Neocons open up Pakistani Warfront
- 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
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'
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
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
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'
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
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
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
Number 1: Musharraf would pass a ruling known as the `national
reconciliation ordinance' withdrawing all corruption charges against
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'
January 06, 2008).
Number 5: Bhutto would then win the general election and be elected
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
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
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'
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
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'
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).
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
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'
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
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
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
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
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
Crushing al quaeda/taliban, and,
Preventing moslem extremists from getting their hands on pakistan's
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
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: