharraf can say, 'Hey, they didn't tell me.'"
      Notice how he leaves the Pakistani people and their reaction to such
      "action", military aggression against a sovereign state, entirely out
      of the picture." (Gary Leupp `Madness Compounding Madness Calls for
      Intervention in Pakistan'
      http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01022008.html January 2, 2008). Once
      again the jewish neocons were trying to manipulate the american
      military into fighting yet another proxy zionist war: this time in
      pakistan.

      In july 2007, the jewish neocons and the bush regime eventually
      prevailed upon musharraf to embark on a second invasion of pakistan's
      tribal areas to crush al quaeda/taliban fighters and the pushtun
      mujahideen. This has had even more adverse political, and military,
      consequences than musharraf's first invasion. It has not merely
      further undermined musharraf's popularity, it has even pushed the
      country towards civil war.

      By late 2007, the bush regime had pushed pakistan into such a state of
      crisis that, for the first time, the jewish neocons were able to raise
      doubts about the `safety' of pakistan's nuclear weapons. No matter how
      grossly unrealistic these doubts may have been, the neocons succeeded
      in putting the issue on america's political and military agenda. "US
      special forces snatch squads are on standby to seize or disable
      Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of a collapse of government
      authority or the outbreak of civil war following the assassination of
      Benazir Bhutto. The troops, augmented by volunteer scientists from
      America's Nuclear Emergency Search Team organisation, are under orders
      to take control of an estimated 60 warheads dispersed around six to 10
      high-security Pakistani military bases." (Ian Bruce `Special forces on
      standby over nuclear threat'
      http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/foreign/display.var.1933388.0.Special_forces_on_standby_over_nuclear_threat.php
      December 31 2007).

      The jewish neocons are currently building a case for increased
      american military intervention in pakistan. They want further military
      protection for america's military bases in pakistan and for american
      military supply routes through pakistan to afghanistan. "In November,
      USA Today quoted Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell as saying that
      the US military was reviewing contingency plans in case unrest in
      Pakistan began to affect the flow of supplies for American troops
      fighting in Afghanistan. He underscored that the supply lines were
      "very real areas of concern", since three-quarters of the supplies for
      the 26,000-strong US military deployment in Afghanistan flowed via
      Pakistan by land and air. "Clearly, we do not like the situation we
      find ourselves in right now," Morrell commented." (M K Bhadrakumar
      Bhutto's death a blow to 'war on terror'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA03Df02.html January 3,
      2008). They want american military action to combat al qaeda/taliban
      in the tribal areas. But most of all they want military action to
      `protect' pakistan's nuclear weapons. The greater the case they can
      build for further military interventions in pakistan, the greater the
      support they might win from the american public, and the closer they
      will get to their ultimate objective of neutralizing or even
      abolishing pakistan's nuclear weapons.

      It behoves critics of the jewish neocons to understand the
      complexities surrounding pakistan's politics lest they should end up
      inadvertently supporting neocon objectives for partitioning the
      country. In particular this means understanding the political
      objectives of former general pervez musharraf. There are those who
      denounce musharraf as busharraf i.e. george bush's puppet. Some go
      even further and suggest musharraf is just another of the jewish
      neocons' puppets like bush, blair/brown, sarkosy, merkel, howard,
      hosni mubarak, siniora, abbas, etc. The evidence suggests, however,
      that musharraf is a pakistani nationalist. He is neither busharraf nor
      another member of this disgustingly traitorous group of jewish puppets.

      It is undoubtedly true that musharraf has often been forced into
      complying with many of the jewish neocons' demands but there is also a
      case for arguing he has resisted many more of their demands. He is not
      their puppet and is not willing to devastate his own country to boost
      the regional dominance of the jews-only state in palestine. The
      neocons' puppet in pakistan was benazir bhutto. Many of those on the
      progressive wing of politics who support democracy and human rights
      were well aware that bhutto was a member of the country's landowning
      elite and that she permitted extensive corruption both in power and
      out of power. And yet they still clung to the hope she would have
      acted more democratically if she'd become pakistan's prime minister
      for the third time. It seemed as if it was as difficult for
      progressives to resist the allure of her claims to be the country's
      best hope for democracy and human rights, as it was to ignore her
      beguiling beauty. And yet, after the last three decades but especially
      the last six years, progressives should hear alarm bells whenever
      western, or westernized, politicians start talking about democracy and
      freedom because these concepts have been usurped by the jewish
      neocons. They have become the neocons' trojan Horse for promoting
      jewish supremacism throughout the greater middle east.

      M k bhadrakumar has argued that after bhutto's assassination, the
      jewish neocons are peeved that pakistan has suddenly shot to the top
      of the global political agenda. "In one swift sweep, almost overnight,
      Pakistan replaces Iran on the Bush administration's radar screen.
      Israel may not like what is happening, but Vice President Dick Cheney
      and company won't have even a fighting chance of reviving the Iran
      bogey in the remaining term of the administration." (M K Bhadrakumar
      `Al-Qaeda to the rescue for Bush's legacy'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df02.html January 05,
      2008). Having spent the last decade or so trying to push iran to the
      top of the international community's political agenda it is
      understandable why they might seem frustrated by such a turnaround.
      But this would be a major political mistake, a failure to understand
      the neocons' warmongering ideology. The jewish neocons' ultimate
      objective in the greater middle east has always been the dismantling
      of pakistan and its nuclear weapons. This is by far and away the
      biggest "existential threat" faced by the jews-only state within the
      greater middle east. Sure, for the last decade or so, the neocons have
      been in a belligerent, paranoid frenzy to stop iran from acquiring
      nuclear weapons but this is as nothing in comparison to the all too
      real posed by pakistan's nuclear weapons. Just as afghanistan was a
      mere stepping stone for iraq, and iraq was supposed to be a stepping
      stone for iran, so iran would, in turn, lead to pakistan. The neocons
      were pursuing a long term strategy to gradually encircle pakistan. To
      the north, there is the american military occupation of afghanistan;
      to the west there would one day be a devastated iran; and, to the
      east, there is now an india which has become increasingly compliant to
      the interests of the jewish neocons.

      The neocons' war front against iran was temporarily closed after
      america's national intelligence services denied iran had a nuclear
      weapons programme. For a few short weeks it seemed the jewish neocons
      would be forced to take a long detour to get back on track to achieve
      their long term objectives. But, as it turned out, events in pakistan
      opened up a major short cut to the achievement of their objectives.
      The jewish neocons have opened up a new war front: pakistan.

      The Jewish Neocons' Constitutional Tango.
      The bush regime's pressure on musharraf to wipe out al qaeda/taliban
      in pakistan's tribal areas has caused an ever widening spiral of
      violence. The more the bush regime forced musharraf to take military
      action against al qaeda/taliban, the more it undermined his
      popularity, the more it boosted anti-american sentiments in pakistan,
      the more it increased the pushtun mujahideen, and the more it boosted
      support for al qaeda/taliban in afghanistan. The bush regime's
      response was to increase pressure on musharraf for more decisive
      military action.

      By the summer of 2007, the jewish neocons had become so dissatisfied
      with musharraf's implementation of the `war on terrorism' they started
      dropping hints about finding a replacement for him. They treated his
      efforts with contempt even though the pakistani security services had
      arrested hundreds of al qaeda supporters, far more than any other
      country, and even though pakistan's military losses in the tribal
      areas were larger than those suffered by nato forces in afghanistan.
      The jewish neocons have always been disdainful of the sacrifices they
      have forced others to make on their behalf. They couldn't care less
      what pakistan's military losses were, what the damage was to
      pakistan's national interests, and how they were pushing the country
      closer to a civil war. What they wanted was a quisling who would be
      ruthless enough to do their bidding no matter what the military,
      economic and political, costs might be to pakistan. Indeed, in terms
      of their long term plan for the abolition of pakistan's nuclear
      weapons and the partition of the country, the greater the damage they
      could cause pakistan to inflict on itself, the better it would be for
      jewish supremacism. They first looked for a replacement for musharraf
      within the pakistani military but when nothing came of this they
      turned increasingly to benazir bhutto because she was willing to do
      their bidding.

      The neocons, however, simply did not have the power to remove
      musharraf and replace him with bhutto. They were forced into adopting
      a compromise strategy. They would promote bhutto to share power with
      musharraf before she eventually replaced him altogether. They spun
      this strategy to suggest that bhutto would rescue musharraf
      politically because of his increasing unpopularity even though it was
      more plausible to believe that if musharraf gave away his powers to
      bhutto he would end up with less power not more power.

      The jewish neocons concocted a highly elaborate constitutional tango
      for musharraf and bhutto. Musharraf would start off with all the
      power but by the end of the dance it would have passed seamlessly to
      bhutto.
      Number 1: Musharraf would pass a ruling known as the `national
      reconciliation ordinance' withdrawing all corruption charges against
      bhutto.
      Number 2: Bhutto would return to pakistan and her political party in
      the pakistani parliament would help to elect musharraf as president.
      Number 3: Musharraf would then step down from the army.
      Number 4: The army would then appoint a new leader. "The Bush
      administration has not formally presented any new proposals to Mr.
      Musharraf, who gave up his military role last month, or to his
      successor as the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who the White
      House thinks will be more sympathetic to the American position than
      Mr. Musharraf. Early in his career, General Kayani was an aide to Ms.
      Bhutto while she was prime minister and later led the Pakistani
      intelligence service." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric
      Schmitt `U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan'
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c610d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
      January 06, 2008).
      Number 5: Bhutto would then win the general election and be elected
      prime minister.
      Number 6: Thereafter bhutto and musharraf would work together
      harmoniously. (The fact that they held markedly different political
      objectives suggests the neocons suspected this collaboration would
      last for only a short thereby allowing them to get rid of musharraf
      altogether).
      Number 7: Pakistan's ruling political parties would launch a publicity
      barrage to win public support for america's highly unpopular `war
      against terrorism' which is just a front for the jews' promotion of
      world war three. "Washington will expect the civilian components of
      the new regime, the Pakistan Muslim League faction led by the
      Choudhury clan, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, the Jamiat
      Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Awami
      Nationalist Party (ANP), to hold the fort of public opinion whilst the
      army cracks down on the militants in the tribal border tracts." (M K
      Bhadrakumar `Benazir's second homecoming'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IJ20Df03.html October 20, 2007).

      There was one big flaw with the neocons' dance choreography. Musharraf
      didn't want bhutto back in pakistan. He didn't want her back in power.
      He didn't want to hand over his powers to her. He didn't want to work
      with her in what he knew would be a highly impracticable, power
      sharing, arrangement. "The element of uncertainty still remains
      whether the "powers that be", the establishment, which includes the
      armed forces, will be prepared to accommodate Bhutto. Her return to
      Pakistan has been almost completely choreographed by Britain and the
      United States. The Musharraf regime needed to be dragged by the collar
      to the promised land of political cohabitation with Bhutto. Top
      officials of the George W Bush administration, laden with rich
      experience in making brutal despots in Latin America behave,
      repeatedly intervened with the Musharraf regime to play ball, at times
      cajoling, at times threatening, at times blackmailing." (M K
      Bhadrakumar `Benazir's second homecoming'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IJ20Df03.html October 20,
      2007). Musharraf must have suspected that once bhutto was in power,
      she and the neocons would seek to sideline him as quickly as possible
      especially when his position as president would have been too weak to
      prevent them from deposing him.

      Musharraf rewrites the Choreography.
      Musharraf was being cajoled into going along with this elaborate
      charade. But he had no intention of co-operating in his own demise so
      he started rewriting the choreography. Musharraf knew that once he'd
      been elected president and then stepped down from the army, his
      political position would be vulnerable to challenge especially from
      the supreme court which had overturned some of his earlier rulings.
      So, before he stepped down as head of the pakistani military he
      scuttled the supreme court to prevent it from challenging his
      presidency. "On 3 November Musharraf, as chief of the army, suspended
      the 1973 constitution and imposed a state of emergency: all
      non-government TV channels were taken off the air, the mobile phone
      networks were jammed, paramilitary units surrounded the Supreme Court.
      Certainly no US spokesperson or State Department adjunct in the
      Foreign Office criticised the dismissal of the eight Supreme Court
      judges or their arrest: that was the quid pro quo for Washington's
      insistence that Musharraf take off his uniform. If he was going to
      turn civilian he wanted all the other rules twisted in his favour. A
      newly appointed stooge Supreme Court would soon help him with the
      rule-bending." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
      http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007). He
      replaced his enemies in the supreme with his allies who would help to
      protect his political power when he became president.

      The choreography outlined above would have left musharraf politically
      vulnerable to the judiciary so by rewriting the moves he significantly
      increased his chances of survival. Musharraf also took steps to boost
      the political prospects of his political party, and others, to make it
      difficult for bhutto's party to win a majority in the general
      election. "The opinion polls show that her old rival, Nawaz Sharif, is
      well ahead of her. Musharraf's hasty pilgrimage to Mecca was probably
      an attempt to secure Saudi mediation in case he has to cut a deal with
      the Sharif brothers, who have been living in exile in Saudi Arabia,
      and sideline her completely. Both sides deny that a deal was done, but
      Sharif returned to Pakistan with Saudi blessings and an armour-plated
      Cadillac as a special gift from the king. Little doubt that Riyadh
      would rather him than Benazir." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
      http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007). The more
      he could do to undermine bhutto's power in parliament, the stronger he
      would have been as president.

      If benazir bhutto had succeeded in winning the general election and
      becoming pakistan's prime minister this would not have been a triumph
      for democracy. On the contrary, it would have been another triumph for
      the jewish neocons in successfully implementing a plan they'd designed
      to boost the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. In effect,
      they would have chosen pakistan's new leader and then orchestrated
      another of their trade-mark, colour-coded, astro-turf, `democratic
      revolutions' to dupe pakistanis into electing their quisling. Indeed,
      installing a jewish quisling in a country openly hostile and
      contemptuous of jewish supremacism, might have been their greatest
      political achievement. The jewish neocons demanded a general election
      in pakistan not because they wanted the pakistani people to choose
      their own leader but so they could manipulate the electorate into
      voting for the neocon candidate. If bhutto had become prime minister
      and implemented her jewish masters' policies, who knows how much
      damage she would have inflicted on her own country before being booted
      out of power. Indeed, it is highly questionable whether pakistan would
      have survived her treacherous loyalty to the jews-only state. Real
      freedom and democracy emerges from the grassroots not from
      manipulations carried out by the world's jewish colonialists.

      Bhutto was a Jewish Quisling.
      There is more than enough evidence to suggest that, whilst in exile,
      bhutto sold out to the jewish neocons so they would help her to return
      to power in pakistan. She seemed to have become a quisling willing to
      carry out the jewish neocons' policies no matter how damaging this
      would be for pakistan's national interests.

      Hiring an American Lobbying Firm.
      "She had been schmoozing the Washington crowd for years. She had even
      hired a public-relations firm to help her do it at one point."
      (Charley Reese `The Bhutto Mistake'
      http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=12160 January 5, 2008).

      Cosying up to militant, Hardline, Jewish Fundamentalists.
      "The Harvard-educated Benazir had close ties to US and British
      intelligence as well. She used the offices of neo-conservative US
      Congressman Tom Lantos when she was in Washington, according to
      informed reports, one reason Vice President Dick Cheney backed her as
      a "safe" way to save his Pakistan strategic alliance in the face of
      growing popular protest against Musharraf's declaring martial law last
      year." (F William Engdahl `Back to business in Pakistan'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

      Support for America's Proxy Zionist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
      "She had returned the favour in advance by expressing sympathy for the
      US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lunching with the Israeli ambassador
      to the UN (a litmus test) and pledging to `wipe out terrorism' in her
      own country." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
      http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

      Bhutto's recognition of the Jews-only state in Palestine.
      Pakistan does not recognize the jews-only state in palestine and
      limits its political and economic dealings with the racist state. In
      contrast, bhutto was willing to recognize and accommodate the jewish
      apartheid state.

      Support for the Neocons so called `War against Non-Jewish Terrorism'.
      Bhutto supported the bush regime's `war against terrorism' which is
      just a front for the jewish neocons' third world war. "Once again, to
      win American backing for her return to Pakistan in 2007, which could
      only happen with US pressure on General Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto used
      the same strategy that had worked before: she would promise to do
      better than General Musharraf in advancing American interests in
      Pakistan. Over the past year, Benazir Bhutto has repeatedly pointed
      out that General Musharraf's war against terrorism in Pakistan was
      failing. Instead of curbing terrorism, the militants had become more
      daring during the General's tenure. She promised to do better. She
      would wipe out the "religious extremists," shut down "extremist"
      madrasas, and even hand over Dr. Qadeer Khan, the architect of
      Pakistan's nuclear program, to the US for questioning. Insistently,
      and loudly, Benazir Bhutto was seeking to assure the United States
      that she would do a lot better than their General." (M. Shahid Alam `A
      Pakistani Tragedy: The Life and Death of Benazir Bhutto'
      http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html January 2, 2008).

      For bhutto, pakistan's problems stemmed from islamic extremists
      causing violence and chaos within the country rather than the jewish
      neocons corrupting the country's national interests to such an extent
      it was driving the country to civil war. She would rather provoke
      civil war than try to reach a peace accord between pakistan's
      disparate groups. "Asked why she wanted to return to front-line
      Pakistani politics, Benazir said she felt her country was being
      threatened by extremists. "If the people from Pakistan vote for me,
      certainly I would to take on that job," Benazir said. "But this is
      more than a struggle for me: this is a struggle for the heart and the
      soul of Pakistan. We stand at the crossroads. Very critical choices
      have to be made between the forces of the past and the forces of the
      future. There is militancy, terrorism and violence. My government and
      I have had experience of dealing with it. If we could get another
      opportunity, I would certainly take the challenge. "The Red Mosque was
      just a warm-up for what will happen if the religious schools are not
      disarmed," Benazir told the news weekly Focus. She added that Islamist
      extremist leaders were plotting to overthrow Musharraf's government
      and had converted Madrassas in cities into military headquarters with
      well-stocked arsenals." (`Benazir refuses to back uniformed president'
      http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=9304 July 30, 2007).

      Support for American attacks on Pakistan.
      Bhutto "said she would permit such attacks under certain
      circumstances." (Willis Witter `Musharraf to bar U.S. in Pakistan'
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071004/FOREIGN/110040028/1003
      October 4, 2007); "Bhutto, after all, favored bringing U.S. military
      forces into Pakistan, according to Michael Scheuer, a former CIA
      analyst and region specialist. If that's an option President Bush
      planned to exercise, the loss of Bhutto is a grave blow to his
      policy." (Sheldon Richman `Hands Off Pakistan'
      http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801a.asp January 4, 2007).

      Promise to Purge the Pakistani Military of Islamists.
      "She also made clear in a British television interview shortly before
      her death that she would clean out the Pakistan military and security
      services of corrupt and Islamist elements." (F William Engdahl `Back
      to business in Pakistan'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA05Df01.html January 05, 2008).

      Bhutto and Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons.
      Bhutto was willing to follow the bush regime's neocon agenda for
      pakistan rather than protest against imperialist interventions and
      stand up for the country's independence. It is not known what her
      views were about pakistan's nuclear weapons. The jewish neocons have
      made it clear that they wish to see them neutralized/abolished so
      bhutto's support for the bush regime's plan was decidedly flirting
      with the possibility of acquiescing in their abolition. How could she
      follow the jewish neocons' plans for pakistan without ending up
      helping them to realize their objectives about dissolving pakistan and
      its nuclear weapons?

      Musharraf's Defiance of the Jewish Neocons.
      Although musharraf was forced into making a number of compromises with
      the bush regime (which should not be difficult to understand given its
      threat to nuke pakistan) he opposed virtually all of the neocons'
      demands. If he had been busharraf he would have agreed with the same
      policies as bhutto.

      Musharraf's Refusal to Launch the First Invasion of the Tribal Areas.
      Musharraf was opposed to using the pakistani army to invade the tribal
      areas because he knew what the political and military consequences
      would be. In the end he was forced to go through with the invasion
      but, after the all too predictable failures, he quickly reached an
      agreement with tribal leaders and withdrew the pakistani military from
      the tribal areas.

      Musharraf's Refusal to Launch the Second Invasion of the Tribal Areas.
      For nearly three years musharraf defied the neocons' demands for a
      second invasion of the tribal areas. "The Bush administration knows
      that Musharraf has been playing a double game over al-Qaeda and
      Taliban networks. Four months earlier, it had tried to exert quiet
      pressure on Musharraf over the issue, but had also continued its
      policy of portraying Musharraf as a loyal ally in the "war against
      terror", even after he signaled his rejection of any pressure."
      (Gareth Porter `It could be curtains for the Busharraf show'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG10Df02.html July 10, 2007);
      "After eight years in power since his bloodless military coup in 1999,
      Musharraf finally appears to have been convinced that the time has
      come for him to shed his uniform and return the country to a semblance
      of democratic normalcy. The deal has been finalized at a critical
      juncture of the "war on terror" as Pakistan is under immense pressure
      to carry out a powerful military assault against al-Qaeda and Taliban
      bases in Pakistani territory. New US legislation aims to tie aid for
      Pakistan to its performance in fighting terrorism. Pakistan has
      received more than US$10 billion in US aid since 2001. The
      administration of President George W Bush has also made it clear that
      it will take matters into its own hands if necessary and conduct its
      own raids inside Pakistan to tackle militants." (Syed Saleem Shahzad
      `Pakistan ripe for regime change'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH01Df01.html August 01,
      2007); "A US weekly, Newsweek, has written that the Pentagon "wants
      [Musharraf] to turn much of Pakistan's military into a
      counterinsurgency force, trained and equipped to combat Al-Qaeda and
      its extremist supporters along the Afghan border." There, you have it,
      dear Pakistanis, in clear, bold print. What is this if not a plan for
      plunging your country into civil war, into a carnage far worse than
      what the Algerians have gone through?" (M. Shahid Alam `The Killer
      Elites of Pakistan: The Mercenary State'
      http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid10122007.html October 12, 2007).

      It was only in july 2007, after many leaks in the american media about
      the bush regime's search for a new leader in pakistan, that musharraf
      was forced into launching a second invasion of the tribal areas.

      It is doubtful whether musharraf will ever abandon the taliban because
      it had served pakistan's interests in the 1990s and then again after
      america's invasion of afghanistan by attacking the american backed
      karzi government which had excluded taliban representation. Musharraf
      succeeded in protecting the taliban whilst fleecing the bush regime of
      $10 billion of american military aid and then using some of this money
      to finance the taliban's war against america's proxy in afghanistan.

      Musharraf's Refusal to give up Qadeer Khan.
      The jewish neocons in the bush regime had repeatedly demanded that
      musharraf allow them to `question' qadeer khan, the father of
      pakistan's nuclear bomb. They were desperate to interrogate him about
      the nuclear secrets he sold to iran so they could use this information
      as an excuse to attack that country. But musharraf refused their
      requests. This is even more remarkably defiant given that it would
      have been a relatively easy matter for him to have handed khan over to
      the americans.

      Musharraf has opposed American Military attacks on Pakistan.
      Musharraf has repeatedly opposed the use of american military forces
      in pakistan to attack al quaeda/taliban. He even defied dick cheney
      after a personal visit to press home his demands. "Vice President Dick
      Cheney visited Islamabad in late February, accompanied by Stephen R
      Kappes, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), when
      unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that there was evidence
      al-Qaeda operatives in camps in Pakistan had resumed training of
      foreign jihadis. Just hours after Cheney had reportedly delivered a
      warning that aid would be cut by the US Congress if something was not
      done, the Musharraf government issued a statement insisting that
      "Pakistan does not accept dictation from any side or any source"."
      (Gareth Porter `It could be curtains for the Busharraf show'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG10Df02.html July 10, 2007).

      M k bhadrakumar believes musharraf would have relented to american
      demands before bhutto's assassination but believes this is no longer
      politically feasible. "However, Bhutto's assassination may have
      upturned the project for the deployment of US special forces in
      Pakistan. In the present volatile situation there is bound to be an
      overwhelming popular uproar if Musharraf is seen as acquiescing with
      US military operations, under whatever pretext, on Pakistani soil.
      With Bhutto's death, there has been a paradigm shift in the power
      calculus. Bhutto might have, arguably, gone along with the new US
      plan, but not Sharif." (M K Bhadrakumar Bhutto's death a blow to 'war
      on terror' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA03Df02.html
      January 3, 2008).

      Musharraf's Refusal to hand over Pakistan's Nukes to the Jewish Neocons.
      Whilst bhutto might have handed over supervision of pakistan's nukes
      to the americans, or to an international force of jewish muppets, this
      is not something musharraf would have done. If the jewish neocons
      succeed in pushing the american military into further interventions in
      pakistan which lead to a war between the two countries over pakistan's
      nuclear weapons, such a war would be even more disastrous for america
      than a war against iran.

      Musharraf's Refusal to go Charging after Baitullah Mehsud.
      The zionist dominated american media quickly placed the blame for
      bhutto's assassination on a particular individual and demanded that
      musharraf launch an attack to capture or kill him. But musharraf has
      no intention of doing so. "The Pakistan government has identified a
      militant leader with links to Al Qaeda, Baitullah Mehsud, who holds
      sway in tribal areas near the Afghanistan border, as the chief suspect
      behind the attack on Ms. Bhutto. American officials are not certain
      about Mr. Mehsud's complicity but say the threat he and other
      militants pose is a new focus. He is considered, they said, an "Al
      Qaeda associate." In an interview with foreign journalists on
      Thursday, Mr. Musharraf warned of the risk any counterterrorism
      forces, American or Pakistani, faced in confronting Mr. Mehsud in his
      native tribal areas. "He is in South Waziristan agency, and let me
      tell you, getting him in that place means battling against thousands
      of people, hundreds of people who are his followers, the Mehsud tribe,
      if you get to him, and it will mean collateral damage," Mr. Musharraf
      said." (Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt `U.S.
      Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan'
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ex=1357275600&en=d2c610d29c92dd8d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
      January 06, 2008).

      Musharraf's Opposition to a US attack on Iran.
      Musharraf even stuck his neck out by suggesting that an american
      attack on iran would be disastrous. "President Pervez Musharraf said a
      possible US attack on Iran would be a "terrible mistake", in an
      interview published here on Friday. "It will be a terrible mistake if
      President George Bush orders an attack against Iran," Musharraf told
      Sarajevo daily Dnevni Avaz ahead of his visit to Bosnia. "I'm
      concerned about the possibility that a US attack on Iran (would cause)
      turbulence in the region," he said, warning it would spark
      "radicalism"." (`Iran attack would be terrible mistake: Musharraf'
      http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=7479 April 28, 2007).

      Conclusions.
      There are some revealing comparisons between musharraf and bhutto.
      There were some similarities. She used her political power to enrich
      her family, her relatives, and the landowning elite to which she
      belonged. Musharraf has also enriched himself and the pakistani
      military elite. He was no democrat but, in practice, this wasn't all
      that much different from her. The biggest political difference between
      them was that whilst he is a nationalist, she was not. Musharraf
      passed through the ranks, and eventually commanded, the highly
      nationalistic pakistani army. He defied the bush regime over a wide
      range of issues because he is a pakistani nationalist.

      As a nationalist, musharraf opposed the bush regime's `war against
      terrorism' because it threatened to undermine pakistan's national
      interests and the progress he had made in transforming the country.
      "The leaders of the Pakistan military, of which Musharraf is a typical
      example, do not see themselves primarily as "pro-American moderates"
      battling with "anti-American extremists." They see themselves as
      responsible for building a powerful militarized state in Pakistan
      representing the heritage of Islamic empires in South and Central Asia
      against the threat from India and the selfish maneuvers of politicians
      (not necessarily in that order). In the course of doing so, they have
      enriched themselves and gained control of much of the economy and
      civilian administration. The military has always aspired to control
      the judiciary as well, and Musharraf has now restored to that
      institution the supine illegitimacy that it possessed under General
      Zia. This means of course that the use of institutional power for
      private gain by the military is legal (as the judiciary has no power
      over the military), while similar use of institutional power by
      civilians is "corruption."" (Barnett R. Rubin `Pakistan's Power
      Puzzle' http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/01/pakistans-power-puzzle.html
      January 1, 2008).

      In stark contrast, bhutto was a jewish quisling, a traitor to
      pakistan's national interests. She was all too willing to support `the
      war against terrorism' which is a front for the jewish neocons' insane
      `world war three' whose sole beneficiary is believed to be the
      jews-only state in palestine.

      Musharaff's disarmingly amiable defiance of the bush regime has been
      remarkable, even more so given the bush regime's threat to nuke
      pakistan if he did not abandon his country's national interests and
      support america's invasion of afghanistan. Such a threat would have
      crushed many political leaders but musharraf not merely survived the
      ultimatum but recovered his composure to frequently defy bush's
      demands. Musharraf has played a brilliant game of deception to
      maintain his country's independence whilst fooling the americans into
      believing he was working on their behalf. "This wouldn't be the first
      time that the generals in Rawalpindi have done their homework as
      regards their corporate interests and proceeded to set aside
      Washington's unsolicited counsel. Time and again in Pakistan's history
      it has appeared that the unequal relationship between the US and
      Pakistan is far from a one-dimensional tie-up. It would be a mistake
      to regard Pakistan as a mindless American proxy, which is part of the
      reason why China and Russia have an abiding interest in that country."
      (M K Bhadrakumar `Pakistan shakes off US shackles'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK06Df02.html November 06, 2007).

      One of the main reasons for musharraf's success in protecting his
      country's national interests, and its sovereignty, against almost
      overwhelming american political interference, was his deliberate
      fostering of china's involvement in pakistan. Musharaff cultivated
      highly beneficial economic, technological, and military, links with
      china in order to significantly reduce pakistan's dependence on
      american aid. From its side, china is all too willing to assist
      pakistan because it serves as a geopolitical counterweight to india
      and even to america. It is possible that musharaff's attack on the red
      mosque in july 2007 was carried out to punish the islamic
      fundamentalists who'd earlier killed a number of chinese civilians
      working in islamabad rather than because of american insistence on
      implementing the so-called `war against terrorism'. The last thing
      that musharaff wanted was for china to withdraw its personnel from the
      country because he couldn't protect them.

      M. shahid alam has suggested that all those in pakistan's political
      elite are as corrupt as each other. The implication being that
      musharraf was just as corrupt as bhutto. "That was Benazir Bhutto's
      fatal flaw; but it was not only a personal flaw. Behind this fatal
      flaw lay the sad history of a country whose elites time and again
      chose to prostitute the state, to compromise national interests, and
      sacrifice the lives of Pakistanis for their personal gains. That is
      what makes Benazir Bhutto's murder a Pakistani tragedy. In a single
      tragic event, it crystallizes the malfeasance of Pakistan's political
      classes and the failure of Pakistanis to bring them to account for
      their treasonous crimes." (M. Shahid Alam `A Pakistani Tragedy: The
      Life and Death of Benazir Bhutto'
      http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html January 2, 2008). It
      has to be counterted, however, that whilst both may have enriched
      themselves musharraf didn't sell himself to the jewish neocons as
      bhutto did. If he'd wanted to enrich himself he would have worked
      harder to fulfil the neocons' demands.

      What sort of Military Dictator was Musharraf?
      During his time as the country's military dictator, musharraf has been
      nothing like as barbaric as his military predecessor general zia
      ul-haq. He is much more akin to a benevolent dictator. It's true that
      after the protests arising from his removal of supreme court chief
      justice iftikhar mohammed chaudhry, he arrested thousands of middle
      class protestors. He was duly condemned for such an action. "But
      Musharraf has demonstrated readiness to use harsh, authoritarian
      measures to hang on to power, as he did during emergency rule, when he
      jailed more than 5,000 political opponents and suspended the
      constitution." (Laura King `Musharraf apparently riding out crisis'
      http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0012.html
      January 6, 2008). But he didn't string up their leaders as ul-haq or
      the shah of iran would have done.

      Musharaff has been fairly lenient towards critics of his dictatorship.
      "The independent TV networks continued to broadcast reports that
      challenged official propaganda. Investigative journalism is never
      popular with governments and the general often contrasted the
      deference with which he was treated by the US networks and BBC
      television with the `unruly' questioning inflicted on him by local
      journalists: it `misled the people'." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the
      West' http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).
      There has been more criticism of musharraf in the pakistani media than
      there has been criticism of bush in the zionist dominated american media.

      Tariq ali condemns musharraf's use of his dictatorial powers but also
      points out the considerable freedoms he allowed pakistanis to enjoy
      which we in the west can only marvel at. "The state of emergency
      targeted the judiciary, opposition politicians and the independent
      media. All three groups were, in different ways, challenging the
      official line on Afghanistan and the `war on terror', the
      disappearance of political prisoners and the widespread use of torture
      in Pakistani prisons. The issues were being debated on television in a
      much more open fashion than happens anywhere in the West, where a
      blanket consensus on Afghanistan drowns all dissent. Musharraf argued
      that civil society was hampering the `war on terror'. Hence the
      emergency." (Tariq Ali `Daughter of the West'
      http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html December 13, 2007).

      It could even be argued that musharraf is more democratic than bhutto
      because he's more of a nationalist than she is. He's intent on meeting
      the wishes of the people who oppose a civil war in pakistan whilst
      bhutto would have defied their wishes to promote such a proxy zionist war.

      Musharraf currently has a bad image in the western media. This is
      partly because he was a military dictator who usurped power from a
      democratically elected prime minister. It is also partly because of
      his sacking of iftikhar mohammed chaudhry. He has also been made to
      look bad because so many commentators suggested he was responsible for
      bhutto's assassination. But, most critically of all, musharraf's
      negative image is due to america's zionist dominated media which is
      critical of his refusal to implement the jewish neocons' wishes. The
      neocons have been publicizing the need for democracy in pakistan. From
      this perspective, bhutto appeared to be the hero, no matter how
      corrupt she was and how indebted she was to a foreign power, whilst
      musharraf seemed to be the villain for standing in the way of
      progress. The zionist-dominated western media has given musharraf good
      publicity when he appeared to be complying with the jewish neocons'
      demands but bad publicity for defying his jewish masters. The fact
      that he has been given more bad publicity than good publicity is
      testament to his independence. The zionist dominated western media has
      treated musharraf almost as bigotedly as it has treated vladimir putin.

      Democracy or Sovereignty, Individual Liberties or Pakistan's National
      Independence?
      Any progressively minded person would welcome full scale democracy and
      constitutional rights in pakistan. But such goals would not have
      achieved by the jewish neocons forcing musharraf and bhutto to
      participate in a bizarre constitutional tango. Some might argue,
      however, that this meticulous choreography would at least push the
      country in the direction of these political principles. It could be
      countered, however, that there is another factor in pakistani politics
      which is even more important than the flowering of democracy i.e. the
      preservation of pakistan's sovereignty, pakistan's ability to make its
      own choices in its own best interests. In turn, this proposition could
      be challenged by suggesting that the establishment of musharraf/bhutto
      led semi-democratic system in pakistan would have contributed
      substantially to enhancing the country's independence. But the reality
      is that the musharraf-bhutto tango was a jewish neocon plan. It was
      yet another example of the bush regime imposing its own solution on
      pakistan thereby underlining the country's loss of national independence.

      America has always interfered in pakistani politics, as it has
      interfered in many other countries around the world to protect
      whatever it conceived of at the time as its national interests.
      However, after the september 11, 2001 p*ny bombings this interference
      in pakistan has become so extensive as to almost resemble a
      nation-building enterprise. The most blatant example of this
      interference was the bush regime's threat to nuke pakistan if it did
      not support america's invasion of afghanistan. Since then the bush
      regime has become involved in virtually micro-managing pakistani
      politics as could be seen most blatantly from the charade of the
      musharraf-bhutto tango. "One of the most remarkable developments in
      Pakistani politics since the events of 9-11 is the transparency, shall
      we say, daring, with which the United States now intervenes in
      Pakistan's affairs. Conversely, Pakistani leaders also work openly to
      advance American interests in Pakistan. In an earlier era, the
      Americans generally took care to conceal their meddling in Pakistani
      politics. As a result, only the politically astute understood the
      depth of their influence over Pakistan. Now, this knowledge has become
      commonplace." (M. Shahid Alam `A Pakistani Tragedy: The Life and Death
      of Benazir Bhutto' http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid01022008.html
      January 2, 2008).

      In terms of the political values of pakistan's two leading
      politicians, musharraf sought to protect pakistani sovereignty at the
      expense of democracy whilst bhutto supported democracy whilst
      sacrificing the country's sovereignty. What bhutto was offering was a
      sham democracy which might have benefited, to a minor degree, the
      interests of the country's landowning elite but which was intended
      primarily to further the jewish neocons' plans for world war three.
      Bhutto had sold herself in exile to the jewish neocons and, in power,
      she would have sold the country to them as well. In the process, she
      would have undermined musharraf's courageous and wily efforts to
      uphold his country's independence. If musharaff had bhutto
      assassinated there is a strong case for arguing he did so for the sake
      of protecting pakistani sovereignty. There was a clear cut choice of
      political principles between these two political leaders. Bhutto
      represented democracy and servility to the jewish neocons, whilst
      musharraf may have been a military dictator but he was also pakistan's
      best prospect for maintaining the country's independence. Whilst
      musharraf defied global jewish power, bhutto relished it like a blair
      or brown.

      It is proposed here that pakistan's primary political objective should
      be the fight for its independence, its ability to make its own
      decisions based on its own national interests. The last development
      that pakistan needs is to be manipulated by the jewish neocons' sham
      democracy. First comes a war of liberation, then comes democracy. A
      democracy under occupation is a quislings' paradise. Pakistanis should
      fight for a democracy once they've liberated themselves from jewish
      neocon imperialism. They should be especially wary of being fooled
      into supporting elections to install leaders chosen by foreign powers
      to reinforce foreign control over the country.

      Pakistanis should not belittle musharraf's achievements lest they lose
      the degree of independence he has won for them. The former prime
      minister of pakistan nawaz sharif, head of the muslim league has
      called for musharraf's resignation. "He is a one-man calamity and the
      source of all the problems. The country is burning."" (Quoted in Juan
      Cole `Nawaz: Musharraf Must Go'
      http://www.juancole.com/2008_01_01_juancole_archive.html January 01,
      2008). But musharraf is not the problem in pakistan. He has done much
      to protect his country from the bush regime which wanted him to
      relinquish pakistani influence over afghanistan and to crush al
      qaeda/taliban which would have devastated the tribal areas and
      boomeranged badly on the rest of pakistan. And he has protected the
      country from the jewish neocons who are as intent on destroying
      pakistan's nuclear weapons as they were on destroying saddam's,
      iran's, and syria's, non-existent nuclear weapons.

      The priority for national sovereignty is not some optional extra. The
      difference between an independent country and one ruled by
      democratically elected leaders loyal to another country, the jews-only
      state in palestine, is fundamental. The jewish neocons would force
      their quislings in pakistan to attack al qaeda/taliban which would
      lead to a civil war between pushtuns and punjabis. This would unleash
      further ethnic tensions that could result in the break up of pakistan.
      It could even lead to increasing american military interventions in
      pakistan to protect american military facilities but, most
      importantly, to take control of pakistan's nuclear weapons.

      The Global struggle for National Independence against Global Jewish
      Imperialism.
      The recommendation that the primary goal of pakistani politics should
      be the establishment of sovereignty over the country's own affairs,
      rather than allowing jewish neocon imperialists to determine the
      country's policies, should be applied to many other countries. Jewish
      neocons have usurped power not merely in pakistan but in america and
      the rest of the western world to name but a few. These countries need
      to liberate themselves from the jewish neocons who control their
      political systems and are trying to push them into world war three.

      The best thing the american military can do for world peace is to piss
      off back to america and start laying seige to congress and the white
      house until it forces the jewish neocons to surrender. It can then put
      them on trial for treason against the american people and the american
      republic.

      The Jewish Neocons have swopped Iran for Pakistan.
      After the publication of america's intelligence services' report, the
      national intelligence estimate, that iran did not have a nuclear
      weapons' programme, the prospects of the jewish neocons manipulating
      america into an attack/invasion of iran has receded. The death of
      benazir bhutto seemed like another huge setback for the jewish neocons
      because they lost a quisling who seemed willing to give them whatever
      they wanted. However, it quickly became a huge boost to their
      political objectives since it put pakistan's nuclear weapons onto
      america's political agenda. The jewish neocons opened up a new front
      in their pursuit of world war three: boosting american military
      involvement in pakistan. They are publicizing four main rationales for
      further american intervention in pakistan.

      Protecting america's military facilities in pakistan.
      Protecting the american military's supply lines through pakistan to
      afghanistan.
      Crushing al quaeda/taliban, and,
      Preventing moslem extremists from getting their hands on pakistan's
      nuclear bombs.

      The jewish neocons are already baying for an invasion of pakistan. "It
      is during a crisis that the establishment hoists its true colors for
      all to see. With few exceptions, the most prominent voices in politics
      and the news media are chanting in unison that Bhutto's assassination
      proves that the United States needs to be more involved in Pakistan
      than it has been. What is so fascinating is how impervious the
      political and media establishments are to the lessons of reality.
      After all that's happened, the dominant voices still insist that Bush
      redouble efforts to determine Pakistan's future." (Sheldon Richman
      `Hands Off Pakistan' http://www.fff.org/comment/com0801a.asp January
      4, 2007).

      The jewish neocons' goal is to abolish or at the very least neutralize
      pakistan's nuclear weapons, bring about the country's partition into
      ethnic mini-states, and boost america's military presence in these
      mini-states in preparation for an attack/invasion of iran. After the
      invasion of iraq, they'd hoped world war three would unfold from
      afghanistan to iraq, and then iran, followed by pakistan and the arab
      states. After bhutto's assassination, they believe they might be able
      to take a shortcut to a war with pakistan which would enable them move
      against iran.

      Pakistan's descent into a Nightmare is solely due to the Jewish Neocons.
      The jewish neocons were hoping to use bhutto to edge musharraf out of
      power. Now that bhutto is no longer there to do this, the question is
      just how much they have politically wounded musharraf by forcing him
      to give up his post as the head of the pakistani military. "It is the
      military as an institution that delivers the goods, not individual
      generals. Musharraf has no legitimacy left since he discarded his
      uniform. Hence Bush's insistence that the elections go ahead despite a
      mass boycott, imprisoned judges, a neutered media, key politicians
      under house arrest and the public execution of Ms Bhutto." (Tariq Ali
      `The Dark Night is Far From Over: Pakistan: the Aftermath'
      http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12312007.html December 31, 2007). The
      jewish neocons wanted to get rid of him but he is one of the few
      politicians who is capable not merely of defying bush and the neocons
      but of balancing the various centrifugal forces within pakistan to
      maintain civility.

      When musharaff was a military dictator he faced an almost impossible
      position. Since he became president its become an impossible
      situation. The pakistani military is the symbol and guarantor of
      national unity. "In fact, it would be the height of folly for
      Washington to try to create dissensions within the Pakistani army,
      which is the only institution that transcends the various templates of
      ethnic, regional, and religious differences that threaten the
      country's unity and integrity. As long as the army stays united, the
      Pakistani state has inherent stability and a fair chance of outliving
      the weaknesses of its civilian institutions, democratic elections or
      any of the fragilities associated with civil society." (M K
      Bhadrakumar `Musharraf remains the US's best option'
      http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IK17Df05.html November 17,
      2007). But it opposes democracy. Pakistan's middle classes, many with
      relatives in the west, want western style democracy. Many pakistanis
      want a nation-state like those in the west but increasing numbers of
      people with different ethnic backgrounds want independence from
      pakistan. Musharaff needs the taliban to promote pakistan's national
      interests in afghanistan countering indian influence in that country.
      But the americans want him to wage a war against al qaeda/taliban.
      Pakistani military attacks in the tribal areas are provoking
      resistance from tribal leaders and what is fast becoming a pushtun
      mujahideen. The more that musharraf is forced to associate himself
      with american policies, and the more american attacks there are in
      pakistan's tribal areas many of which miss their targets and end up
      killing innocent people, the more unpopular musharraf becomes and the
      greater the likelihood of a civil war. A civil war would cause
      ruptures within the pakistani military and bring about the country's
      disintegration.

      The americans argue they must take military action in the tribal areas
      of pakistan to stop al qaeda/taliban attacks from attacking nato
      forces in afghanistan. But the more they do so the more popular the
      pushtun mujahideen becomes requiring an even bigger american
      militarily intervention. Whilst it is in america's national interests
      to get out of south east asia before they suffer even bigger political
      and military disasters, the jewish neocons within the bush regime
      insist on further american military adventures because of the huge
      benefits they bring to the jews-only state in palestine. Whilst the
      disintegration of pakistan would not be in america's national
      interests, it would provide a huge benefit to jewish supremacism in
      the greater middle east. Given such complexities: "The idea that a
      sudden infusion of "democracy" is going to solve Pakistan's problems
      is a Western delusion that should have died a quick death in the sands
      of Iraq, and didn't." (Justin Raimondo `Panic Over Pakistan: Why
      precipitous intervention is not the answer'
      http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12141 December 31, 2007).

      Breaking up the War Mongering States.
      This article has criticized the jewish neocons for seeking pakistan's
      disintegration. It has to be suggested, however, that if pakistan
      dissolved into its ethnic constituencies this would not be anything
      like as devastating as might be thought. Although in the short term it
      might cause some bloodshed, in the longer term punjabis, pushtuns,
      baluchis, and shiites, might live more peacefully within their own
      states. When countries try to establish democracies they require,
      initially, a degree of ethnic homogeneity if they are to stand a good
      chance of survival. It is perfectly possible for mature democracies to
      become increasingly heterogeneous but in the beginning they need
      homogeneity to help consolidate stability. Pakistan has never been
      such a homogenous entity. The break up of pakistan into its ethnic
      components could create mini-states with sufficient homogeneity to
      enable them to establish and maintain functioning democracies. The
      break up of pakistan would not necessarily lead to chaos and ethnic
      wars. However, it would probably lead to the end of the pakistani bomb
      since it would be unlikely that any of the successor states would be
      wealthy enough to sustain such enormously expensive weapons over the
      long run.

      This article is not recommending the break up of pakistan. On the
      contrary, what is being advocated here is the break up of america. For
      many decades the american constitution seemed strong enough to prevent
      america from lapsing into an empire but the jewish neocons, experts in
      constitutional gerrymandering, have shown this is no longer true.
      America's pre-emptive and illegal war against vietnam was hugely
      destructive: far more so than the pre-emptive and illegal invasions of
      afghanistan and iraq. But it wasn't being fought to enable america to
      set up an empire. However, this is precisely what the jewish neocons
      are intent on doing - but not for the benefit of america or the world
      but to increase the regional dominance of the jews only state in
      palestine.

      The best way to prevent the jewish neocons from manipulating america
      into a third world to create a global empire is to break up america
      into its 50 states. The power of america's ruling jewish elite cannot
      be curbed through political reforms of the federal state. It can be
      achieved only by abolishing the federal government.

      This would not necessarily mean the end of freedom and democracy in
      the former united states. All of these states could adopt a miniature
      version of the american constitution. Indeed, americans might even be
      able to win back the freedoms they have had to sacrifice during the
      efforts made to establish a jewish led american empire. At the very
      least they would be better off because they would no longer be
      burdened by paying federal taxes. They would no longer have to fund
      america's grossly bloated military nor an equally grossly bloated
      homeland security agency. America could break up as a consequence of
      the boomerang effects of the jewish neocons' efforts to forge an
      american empire. But it would be better if americans abolished the
      federal state before the american empire grows too unwieldy and
      eventually collapses thereby devastating the country.

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
      wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.