Archives

Nawaz Sharif, Washington And $ 658 Million

Nawaz Sharif, Washington And $ 658 Million

The Bushes do it again, imposing restrictions on U.S. aid to Pakistan. Time to learn from our mistakes with the Americans. Mr. Sharif wasn’t careful and ended up paying to the Americans a half-billion dollars. And like the last time, look again for the ‘Indian connection.’

KARACHI, Pakistan—The Defense Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week, which imposes tough conditions on American military aid to Pakistan, has revived memories of the infamous Larry Pressler.
He, of course, was the Republican senator from South Dakota who, in 1986, sponsored the notorious Pressler Amendment to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, under which all American military and economic aid to Pakistan was stopped in October 1990, when President George H W Bush -- Dubya's dad -- said he could no longer certify that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons.
That cut off all U.S. aid to Pakistan, including the delivery of 28 F-16 fighter aircraft, which were part of a larger order for 42 F-16s that Pakistan had placed on General Dynamics Corporation of the United States in 1988. The aircraft were to be paid for in installments under the U.S. 'Foreign Military Sales' program.
At the time when the Pressler ban was imposed, Pakistan had made only an initial down payment of $ 50 million for the aircraft. Had Islamabad decided not to make any more installment payments, the national exchequer would have been out-of-pocket only to the tune of that initial $ 50 million.
But the then-Nawaz Sharif government, in its infinite wisdom, chose to continue making installment payments of $ 90 million every three months, even though senior U.S. State Department officials had publicly stated on more than one occasion that, after the imposition of the Pressler ban, there was "no question" of the United States supplying any military equipment or economic aid to Pakistan.
Between February 1991 and April 1993, I wrote a series of 14 detailed investigative articles for The News, pointing out repeatedly that Pakistan would neither get the planes nor its money back and urging the government to stop further payments. The trick, in life, is to be wiser BEFORE the event, not after it.
All those warnings fell on deaf ears, however, and the Nawaz administration continued to pay the installments as and when they 'fell due' under the terms of the original agreement with General Dynamics, notwithstanding the fact that the agreement had become invalid after the Pressler ban was imposed and the U.S. government had refused to deliver the aircraft.
It was only after the Nawaz government was dismissed by then-President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on April 18, 1993, and the Balakh Sher Mazari-caretaker government took over that Ilahi Bakhsh Soomro, a member of the caretaker cabinet, wrote a letter to the U.S. manufacturer in May 1993 stating that no further installment payments would be made.
By then, however, the total amount that had been paid to the manufacturer had swelled to $ 658 million -- all thanks to the Nawaz government, though it was said at the time that an element of sleaze was also involved in the government's decision to continue with the payments, with millions of dollars of the money allegedly going 'missing' and finding its way into the pockets of Pakistani middlemen.
To add insult to injury, the U.S. government continued to bill Pakistan several million dollars a year as 'parking charges' for the 28 aircraft that were parked at a U.S. air force base in Tuscon, Arizona. And that's where they remained for more than 10 long years, with Islamabad having to shell out some $ 20 million in parking fees.
But what was our old friend Larry Pressler up to in the meantime? Well, he chaired the South Asia subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a while in the 1980s and the 1990s, but lost his Senate seat in the 1996 mid-term congressional elections, despite receiving substantial campaign contributions from the Indian lobby in Washington as well as from Indian political action committees.
Given this lucrative Indian connection, it came as no surprise to anybody when, in January 2003, Pressler again turned up like a bad penny, this time as an advocate for the US making India an ally, in an article written by him in the Washington Times from Bangalore, India, headlined India: a natural ally.
This is how the article began: "Fast forward to November 1, 2003. The Iraq war is over. Saddam Hussein is gone (somewhere?)! We won! U.S. troops return to ticker-tape parades, the world bows to America's superpower with our citizens living in homeland peace forever after. Right? No, unfortunately, probably wrong.
"After a seemingly inevitable and necessary war with Iraq, President George W Bush may bask in victory. But Americans must also anticipate post-war chaos, as the Muslim world seethes with anti-American hatred. China and North Korea flex their muscles, the threat of terrorism increases, and countries tell U.S. citizens and businesses to stay at home.
"Post-Iraq, America will attempt to engage the Muslim world through diplomacy, but it must also send its Peace Corps volunteers, business leaders and college students with aid and assistance to placate those who hate us. More importantly, we will need to identify our friends and to stand by those countries that reflect our faith in democracy, human rights and religious freedom."
And then came the clincher -- the commercial message from Larry Pressler's sponsor, as it were. "When Mr Bush woos his closest allies in the post-Iraq war era, India should be first among them," he wrote. So now the cat was well and truly out of the bag.
To reinforce his message, Pressler added: "I write from Bangalore in southern India, where the summer sun and the outlook for the town's software companies shine equally bright -- as the ancient Silk Road linked India to the West, so the software trade links it to the United States. But these ties are not nearly close enough. The United States for too long has treated India and Pakistan as equal allies in the region, when America would be better served if it set India and China side-by-side and gave India the edge."



There was more in this fulsome pro-India vein, but you get the picture. What Pressler seemed to have overlooked, however, in his apparent eagerness to serve as a lobbyist for India was that the "ancient Silk Road" he spoke of in his article terminates in what, today, is Pakistan, not India.
Mr. Omar is a renowned Pakistani journalist. This is a slightly edited version of his original weekly column Newswatch published in the daily newspaper The News.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Obama vows not to send people to war without cause

Obama vows not to send people to war without cause

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – President Barack Obama promised graduating midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy on Friday that, as their commander in chief, he will only send them "into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary." In his first address to military graduates, Obama also pledged to invest in the men and women who defend America's liberty, not just in the weapons they would take with them into battle against 21st century threats.
"I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done," the president told more than 1,000 graduates during a sun-splashed ceremony at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.
Obama said he has halted reductions in the Navy, is building up the Marine Corps and investing in the hardware — combat ships, submarines and fighter aircraft — they'll need to do their jobs. He promised higher pay, enhanced child care and improved support and other benefits.
"In short, we will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen," Obama said, as more than 30,000 watched from the stands.
The president also praised the role of Navy SEALS in freeing a U.S. sea captain by killing his Somali pirate captors last month.
"The extraordinary precision and professionalism displayed that day was made possible, in no small measure, by the training, the discipline and the leadership skills that so many of those officers learned at the United States Naval Academy," Obama said in his first public comments on the matter.
Among those receiving degrees was John S. McCain IV, the son of Obama's presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, who watched from a front-row seat on the grassy field with his wife, Cindy, his mother, Roberta, and several of his children. Had the Arizona Republican, who also graduated from the academy, defeated Obama, McCain could have addressed the Class of 2009 himself.
Obama and "Jack" McCain, a fourth-generation academy graduate, shared a handshake, an embrace and a few words when the young man was called up to receive his diploma, following in the footsteps of his father, grandfather and great-grandfather.
Obama did not recognize Sen. McCain in his speech; the White House says it was out of respect for the family's wishes. But the president did say a few words about his rival for the presidency before he left the White House. He praised the senator as he signed legislation giving the Pentagon new power to curtail wasteful defense spending. McCain was a sponsor of the bill.
"Senator McCain couldn't be here today because he's making sure he has a good seat to watch his son graduate from the Naval Academy in a few hours, and that's where I'm headed as soon as I catch my ride over here," Obama said at the bill signing in the Rose Garden.
Presidents typically deliver the commencement address at one of the service academies each year. Friday's speech was the third graduation address by Obama in the past nine days. He used the previous two to tackle issues that threatened to overshadow both events.
At the University of Notre Dame last Sunday, abortion opponents protested Obama's appearance because he supports abortion rights. Obama took on the debate, telling graduates of the Roman Catholic university that people on both sides of the issue must stop demonizing one another.
At Arizona State University, where Obama spoke on May 13, the issue was the school's decision not to award him an honorary degree on grounds that he hadn't accomplished enough. Obama said he agreed, saying no one's body of work is ever complete.
On Thursday, Obama delivered a different kind of speech, one in which he sought to regain control of the emotional debate over closing the detention center for suspected terrorists in Cuba. He denounced "fear-mongering" by political opponents and insisted that maximum-security prisons on the U.S. mainland can safely house the dangerous detainees he wants transferred from Guantanamo Bay.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney countered the same day with a speech denouncing some of Obama's actions as "unwise in the extreme" and repeating his contention that the new president is endangering the country by turning aside Bush-era policies.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Obama signs law curbing surprise credit card fees

Obama signs law curbing surprise credit card fees
President Barack Obama greets lawmakers in the Rose Garden of ...
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama warned overeager shoppers and greedy credit card companies alike on Friday to act responsibly as he signed into law a bill designed to protect debt-ridden consumers from surprise charges.
The White House staged a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden, an indication of the legislation's importance to Obama. Though opposed by many financial companies, the bill cleared Congress with broad support.
Obama made clear that he didn't champion the changes with the intention of helping those who buy more than they can afford through "reckless spending or wishful thinking."
"Some get in over their heads by not using their heads," the president said. "I want to be clear: We do not excuse or condone folks who've acted irresponsibly."
And yet, he said, for many of the millions of Americans, trying to get out of debt has been made difficult and bewildering by their credit card companies.
Nearly 80 percent of Americans have credit cards and half of those carry a balance, according to the White House. The Federal Reserve estimates the nation is some $2.5 trillion in debt, a figure that does not include home mortgages.
Obama said many people have gotten "trapped" because of the downturn in the economy that has turned family budgets on their heads. But, he said, "part of it is the practices of the credit card companies."
He criticized policies that allowed for confusing fine print; the sudden appearance of unexplained fees on bills; unannounced shifts in payment deadlines, interest charges or rate increases even when payments aren't late; and payments directed to balances with the lowest interest rates rather than the highest.
"We're here to put a change to all that," Obama said.
One part of the bill Obama did not publicly celebrate at the signing, a gun amendment. The measure by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., allows people to bring loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges.
The addition of the amendment to the bill — and Obama's acceptance of it — was viewed as a bitter disappointment for gun-control advocates.
They watched gun-rights supporters gain a victory from a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic president that they couldn't achieve under a Republican Congress and president. Many blamed the National Rifle Association, which pushed hard for the gun law.
Democrats lawmakers and aides said they didn't have enough time to send the bill to the House-Senate conference committee — where the gun provision could have been removed without a vote — and still get the bill to Obama by the Memorial Day weekend as he requested.
The new credit card rules, which go into effect in nine months, prohibit companies from giving cards to people under 21 unless they can prove they have the means to pay the debt or a parent or guardian co-signs. A customer also will have to be more than 60 days behind on a payment before seeing a rate increase on an existing balance. Even then, the lender will be required to restore the previous, lower rate if the cardholder pays the minimum balance on time for six months.
And consumers also will have to receive 45 days' notice and an explanation before their interest rates increase.
Despite being touted as a victory for consumers, financial experts said the bill could have unintended consequences as credit card companies look for ways to make up for potential lost revenue. Those measures could include more cards with annual fees and the loss of a grace period before interest accrues, which would affect even those consumers who pay off their balance each month.
Last year, the Nilson Report estimated that more than 700 million credit cards were in circulation in the United States. That's more than two cards for every man, woman and child.
The president noted that nearly half of all Americans carry a balance on their credit cards, and that their average balance is more than $7,000.
Obama decried the "uneasy, unstable dependence" that a minority of card users have on credit.
"So we're not going to give people a free pass, and we expect consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe," Obama said. "But we also expect financial institutions to act with the same sense of responsibility that the American people aspire to in their own lives."

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Four Indian spies arrested in Lahore

Four Indian spies arrested in Lahore
The performance of Law Enforcement institution in tracking these terrorists needs to be improved as there are clear indications that Hindu Zionists cabal wants to destabilize the only Muslim state with nuclear power.
Source: The NewsLAHORE: Intelligence agencies are reported to have arrested four persons on suspicion of working for Indian spy agency Research and Analyst Wing (RAQ) during raids at different places of the provincial capital on Tuesday.According to sources, the suspected agents, residents of Sheikhupura, Nankana and Kamonke, have been identified as Khalid, Abid, Karamat and Khizar.
The sources said initial investigation revealed that the accused used to enter India from the border area of Bado Malai where Indian agents would take them to Amritsar.
They were being paid Rs.40, 000 in exchange of completing one task.
The sources further said that agencies were carrying out more raids at other places in order to apprehend their accomplices.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Catholic Church failed to stop 'endemic' s*x abuse

Catholic Church failed to stop 'endemic' s*x abuse
Beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children, Ryan report states
Rape and sexual molestation were "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages, a report revealed today.
The nine-year investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades terrorised thousands of boys and girls in the Irish Republic, while government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rape and humiliation.
The high court judge Sean Ryan today unveiled the 2,600-page final report of Ireland's commission into child abuse, which drew on testimony from thousands of former inmates and officials from more than 250 church-run institutions. Police were called to the news conference amid angry scenes as victims were prevented from attending.
More than 30,000 children deemed to be petty thieves, truants or from dysfunctional families – a category that often included unmarried mothers – were sent to Ireland's austere network of industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages and hostels from the 1930s until the last facilities shut in the 1990s.
The findings prompted the new Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, to say that it took "courage" for those clergy involved in child sex abuse to confront their actions. In an interview to be broadcast tonight on ITV News at Ten, he said: "I think of those in religious orders and some of the clergy in Dublin who have to face these facts from their past which instinctively and quite naturally they'd rather not look at. That takes courage, and also we shouldn't forget that this account today will also overshadow all of the good that they also did."
The Irish Survivors of Child Abuse (Isoca), an organisation set up to help victims, condemned the newly appointed head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales for his remarks.
"Rubbish is too kind of word for what the archbishop has said. I believe I have heard this kind of twaddle uttered by politicians in Ireland like Bertie Ahern, the former prime minister. It is the verbiage of un-reason and it leaves me cold. What the Archbishop really has to do is take a long hard look at the character and nature of the people he is talking about and ask himself if they are capable of being good," said Patrick Walsh.
The report found that molestation and rape were "endemic" in boys' facilities, chiefly run by the Christian Brothers order, and supervisors pursued policies that increased the danger. Girls supervised by orders of nuns, chiefly the Sisters of Mercy, suffered much less sexual abuse but instead endured frequent assaults and humiliation designed to make them feel worthless.
"In some schools a high level of ritualised beating was routine ... Girls were struck with implements designed to maximise pain and were struck on all parts of the body," the report said. "Personal and family denigration was widespread."
The report concluded that when confronted with evidence of sex abuse, religious authorities responded by transferring offenders to another location, where in many instances they were free to abuse again.
"There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse," the report said. "The safety of children in general was not a consideration."
The Catholic church had been steeling itself for the report, which was repeatedly delayed by church lawsuits, missing documentation and alleged government obstruction.
The Christian Brothers delayed the investigation for more than a year with a lawsuit that successfully defended their members' right to anonymity in all references in the report, even in cases in which individual Christian Brothers had been convicted of sexual and physical attacks on children.
The church had already been under fire over the sexual misbehaviour of several priests in various Irish parishes. The commission's experts have sought to produce a comprehensive portrait of sexual, physical and emotional damage inflicted on the child victims. The thousands of survivors said they had no safe way to tell their stories until the investigation began because much of Irish Catholic society regarded them as liars.
Isoca today said it was now up to the Vatican to investigate its religious orders in the republic.
John Kelly, the Isoca co-ordinator in Dublin, said: "Now that the Ryan [Laffoy] commission is finished, we call upon ... Pope Benedict XVI to convene a special consistory court to fully investigate the activities of the Catholic religious orders in Ireland.
"Amongst other things, such a court could establish the whereabouts of Irish state assets that were misappropriated over many years by the religious orders and make restitution to the Irish state exchequer."
During the commission's investigations, oral evidence was collected from more than 1,000 people, mainly aged from their 50s to 70s.
Several hundred travelled back to Ireland from the US and Australia to describe their childhood of terror and intimidation.
One victim, John Walsh, of Isoca, called the report a hatchet job that left open wounds gaping. "The little comfort we have is the knowledge that it vindicated the victims who were raped and sexually abused," he said.
"I'm very angry, very bitter, and feel cheated and deceived. I would have never opened my wounds if I'd known this was going to be the end result. It has devastated me and will devastate most victims because there is no criminal proceedings and no accountability whatsoever."
The commission's original judge, Mary Laffoy, resigned from her post in 2003 over claims that the Irish department of education – which was in charge of inspecting the orphanages and industrial schools – was refusing to hand over documents to her.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

The American War On Wana

The American War On Wana
In this insightful article, American journalist Peter Chamberlin presents a compelling narrative, explaining how CIA planners, in “Operation Enduring Turmoil,” have been busy using some of the Northern Alliance’s most ruthless men, along with a sizeable force of Uzbeks, to destabilize Pakistan’s Federally Administrated Tribal Areas and the North West Frontier Province. Pakistan, Chamberlin writes, is the keystone in an American strategic move that stretches in an arc across the entire Middle East and southern central Asia. If Pakistan is not totally under American control then the plan cannot work. The existence of this plan accounts for the brazenness shown in American actions taken in Pakistan that are in direct contravention of the expressed will of the Pakistani people and their leaders, actions clearly intended to undermine Army and governmental authority.

By PETER CHAMBERLIN
WASHINGTON, D.C.—We are fighting a war that is like no other. The illusion is made as real; the real is made as dust. Nothing is as it seems in this war, even though this is the era of instant news. This alteration of our very understanding of reality has been necessary for us to pursue a war policy of pure evil, even though we have paraded ourselves before the world as warriors in defense of truth and light. The human race is begging for an end to the path of destruction that trusted American leaders have steered the world onto., longing to turn onto a permanent path of Light. It is high time the United States either showed the world the way into the Light, or got out of the way of those who can.
Our new president has made a great show of being the man with the hope of “change” in his hand, but in the cold light of day he is readying massive doses of change for the worse. The world was begging for American leadership to undo what the last “mis-leader” has done, but the economic powers that rule America have produced another charlatan bearing nothing more than a nice smile, to bind us to the path of escalation that leads to the Empire’s goal of permanent war.
A great sickness of mind has inflicted the people of this Nation, filling our thoughts with bloodlust and heroic visions of victory over savage hordes who are bent on our destruction. The “al Qaida” and Taliban who have been cast as classic movie villains who prefer a world ruled by death and despair, answer to strange gods and display bizarre customs. American soldiers were cast in the hero’s role, standing tall in their glorious image of the lone eagle warriors holding-back the swelling tides of Asia and Africa, defending our lovingly constructed towers of glory that surely elevate us that much closer to our Creator even as they set us above our fellow man. This is the Hollywood image of America that has been carefully constructed by our leaders and powerhouses of influence, the “Zion” of Matrix fame. “Zion” America, the hero nation of warriors, defending precious civilization, under siege by armies of darkness and inhumanity.

The “war on terror” is much like a movie, in that it was definitely developed according to some sort of script, enormous investments were made in its production, while it waited many years in development. The first step in understanding is realizing that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were not the opening act, neither was the first Trade Center bombing in 1993.
The second step in understanding the “war on terror” is accepting the fact that nothing is as it seems; there are no “good guys,” but there are plenty of bad guys, and an unlimited supply of innocents. The United States and its allies cannot wear the white hats in this bad “spaghetti western,” the second act of which is being stage-managed now in Western Pakistan, that is, unless there is no morality. Unless the foundation of the entire American legal system is suddenly without merit, the United States also be seen as some of the worst bad guys in this violent international travesty of justice.
We have forced our war that we wage in the name of vengeance, out of our sense of righteous indignation, for an attack that killed thousands of innocent civilians, blamed on an ill-defined enemy, offering no evidence of their guilt, killing over one million innocent civilians and turning five times that amount into refugees in the process.
Now, our new president, the one elected on a promise to “change” (one of those changes being the salvation of the first war in Afghanistan, by winding-down the second war in Iraq), is the latest facilitator of the Empire’s plans, a marionette, dancing to the “New World Order blues,” as he “song and dances” us around these first two wars and into a third unwinnable war in Pakistan. The third step in understanding the truth about the terror war is to realize that the American government has not been trying to end these two wars, it has been using every means at its disposal to prolong the first two wars while it frantically sought a way to start a third. America is not really losing either war, but it has never had any intentions of winning them either.
Obama continues the presidential tradition of deceiving the world about American intentions, present facts backwards—preserving capitalism will not salvage the war effort, but military action is planned, to acquire the means to avert any economic emergency, the resources of the underdeveloped region . Pakistan is the keystone in an American strategic move that stretches in an arc across the entire Middle East and southern central Asia. If Pakistan is not totally under American control then the plan cannot work. The existence of this plan accounts for the brazenness shown in American actions taken in Pakistan that are in direct contravention of the expressed will of the Pakistani people and their leaders, actions clearly intended to undermine Army and governmental authority.
The Obama Administration is expanding the war on the strength of this statement:
“to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”

Every action that our government takes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, under the pretense of eliminating “al Qaida” is a fraud. Whatever is left of bin Laden’s organization (he never called it “al Qaida,” it was the “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders”), most of the terrorist acts that have been blamed on the legendary group were either the work of other terrorists [like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and Ramsey Yousef], CIA/Special Forces operations or attacks by mercenary proxies hired by the CIA network). The Arabic expression,‘Q eidat il Mu’ti’aat’, meaning “the database,” is the source of the term ascribed to the legendary terrorist outfit.

The term “al Qaida” was never used before the “war of terror” was dreamed-up in the sick minds of the neocon spooks who ran the Bush/Cheney political team in the 2000 campaign. The only proof given to the contrary came from an Israeli source, claiming to be copied text from an American embassy press release. World renowned expert on bin Laden, Yossef Bodansky, never used the term “al Qaida” even once in his opus volume of research entitled, “Bin Laden: the Man Who Declared War on America,” published in 1999. Bodansky was Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004, so if there was an “al Qaida” terrorist organization before 1999 he would have known about it.

The concept of the “global war on terror” has served as an excuse for turning reality on its head and the implementation of the full war agenda of the radical American right wing. Bin Laden’s organization, “World Islamic Front for Jihad” is a spent force. The promise to chase a generic tag that is made to fit any enemy is a ruse intended to gain the consent of the American people for creating a state of permanent war.
In a war based entirely on manufactured delusions, the allied nations took a small expeditionary force of mercenaries and the amplifying device of the corporate media and created the illusion of “al Qaida.” The Muslim and Arab militants used in the attacks blamed on them throughout the world were military/intelligence agency assets, “patsies” to take the fall for a series of attacks upon American interests. The corporate masters of America ordered their secret “al Qaida” army, compromised mostly of retired military and intelligence officers, to initiate a series of well-timed and expertly advertised attacks. This successful application of the “strategy of tension” had the desired effect of deceiving the democratic masses into giving the government permission to start world war III.

This secret network of rogue “retired” intelligence agents and military officers has been a key element of American covert policies since Vietnam and has become an active tool of every American president since it was organized into a private secret army under Ronald Reagan. They probably killed Kennedy and numerous other key American and allied world leaders. Their secret machinations were brought to light by the missteps of rogue official Oliver North, revealing for the first time the depths of their plans in the “Rex 84” program of civilian internment camps, intended to accommodate the human bi-products of future plans for martial law.

In their most blatant attack upon Americans on September 11, they (“al Qaida”) used their Saudi patsies to launch the biggest psychological warfare operation of all time, which was ultimately intended to bring-about an American dictatorship that would extend all the way to Central and Southern Asia. They needed the help of their Saudi collaborators, as well as that of the Pakistanis, to create the illusion of a terrorist menace growing out of the Middle East that would open the door for unbridled American aggression and the plans for permanent limited world war.

The Saudis offered-up their limitless supply of Wahabbi jihadis to serve as cannon-fodder in America’s terror war, Pakistan had the network of jihadi training camps built for them by the Americans, using mostly Saudi money, and the thousands of veteran militants trained in those camps, represented by the Taliban and the Kashmiri groups. Wherever the Saudi militants were used in the Middle East to create the impression of “al Qaida,” their actions were usually traced back to the Taliban and their friends usually with information supplied by CIA or Mossad, in order to legitimize the sweep of American/NATO troops out of Afghanistan, through Pakistan, into Central Asia.

The great production, a.k.a. “the war on terror,” is the largest, most ambitious construction project in history, the construction of the world’s biggest inter-continental oil and gas pipeline system, with the lion’s share of it working its way towards the ports of Israel. Israel has a huge stake in seeing this project succeed, that’s why they are in charge of overseeing so much of the preliminary demolition of the houses and towns occupied by the current “useless eaters,” who stand in the way of the latest scheme for certain individuals to reap ultimate profits. Another player who has a major stake in seeing the project succeed is Iran. They are planned to be a major provider and transit route. Between Israel and Iran, they carry-out the majority of the ongoing demolition projects in the Middle East, from Lebanon to Gaza, from Gaza to Egypt, from Egypt to Somalia, from everywhere to Iraq, from Iraq to Pakistan, from Pakistan to Uzbekistan and Western China. For Western powers the Iran/Israeli conflict is stage-managed to magnify popular tension, even though most Zionist leaders are dead serious about eliminating Iran.

Iran runs the public terror operations (in a covert manner), while Mossad has the franchise for the covert ops that are coordinated with other intelligence agencies. Wherever you find an active “al Qaida” cell you are witnessing the handiwork of Israel’s finest dirty fighters. All known “al Qaida” or “al Q linked” networks uncovered invariably lead back to Mossad, or the Saudis, Brits, or Americans. In Pakistan, Mossad’s influence is manifested through shared missions with India’s RAW spy agency, mostly in the form of terror attacks blamed on the Pakistani Taliban. Israeli arms sales throughout this troubled region add fuel to the fire and ensure that Iran’s arms sales are matched, in order to produce long bloody stalemates between targeted groups. While Iran’s sales and training programs have created Hezbollah’s formidable force and empowered Hamas, Israel’s arms sales have gone to clients who were either schooled to serve as an imaginary enemy, or to those seeking to defend themselves from the cardboard armies.

The war in AfPak is based on multiple deceptions by numerous interested parties. The US brashly demands that Pakistan give-up its deceptions concerning the Taliban, in order to defend the central US deception, that “al Qaida” is a potent international organization of terrorists, that is locked in a war to the death with the US military.
CIA forces are pounding Pakistani targets almost on a daily basis, saying that it is time to come clean about ISI support for Taliban militants, trying by every available means to persuade the government to come around to our point of view. Our point of view is a fairy tale, concocted for maximum propaganda effect—Pakistan is a “state sponsor of terrorism,” while the United States is coming-off practically blameless for having had thousands of “Islamic” militants trained in radical Saudi-supplied madrassas and CIA-supplied paramilitary camps. So far, the CIA has managed to pull-off a world-class propaganda coup by making Pakistan the scapegoat for problems it has created.
The CIA has controlled the direction of this covert operation from the beginning, just as it has been in command of the successful intelligence operation that created the greater war and the events of 911. The CIA, on orders from Bush Sr., did not abandon Afghanistan., to the sole discretion of the Pakistanis, as contended by many researchers. The proof of this is found in the revelations made by several notable researchers (here, here, and here), that the Taliban won the Afghan civil war because of the sudden serendipitous “discovery” of “800 truckloads worth of arms and ammunition in a cave near Spinbaldak, information that could only have been obtained with the use of powerful spy satellites.
In “Operation Enduring Turmoil,” CIA planners were limited at first to leading a mercenary army in Afghanistan of Northern Alliance proxy forces. Since then, besides administering the massive “cluster-f**k” known as the Afghan war, it has been busy using some of the Northern Alliance’s most ruthless men, along with a sizeable force of Uzbeks to destabilize Pakistan’s Federally Administrated Tribal Areas and North West Frontier Provinces.
Confusion in the war zone and the lid that has been clamped on news coming-out of the area has made it possible to introduce all sorts of sundry militant outfits into the area under the one all-inclusive rubric of “Taliban,” just as conditions have allowed for the branding of multiple unaffiliated groups under the chosen talisman of evil, “al Qaida.”
At the end of the Afghan invasion, after the bulk of the Taliban and bin Laden’s forces were reduced and contained to Eastern Afghanistan, the CIA took steps to prevent the elimination of entire group, specifically holding-back Northern Alliance forces and American bombers until the trapped fighters could escape to Pakistan, by both land and air (the “Kunduz airlift” involved CIA intervention on behalf of ISI, to relocate Taliban and Army advisors who were under heavy seige). They relocated to the area around Chitral in the north of Pakistan and returned to Wana in droves. These were the radicals and foreign “al Qaida” that have since then proceeded to create a reign of terror in Pakistan, as they began to force their radical Wahabbi “jihadi” religious practices on the locals, many of whom are illiterate, with no base of formal knowledge with which to combat their poisonous interpretations of Islam.
The radicals who were bombing, kidnapping and be-heading local tribal leaders by the hundreds were mostly Uzbeks from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) who had come from Afghanistan. They were the “al Qaida” killers who were being reported on the American “nightly news.” Sightings of “al Qaida” in FATA or Swat invariably refer to this group, or other Uzbeks who came in a second wave, with Northern Alliance Afghans, as they accompanied Guantanamo alumnus Abdullah Mehsud.
The Uzbeks and Afghans who accompanied Abdullah Mehsud into Pakistan began a series of terror attacks against Pakistanis, claiming to be fighting for Mullah Omar. Mehsud’s fighters brought heat from the Army down upon the region, ignited intra-tribal warfare with forces led by Maulvi Nazir, and eventually aligned themselves with Baitullah Mehsud and Maulana Fazlullah, providing a base in the north for Shariah-enforcing attacks. These are the “Taliban” forces who wage war on local Shiites and government forces, blowing-up girls schools, CD shops, etc.

The Mehsud/Uzbek operation was a CIA operation that was kept completely separate and secret from Pakistan’s ISI, since the Army was the intended target of the group. The joint American/Afghan/Indian operation, to create chaos in Pakistan’s tribal region by the infusion of “fake Taliban” into Pakistan, has been made possible because of Karzai’s spy agency (NDS) director, thirty-six-year-old Amrullah Saleh, who once boasted:
“Insurgency is like grass. Two ways to destroy it: You cut the upper part, and after four months, you have it back. You poison the soil where that grass is, then you eliminate it forever.”
The fake “Taliban” has very effectively poisoned the soil of northern and western Pakistan. The war that Pakistan has been forced to fight against them is a “detoxification” operation, to destroy the noxious weeds that have been transplanted into the fertile soil of the Frontier Region.
Their attacks, coupled with the constant haranguing and threats coming from Bush and Cheney, have compelled the Army to fight a series of mini-wars against the fake Taliban, or “al Qaida,” who had taken advantage of Muslim customs to gain shelter among the local Pashtun population from the storm blowing-away across the Durand Line. Each time the Army ended the mini-war by signing treaties with militant leaders like Mullah Dadullah or Baitullah Mehsud, a new series of attacks would erupt elsewhere. The collateral damage inflicted upon the local tribes in these attacks and the Army’s counter-attacks then, as now, was massive. This suffering and violence breathed new life into the local Taliban movement, motivating thousands to take-up arms against the Americans and the Pakistani government.
Into this confusing, boiling cauldron of inter-tribal and inter-agency warfare the British and American forces introduced another wild card, the “Taliban split,” orchestrated around the killing on May 13 of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah. British and Afghan agencies used his brother Mansoor to introduce the idea of “reconciliation” and double-cross into the minds of both the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban. British assets associated with Mansoor began to perpetuate mistrust and suspicion of Afghan double-agents, especially those who had been associated with Abdullah Mehsud and his Uzbeks.
Out of this British/American operation emerged an organization that was called “Taliban,” but what came forth was not Taliban, but “anti-Taliban,” the “Tehreek e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).”
December 14, 2007, the formation of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan (TTP).
On December 27 Benazir Bhutto was killed.
Dec. 29, 2007, Taleban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed read to AFP over the telephone a statement issued by Omar that said Mullah Mansoor Dadullah was sackedThe Sararogha Fort raid occurred on 15-16 January 2008.

The commander of the Pakistani Special Forces (SSG) who led the operation which retook the fortress from the militants led by Baitullah Mehdud, Gen. Alavi, was brutally gunned-down after approaching a British reporter with a story about other Pakistani generals who were dealing with local militants, instead of seriously eliminating them, as claimed. Two lower-ranking officers, turned “Islamists” have since been charged in his killing, which produced other news reports linking the two with a Taliban assassination ring based in Waziristan and having had contacts with local foe of Baitullah Mehsud, Maulvi Nazir. The two officers were believed to be associated with Sheikh Omar, the killer of Daniel Pearl, whose phone records show that he had placed calls to Gen. Alavi’s phone from his jail cell

Waziri tribal leader Mullah Nazir is the most dangerous man in all of Pakistan, threatening to blow the lid off America’s secret plans for Pakistan. He alone holds the keys to war and peace in S. Waziristan. Nazir represents America’s ultimate failure in Pakistan so far, even though he had formerly been a shining example of “reconciliation” and cooperation with Pakistan Army initiatives. Thanks to the campaign of repeated assassination attempts by terminator drones which have stalked him over the past year, he has moved himself firmly into the camp of Baitullah Mehsud, even though they have been bitter rivals until now.
Maulvi Nazir had led his Waziri tribe to form a Lashkar (militia) group which expelled the trouble-making Uzbeks and all foreign “al Qaida” from around the town of Wana, after they had killed over three hundred tribal elders (maliks). The campaign of tribal defense which he initiated has worked wherever it has been applied, perhaps explaining why he has been the constant target of both “al Qaida” and US guns since then. His reward for having championed the cause of self-defense against American plans for domination has been given in the form of Hellfire missiles delivered by Predator drones over the past year.
After a full year of this, on February 14, 2009 Obama attacked Baitullah Mehsud’s forces in the village of Shrawangai Nazarkhel. This change in strategy came just two days after the targeting situation in Pakistan was openly discussed on an Internet podcast. This particular airstrike caused the reunification of the two marked leaders and the splitting-off of another fairly powerful ally of Maulvi Nazir in his struggle against Mehsud and the violent Uzbeks, the inheritor of Abdullah Mehsud’s Pakistani soldiers, Zainuddin Shimankhel. Since February, Shimankhel and tribal leader Turkistan Bittani have openly waged war against Mehsud, in S. Waziristan.
Thus the latest deception campaign of the new American administration, focused on driving the two feuding militants back together to create a common enemy instead of taking advantage of the natural split that was there, made possible by one Predator attack.
A recent series of news reports and interviews with militant leaders in early April confirmed Pakistani/American collaboration in these targeted killings of Taliban leaders.
“In mid-March, the American military in Afghanistan flew a demonstration mission of a Predator drone along a stretch of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to show the kind of imagery and communications information the Predator could provide. The Americans transmitted the information to a border coordination center near the Khyber Pass operated by American, Pakistani and Afghan personnel, and the information was sent through Pakistani security databases.
The test run went well enough that Pakistan subsequently requested a small number of additional Predator reconnaissance flights to support their operations in the border tribal areas.But American officials said the requests for additional surveillance missions ended suddenly in early April.”
On one of those flights took place on Mar.13, when an unmanned US drone killed at least 12 people in Kurram district, associates of Mehsud’s brother. On 25 March 2009 seven were killed in the Makin area, Mehsud’s home town.
After these attacks, the collaboration suddenly ended in early April, after Taliban leader Maulvi Nazir gave an interview with As-Sahab on April 7, and the appearance of this article on April 10, which highlighted Nazeer’s charges that Pakistani Army sources had planted the homing devices on local militant leaders, which the Predator flights zeroed in on. On April 14, this article in the Lebanese Daily Star revealed that Amb. Holbrooke and Adm. Mullen had secretly met with Taliban leaders, one of them probably infamous Afghan leader and former sweetheart of the CIA, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Today, the CIA is continuing to push the Pakistani government to the wall today with its provocative Predator and counter-insurgency attacks that drive the tribal militants to wage war in the Frontier Region, in order to force the ISI to change its ways. The ploy, that the US is waging war to eradicate its successful CIA operation to create a phantom militant army, a.k.a. “al Qaida” (which is allegedly giving orders to the Pakistani Taliban), is being used as a cover to force the ISI to reveal its own successful militant project, the “Taliban.” Regardless of American wishes to the contrary, Pakistan still has the option of negotiations with its own Taliban in Waziristan, even though has to wage war to eliminate the American “Taliban” from NWFP.
Pakistan has to choose to accept America’s point of view, that all Taliban are and were a project of the ISI, if it wants to obtain the windfall represented by the PEACE treaty. Pakistan has to agree to seriously fight total civil war against the Taliban, from Kashmir to Balochistan, if it is to receive the funds that the American warlords are dangling before them. Pakistan’s problems with militancy now all arose because of past mini-wars launched against their own people at Bush’s insistence. Obama is intent on taking it a step further than even Bush and Cheney dared to dream.
Pakistan has to seriously fight a war against the Taliban, pretending that they are fighting an imaginary “al Qaida” hierarchy which survived the Afghan war by fleeing to FATA and NWFP. Pakistan has to decimate its population with war and refugee problems, under American direction, in the pretense of fighting a military “force” that consists of no more than a token remnant; it is not any kind of “force” at all.
If the news leaking out is true, that the Pakistani Army is planning an offensive against Baitullah Mehsud in S. Waziristan next month, and it is not just more American propaganda, like the “failed state” “Taliban takeover” hysteria, then we will be witnessing a remarkable event in the history of dumb mistakes. If the Army folds under the pressure and opens a real civil war throughout the entire Frontier Region, then it will be sealing Pakistan’s fate to be dismembered and dominated. This is insane.
It has become apparent that regardless of what the Pakistani Army does, a major war escalation has been scheduled by the American military, beginning in June. The planned “surge” of possibly 24,000 troops, is just the start. The present commander of US forces in Afghanistan is being replaced with a specialist in counter-insurgency strategy, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Reports on the Pentagon website InsideDefense.com,, reveal that a major “irregular warfare” air capability will be called on in June:“AIR FORCE PREPPING FOR MAJOR IRREGULAR WARFARE DECISIONS IN JUNE.”
The new “Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund” has been created, with $400 million for Pakistan’s counter-insurgency needs for their escalation.
Pakistan’s leaders continue to go through this painfully slow dance to the death with their American employers, disrupting life in the tribal regions, pretending to be locked in to a battle to the death with a few thousand militants, while they prepare an all too real escalation of Obama/Bush’s war, all for the sake of maintaining the greater illusion of fighting “al Qaida.” Pakistan’s leaders are playing a very deadly game here with Obama, betting the survival of their precious nation that the United States warlords will blink first.
In order to gain access to the promised PEACE funds, Pakistan is ready to jump through any hoop. “PEACE” is a restraining pay-off, designed by full-time “friend of Israel” US Congressman, Howard Berman. His bill binds Pakistan to cut its own throat, by opening a full-scale civil war in its western regions, while simultaneously surrendering to India’s good intentions in the east, in exchange for billions. Israeli watchdog Berman is once again carrying water for the Zionist state, by enforcing the nuts and bolts of the public relations “course change” spelled-out recently by radical new spokesman Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman’s opinion, that “Pakistan is the greatest threat to the world,” is way out of character for Israel. Israel’s American allies in Congress are effectively taking the focused public eye away from Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for the next anti-Islamic invasion of Iran. Berman’s PEACE bill is just like the “Iran war resolution” he co-authorized with fellow-traveller Rep. Ackermen. Like that bill which was nearly rammed through the last congress, it seeks to create a set of conditions in the Middle East region that will facilitate the commitment of US forces to new military actions against a major military power. Israel is desperately trying to rehabilitate its public image, which lay in ruins after attempting to exterminate a sizeable portion of the Palestinian population of Gaza.

Intensive US actions will begin in Pakistan next month, one way or another. Even if, by some miracle, Pakistan stood-up for its citizens and refused the PEACE pay-off, American military actions will be triggered when the Pakistani Army either fails to ignite civil war in S. Waziristan or fails to convince US leaders that they are sincerely locked in a land struggle to eliminate the Pakistani Taliban. The generals will not be able to fool American satellites without totally destroying the area under surveillance. Is this the process that is underway now in Buner and Swat, the leveling of the communities for the sake of the show?

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Arms sent by US to Afghan forces end up in Taliban hands: report

Arms sent by US to Afghan forces end up in Taliban hands: report
WASHINGTON, May 20: Pentagon munitions have leaked from Afghan forces to Taliban militants, enabling them to fight an insurgency for years against materially superior US and Afghan forces, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.
According to a Times study of ammunition markings, of the 30 rifle magazines removed from the corpses of insurgents in eastern Afghanistan last month at least 17 contained cartridges, or rounds, ‘identical’ to ammunition the United States has provided to Afghan government forces.
Although “the scope of that diversion remains unknown,” the newspaper warned that “poor discipline and outright corruption among Afghan forces might have helped insurgents stay supplied” in the wake of “only spotty” US and Afghan controls of weapons and ammunition sent to Afghanistan.
Following criticism for failing to account for thousands of rifles provided to Afghan security forces, some of which have been found in the hands of militants, the Pentagon launched a database documenting small arms supplied to Afghan units.
And the US-led Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan, which is responsible for training and supplying Afghan forces, has said it has prioritised accounting for all Afghan military and police property.
“The emphasis from our perspective is on accountability of all logistics property,” the transition command’s deputy chief, Brigadier General Anthony Ierardi, told the newspaper. Leakage of Pentagon-supplied armaments to insurgents is an “absolutely worst-case scenario,” he said.—AFP

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Major who fell helping out comrades laid to rest

Major who fell helping out comrades laid to rest
Another brave son of the Ummah gives his life to protect the honor of the Pakistan
LAHORE, May 20: Maj Abid Majeed Malik who laid down his life during Operation Rah-i-Rast near Matta, in Swat, on Tuesday, was buried with full military honours at the Cavalry Ground graveyard here on Wednesday.
The major fell while trying to evacuate his injured comrades.
Corps Commander Lt-Gen Ijaz Ahmad Bakhshi, Maj-Gen Shafqat Ahmad, Maj-Gen Raza Muhammad and a large number of other army personnel and civilians attended the funeral prayers.
The corps commander laid on Maj Abid’s grave a floral wreath on behalf of Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.
Maj Abid was commissioned in the Punjab Regiment on Oct 12, 1997. He leaves behind his wife and two children.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Brazil and China eye plan to axe dollar

Brazil and China eye plan to axe dollar

By Jonathan Wheatley in São Paulo
Published: May 18 2009 18:24 Last updated: May 18 2009 23:31

Brazil and China will work towards using their own currencies in trade transactions rather than the US dollar, according to Brazil’s central bank and aides to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president.
The move follows recent Chinese challenges to the status of the dollar as the world’s leading international currency.
Mr Lula da Silva, who is visiting Beijing this week, and Hu Jintao, China’s president, first discussed the idea of replacing the dollar with the renminbi and the real as trade currencies when they met at the G20 summit in London last month.
An official at Brazil’s central bank stressed that talks were at an early stage. He also said that what was under discussion was not a currency swap of the kind China recently agreed with Argentina and which the US had agreed with several countries, including Brazil.
“Currency swaps are not necessarily trade related,” the official said. “The funds can be drawn down for any use. What we are talking about now is Brazil paying for Chinese goods with reals and China paying for Brazilian goods with renminbi.”
Henrique Meirelles and Zhou Xiaochuan, governors of the two countries’ central banks, were expected to meet soon to discuss the matter, the official said.
Brazil: Exports to China
Mr Zhou recently proposed replacing the US dollar as the world’s leading currency with a new international reserve currency, possibly in the form of special drawing rights (SDRs), a unit of account used by the International Monetary Fund.
In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Mr Zhou said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations”.
In September, Brazil and Argentina signed an agreement under which importers and exporters in the two countries may make and receive payments in pesos and reals, although they may also continue to use the US dollar if they prefer.
An aide to Mr Lula da Silva on his visit to Beijing said the political will to enact a similar deal with China was clearly present. “Something that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago is a real possibility today,” he said. “Strong currencies like the real and the renminbi are perfectly capable of being used as trade currencies, as is the case between Brazil and Argentina.”
In what was interpreted as a sign of Chinese concern about the future of the dollar, the governor of China’s central bank proposed in March that the US dollar be replaced as the world’s de-facto reserve currency.
In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency ”that is disconnected from individual nations” and modelled on the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing rights, or SDRs.
Economists have argued that while the SDR plan is unfeasible now, bilateral deals between Beijing and its trading partners could act as pieces in a jigsaw designed to promote wider international use of the renminbi.
Any move to make the renminbi more acceptable for international trade, or to help establish it as a regional reserve currency in Asia, could enhance China’s political clout around the world.

The Financial Times Limited 2009

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

US training ‘terrorists’ in Iraq, Iran says

US training ‘terrorists’ in Iraq, Iran says
TEHRAN: Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Washington on Tuesday of training “terrorists” in the Kurdish region of neighboring Iraq.
“Behind our western border, the US is training terrorists. It is spending money and handing out weapons to be used against the Islamic republic of Iran,” he said in a televised speech in the western Iranian province of Kordestan.
“The Americans have dangerous plans for [Iraqi] Kurdistan ... Their plans are not aimed at defending the Kurdish people, but they want to control them,” he said in the city of Saqaz.
“Our Kurdish friends on the other side of the border have told us that the US officers are paying the Kurdish youth on the Qandil hills in exchange for information,” he said.
“They pay money to create mercenaries. It is unworthy of Kurdish youth,” Khamenei added.
The border region with Iraq has often seen deadly clashes between Iran’s armed forces and the Kurdish separatists.
Iranians have targeted the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish separatist group, which has launched attacks on Iran from rear-supply bases in the Kurdish mountains of northern Iraq.
The group is closely allied with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has launched similar attacks against Turkey.
On February 4, the US Treasury included PJAK as a “terrorist” group, while the PKK too, is blacklisted as a terror group by both the European Union and the United States.
The PKK took up arms for self-rule in Turkey’s Kurdish-majority southeast in 1984, triggering a conflict that has claimed some 44,000 lives.
Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey all have significant ethnic Kurdish minorities.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Here’s how Israel would destroy Iran’s nuclear program

Here’s how Israel would destroy Iran’s nuclear program
By Reuven Pedatzur

Israeli government ministers and Knesset members who will help make the decision about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities do not have to wait any longer for a preparatory briefing by the Israel Air Force.
They can read about all the possible scenarios for a strike on Iran, and about the potential risks and chances of success, in a study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Never before has such an open, detailed and thorough study of Israel’s offensive options been published. The authors of the 114-page study meticulously gathered all available data on Israel’s military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran’s nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries’ missile inventory. After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: “A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible … [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate.”
The first problem the authors point to is intelligence, or more precisely, the lack of it. “It is not known whether Iran has some secret facilities where it is conducting uranium enrichment,” they write. If facilities unknown to Western intelligence agencies do exist, Iran’s uranium-enrichment program could continue to develop in secret there, while Israel attacks the known sites – and the strike’s gains would thus be lost. In general, the authors state, attacking Iran is justified only if it will put an end to Iran’s nuclear program or halt it for several years. That objective is very difficult to attain.
Intelligence agencies are also divided on the critical question of when Iran will deliver a nuclear weapon. Whereas Israeli intelligence maintains it will have the bomb between 2009 and 2012, the U.S. intelligence community estimates it will not happen before 2013. If the Israeli intelligence assessment is accurate, the window for a military strike is rapidly closing. It is clear to everyone that no one will dare attack Iran once it possesses nuclear weapons.
Since Iran has dozens of nuclear facilities dispersed throughout its large territory, and since it is impossible to attack all of them, Toukan and Cordesman investigated the option of hitting only three, which “constitute the core of the nuclear fuel cycle that Iran needs to produce nuclear weapons grade fissile material.”
Destroying these three sites ought to stall the Iranian nuclear program for several years. The three are: the nuclear research center in Isfahan, the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz, and the heavy water plant, intended for future plutonium production, in Arak. It is doubtful whether Israel would embark on an offensive with such major ramifications just to strike a small number of facilities, when it is not at all clear that this will stop Iran’s nuclearization for a significant length of time.
The study analyzes three possible flight routes and concludes that the optimal and most likely one is the northern one that passes along the Syria-Turkey border, cuts across the northeastern edge of Iraq and leads into Iran. The central route passes over Jordan and is shorter, but would not be chosen for fear of political trouble with the Jordanians. Using the southern route, which passes over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, might likewise lead to political entanglements.
To prevent the aircraft being detected en route to Iran, the IAF would use advanced technology to invade and scramble communication networks and radar devices in the countries over which the F-15s and F-16s fly, so even though dozens of planes would pass through the countries’ airspace, they will not be detected. According to the authors, the IAF used this technology in the raid on the Syrian nuclear reactor in Dayr az-Zawr, in September 2007. A hacker system was installed on two Gulfstream G550 aircraft that the IAF bought in recent years.
A strike mission on the three nuclear facilities would require no fewer than 90 combat aircraft, including all 25 F-15Es in the IAF inventory and another 65 F-16I/Cs. On top of that, all the IAF’s refueling planes will have to be airborne: 5 KC-130Hs and 4 B-707s. The combat aircraft will have to be refueled both en route to and on the way back from Iran. The IAF will have a hard time locating an area above which the tankers can cruise without being detected by the Syrians or the Turks.
One of the toughest operational problems to resolve is the fact that the facility at Natanz is buried deep underground. Part of it, the fuel-enrichment plant, reaches a depth of 8 meters, and is protected by a 2.5-meter-thick concrete wall, which is in turn protected by another concrete wall. By mid-2004 the Iranians had fortified their defense of the other part of the facility, where the centrifuges are housed. They buried it 25 meters underground and built a roof over it made of reinforced concrete several meters thick.
The Iranians use the centrifuges to enrich uranium, which is required in order to produce a nuclear bomb. There are already 6,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility; the Iranians plan to install a total of 50,000, which could be used to produce 500 kilos of weapons-grade uranium annually. Building a nuclear bomb takes 15-20 kilograms of enriched uranium. That means that the Natanz facility will be able to supply enough fissile material for 25-30 nuclear weapons per year.
Because the Natanz facility is so important, the Iranians have gone to great lengths to protect it. To contend with the serious defensive measures they have taken, the IAF will use two types of U.S.-made smart bombs. According to reports in the foreign media, 600 of these bombs – nicknamed “bunker busters” – have been sold to Israel. One is called GBU-27, it weighs about 900 kilos and it can penetrate a 2.4-meter layer of concrete. The other is called GBU-28 and weighs 2,268 kilos; this monster can penetrate 6 meters of concrete and another layer of earth 30 meters deep. But for these bombs to penetrate ultra-protected Iranian facilities, IAF pilots will have to strike the targets with absolute accuracy and at an optimal angle.
Additional challenges
But the challenges facing the IAF do not end there. Iran has built a dense aerial-defense system that will make it hard for Israeli planes to reach their targets unscathed. Among other things, the Iranians have deployed batteries of Hawk, SA-5 and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, plus they have SA-7, SA-15, Rapier, Crotale and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Furthermore, 1,700 anti-aircraft guns protect the nuclear facilities – not to mention the 158 combat aircraft that might take part in defending Iran’s skies. Most of those planes are outdated, but they may be scrambled to intercept the IAF, which will thus have to use part of its strike force to deal with the situation.
However, all these obstacles are nothing compared to the S-300V (SA-12 Giant) anti-aircraft defense system, which various reports say Russia may have secretly supplied to Iran recently. If the Iranians indeed have this defense system, all of the IAF’s calculations, and all of the considerations for and against a strike, will have to be overhauled. The Russian system is so sophisticated and tamper-proof that the aircraft attrition rates could reach 20-30 percent: In other words, out of a strike force of 90 aircraft, 20 to 25 would be downed. This, the authors say, is “a loss Israel would hardly accept in paying.”
If Israel also decides to attack the famous reactor in Bushehr, an ecological disaster and mass deaths will result. The contamination released into the air in the form of radionuclides would spread over a large area, and thousands of Iranians who live nearby would be killed immediately; in addition, possibly hundreds of thousands would subsequently die of cancer. Because northerly winds blow in the area throughout most of the year, the authors conclude that, “most definitely Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides.”
The difficulty involved in an IAF strike would become a moot point if ballistic missiles wind up being used instead of combat aircraft. The Iranians cannot defend against ballistic missiles. The study lays bare Israel’s missile program and points to three missile versions it has developed: Jericho I, II and III. The Jericho I has a 500-kilometer range, a 450-kilogram warhead, and can carry a 20-kiloton nuclear weapon. Jericho II has a 1,500-kilometer range, and entered service in 1990. It can carry a 1-megaton nuclear warhead. Jericho III is an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 4,800-6,500 kilometers, and can carry a multi-megaton nuclear warhead. The study says the latter was expected to enter service in 2008.
The authors apparently do not insinuate that Israel will launch missiles carrying nuclear warheads, but rather conventional warheads. By their calculation it will take 42 Jericho III missiles to destroy the three Iranian facilities, assuming that they all hit their marks, which is extremely difficult. It is not enough to hit the target area: To destroy the facilities it is necessary to hit certain points of only a few meters in size. It is doubtful the Jerichos’ accuracy can be relied on, and that all of them will hit those critical spots with precision.
The study also analyzes the possible Iranian response to an Israeli strike. In all likelihood the result would be to spur Iranians to continue and even accelerate their nuclear program, to create reliable deterrence in the face of an aggressive Israel. Iran would also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which until now has enabled its nuclear program to be monitored, to a certain degree, through inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. An Israeli strike would immediately put a stop to the international community’s attempts to pressure Iran into suspending development of nuclear weapons.
No Syrian response
Iran would also, almost certainly, retaliate against Israel directly. It might attack targets here with Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, whose range covers all of Israel. A few might even be equipped with chemical warheads. In addition, the Iranians would use Hezbollah and Hamas to dispatch waves of suicide bombers into Israel. The Second Lebanon War showed us Hezbollah’s rocket capability, and the experience of the past eight years has been instructive regarding Hamas’ ability to fire Qassams from the Gaza Strip.
Hezbollah launched 4,000 rockets from South Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War, and their effect on northern Israel has not been forgotten: Life was nearly paralyzed for a whole month. Since then the Lebanese organization’s stockpile was replenished and enhanced, and it now has some 40,000 rockets. Israel does not have a response to those rockets. The rocket defense systems now being developed (Iron Dome and Magic Wand) are still far from completion, and even after they become operational, it is doubtful they will prove effective against thousands of rockets launched at Israel.
An Israeli strike on Iran would also sow instability in the Middle East. The Iranians would make use of the Shi’ites in Iraq, support Taliban fighters and improve their combat capabilities in Afghanistan. They also might attack American interests in the region, especially in countries that host U.S. military forces, such as Qatar and Bahrain. The Iranians would probably also attempt to disrupt the flow of oil to the West from the Persian Gulf region. Since the United States would be perceived as having given Israel a green light to attack Iran, American relations with allies in the Arab world could suffer greatly. Toukan and Cordesman believe, however, that Iran’s ally Syria would refrain from intervening if Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Regarding a possible time frame for an Israeli strike, the authors cited factors that could speed up the decision in this matter. By 2010 Iran could pose a serious threat to its neighbors and Israel, because it would have enough nuclear weapons to deter the latter and the United States from attacking it. Iran’s inventory of effective ballistic missiles capable of carrying nonconventional warheads could also be an incentive. The fear that the country will procure the Russian S-300V aerial-defense system (if it has not done so already) might also serve as an incentive for a preemptive strike.
So what should Israeli policy makers conclude from this American study? That an IAF strike on Iran would be complicated and problematic, and that the chance of it succeeding is not great. That they must weigh all of the far-reaching ramifications that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would have, and that they must not be fooled by promises, should any be made, by Israel Defense Forces officers who present the attack plan as having good odds for success.
One of the conclusions from Toukan and Cordesman’s study is that it is questionable whether Israel has the military capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, or even to delay it for several years. Therefore, if the diplomatic contacts the Obama administration is initiating with Iran prove useless, and if in the wake of their expected failure the American president does not decide to attack Iran, it is likely that Iran will possess nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. It seems, therefore, that policy makers in Jerusalem should begin preparing, mentally and operationally, for a situation in which Iran is a nuclear power with a strike capability against Israel.
This is the place to emphasize Israel’s mistake in hyping the Iranian threat. The regime in Tehran is certainly a bitter and inflexible rival, but from there it’s a long way to presenting it as a truly existential threat to Israel. Iran’s involvement in terror in our region is troubling, but a distinction must be made between a willingness to bankroll terrorists, and an intention to launch nuclear missiles against Israel. Even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel’s power of deterrence will suffice to dissuade any Iranian ruler from even contemplating launching nuclear weapons against it.
It is time to stop waving around the scarecrow of an existential threat and refrain from making belligerent statements, which sometimes create a dangerous dynamic of escalation. And if the statements are superfluous and harmful – then this is doubly true for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Of course, none of this contradicts the possibility of taking covert action to hamper the Iranians’ program and supply routes. When the IAF destroyed the Osirak reactor in Baghdad in 1981, the “Begin doctrine” came into being, which holds that Israel will not let any hostile country in the region acquire nuclear weapons. The problem is that what could be accomplished in Iraq more than two decades ago is no longer possible today under the present circumstances in Iran.
The continual harping on the Iranian threat stems from domestic Israeli politics and a desire to increase investment in the security realm, but the ramifications of this are dangerous when you analyze expected developments in Iran’s ballistics: It is impossible for Israel to ignore Iran’s capacity to hit it, and Jerusalem must shape a policy that will neutralize that threat.
In another year, or three years from now, when the Iranians possess nuclear weapons, the rules of the strategic game in the region will be completely altered. Israel must reach that moment with a fully formulated and clear policy in hand, enabling it to successfully confront a potential nuclear threat, even when it is likely that the other side has no intention of carrying it out. The key, of course, is deterrence. Only a clear and credible signal to the Iranians, indicating the terrible price they will pay for attempting a nuclear strike against Israel, will prevent them from using their missiles. The Iranians have no logical reason to bring about the total destruction of their big cities, as could happen if Israel uses the means of deterrence at its disposal. Neither the satisfaction of killing Zionist infidels, nor, certainly, the promotion of Palestinian interests would justify that price. Israeli deterrence in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat has a good chance of succeeding precisely because the Iranians have no incentive to deal a mortal blow to Israel.
Therefore, all the declarations about developing the operational capability of IAF aircraft so they can attack the nuclear facilities in Iran, and the empty promises about the ability of the Arrow missile defense system to contend effectively with the Shahab-3, not only do not help bolster Israel’s power of deterrence, but actually undermine the process of building it and making it credible in Iranian eyes.
The time has come to adopt new ways of thinking. No more fiery declarations and empty threats, but rather a carefully weighed policy grounded in sound strategy. Ultimately, in an era of a multi-nuclear Middle East, all sides will have a clear interest to lower tension and not to increase it.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Can Pakistan trust French “offer” of Civilian Nuclear technology?

Can Pakistan trust French “offer” of Civilian Nuclear technology?

n the 70s France and Pakistan had a signed agreement for a Nuclear Reprocessing plant. Despite the fact that funding had been arranged, France reneged on the sale under pressure from America. In the 90s Benazir Bhutto resurrected the deal and Paris promised to set up a Reprocessing plant for Pakistan. France again did not conform to its promises and did not supply the plant.


Mr Sarkozy had “confirmed France was ready, within the framework of its international agreements, to co-operate with Pakistan in the field of nuclear safety.” “This is so the Pakistani programme can develop in the best conditions of safety and security,”the French spokesman. AFP

“France has agreed to transfer civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan, That is a significant development, and we have agreed that Pakistan should be treated like India. President Sarkozy said, and I quote him, ‘What can be done for India, can be done for Pakistan as well.’,” “Shah Mahmood Qureshi told reporters

Apparently France and Pakistan has reached a verbal breakthrough on Nuclear Technology and The French president at present is not ready to publicly proclaim that France will indeed build reactors for Pakistan. France will come be under tremendous pressure on this issue and may be planning to work through it in conjunction with the IAEA and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

PARIS, May 15 (Xinhua) — France has agreed to offer Pakistan its civilian nuclear technology, French media quoted Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi as saying on Friday.


“France has agreed to transfer civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan,” Qureshi said after a meeting between Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and French President Nicolas Sarkozy inParis.

“What can be done for India can be done for Pakistan as well,” the minister quoted Sarkozy as saying.
According to Qureshi, negotiations regarding the transfer of nuclear technology will be held in July and deals on such cooperation are likely to be signed during Sarkozy’s visit to Pakistan in September.

Noting France is a very important partner to Pakistan, Qureshi expressed hopes for advancing cooperation with the country in various sectors.

Zardari said France had pledged 12 million euros (16 million U.S. dollars) in humanitarian aid to help internally displaced people in Pakistan. He said Sarkozy had been very generous during their meeting at the Elysee Palace.
This has been Zardari’s first official trip to France since he became president in 2008. France, Pakistan agree on civilian nuclear co-op
www.chinaview.cn 2009-05-16 11:24:29


Now there are conflicting reports on the French Nuclear help. While President Zardari and the Foreign Minister are claiming that France will duplicate the deal with India, there is not official word on this from Paris. The only cryptic statement out of France is that the French will cooperate with France on Nuclear security.


France is in fact not in a position to begin unilaterally transferring nuclear technology to Pakistan, says correspondent Hugh Schofield in Paris.
That is because Pakistan is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is therefore the object of a boycott from other nuclear powers.

India was in a similar situation, but last year negotiated its way back into the nuclear fold.
Pakistan would like to follow suit, Hugh Schofield adds, but concerns over the stability of the government there means that any suggestion of countries like France transferring new nuclear technology are bound to be highly controversial. BBC

The BBC report seems to reflect the actual position. The Nuclear Supplier’s Group has to approve the sale of Civilian Nuclear Technology to Pakistan. Fracemay provide a fig leaf to the US refusal and could possibly be playing good cop versus the US bad cop on Nukes.
Rupee News does not question the integrity of Mr. Zardari’s government on this issues, but does question its refusal to purchase Uranium from Kazakhstan. Why did Ghaddari refuse to buy Uranium from Kazakhstan?

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Pakistan’s own SLV and Paksat launch

Pakistan’s own SLV and Paksat launch
ll systems are go. Pakistan’s reach into space is about to take a huge leap within a few months. Pakistan launches its first indigenously produced satellite Paksat-1R in a couple of years. Although this satellite will be launched with Chinese help, Pakistan is developing and will soon have its own Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV). Pakistan already has a headstart on intermediate ballistic missiles, and has the technology, intelligence and resources to convert military missiles to space technology. Muhafiz e Pakistan A.Q. Khan confirms it. Pakistan has very robust IRBMs which can launch geostationary orbiting satellites. All Pakistan has to do is to erase Delhi or Kolkota from the target and point it towards the sky. Instead of Hydrogen bombs and Atomic bombs the missiles can easily carry a payload of a satellite.
Pakistan has a communications satellite, Paksat-1, in orbit, providing coverage across Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and the South Asian subcontinent. It is being used by TV broadcasters, telecom companies, data and broadband internet service providers and government organisations.Dr Mohammad Riaz Suddle Director of SUPARCO says that Pakistan’s new communication satellite would be launched on August 14, 2011.Pakistan Space Agency (SUPARCO) to launch 3 satellites in 3 years - Paksat-1R and Pakistan Remote Sensing Satellite (PRSS) – would be launched in the near futureDr A.Q. Khan’s reported statement in March 2001, in which he had claimed that Pakistani scientists were in the process of building the country’s first SLV and that the project had been assigned to Suparco.Reports quoting credible sources said that Pakistan is also working on development of Satellite Launch Vehicles (SLVs), basing their assumption on Pakistan’s success in developing intermediate range ballistic missiles.Pakistani defense based on missile nuclear deterrent. Hatf, Shaheen, Ghauri, Babar and Abdali are far more advanced then previously thought
Cloaked in absolute secrecy, missile development in Pakistan began in the ’80s. To diversify its technological base, Pakistan uses domestic competition between its local vedorsto come up withthe best product. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, Pakistan has invested in both solid-motor and liquid-engine ballistic missile programs.

“Pakistan’s reasons for investing in both solid- and liquid-propulsion technologies remain unclear. However, analysts speculate the rival programs could be the result of intra-institutional rivalry and one-upmanship between the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), which have historically feuded over control and credits for Pakistan nuclear weapons-related efforts. This rivalry may have also carried over to the development of nuclear delivery systems. Furthermore, the diversification effort could also be viewed as a proactive attempt on the part of Pakistan’s military to factor in possible bottlenecks or failure along one technological front, as well as an attempt to diversify suppliers in the face of U.S. efforts to restrict the international trade in weapons of mass destruction-capable ballistic and cruise missile technologies. “Source: NTI Pakistan’s Space Agency Pakistan will launch its first indigenously developed communications satellite on August 14, 2011, from a facility in China.Speaking to Dawn, Dr Mohammad Riaz Suddle, the director of the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission’s (Suparco) satellite research and development centre in Lahore, said the satellite’s life span will be 15 years.Responding to a question, Dr Suddle said the satellite would be launched at a longitude of 38 degrees in geostationary orbit on the equatorial plane at an altitude of 36,000km above the Earth’s surface.Paksat-1R will carry a communications payload to facilitate the introduction of a range of new services, including broadband internet, digital TV distribution/broadcasting, remote/rural telephony, emergency communications, tele-education and tele-medicine.The contract for Pakis- tan Communication Satellite (Paksat-1R) was signed between Suparco and China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC), a Chinese firm, on October 15, 2008, in Beijing, during President Asif Zardari’s visit to China.
Work on the execution of the contract began soon after, and is progressing as scheduled, according to Dr Suddle. He did not reveal the cost of the project, but said the contract involves various other projects, including infrastructure, and therefore it is difficult to put an exact cost on the satellite itself.
Responding to a question, he said that at least two new satellites – Paksat-1R and Pakistan Remote Sensing Satellite (PRSS) – would be launched in the near future.
The satellites have been developed with technical and financial assistance from China.
The project has been approved by the federal government as part of the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP), he said.
When quizzed on where the finances for the project were coming from, Dr Suddle said that efforts are under way to secure a long-term concessional loan from the Chinese government to finance a major part of the project. Dawn
Pakistan has use a variant of the Shaheen II as a SLV which is an intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM):
Hatf-VI (IRBM) Shaheen II is Pakistan’s longest-range ballistic missile system with a range of 2000 kilometers and has the potential to achieve 2500 kilometers in an advanced version. It is a two-stage solid fuel missile which can carry nuclear and conventional warheads with high accuracy.
April 26, 2008: Pakistan announced that, after nearly a decade of development, its Hatf VI IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) is ready for service. The system, also called Shaheen II, has a range of 2,000 kilometers, can carry a nuclear warhead, and hit any part of India. At least a dozen of these missiles are being built, and moved around on mobile transporter/launchers. The Hatf VI will be a major part of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent against Indian invasion
… a 700-2,500km-range missile dubbed as the Shaheen-II, about which little is known.[30] Mock-ups of the missile displayed during the National Day celebrations in March 2003 suggest that it is a two-stage, solid-motor, road mobile system, transported on a 12-wheel TEL vehicle. Analysts speculate that the Shaheen-II is possibly a two-stage version of the M-9, or more likely a copy of the M-18, which was publicly displayed at an exhibition in Beijing in either 1987 or 1988. The M-18 was originally advertised as a two-stage system with a payload capacity of 400-500kg over a range of 1,000km.[31] U.S. intelligence sources suggest that Pakistan remains heavily reliant on external assistance for the Shaheen-II program and that China is actively assisting Pakistan through the supply of missile components, specialty materials, dual-use items, and other miscellaneous forms of technical assistance.[32].
Development flight tests of the Shaheen-II began in March 2004 when a 26-ton missile was launched from Pakistan’s Somiani Flight Test Range on the Arabian Sea.[33] According to the Chairman of Pakistan’s National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM) Dr. Samar Mubarakmand, the missile covered a distance of 1,800km during the test. [34]. The missile was tested in March 2005, April 2006, and February 2007.[55] Subsequently, reports in summer 2007 stated that Pakistan had begun the process of deployment of the Shaheen-II.[53]
The missile’s basic airframe is made from steel, although some sections may be crafted out of aluminum. The propulsion system is a liquid rocket engine that uses a storablecombination of inhibited red fuming nitric acid and kerosene. During the boost phase, four jet vanes are used for thrust vector control. It is also believed that the missile uses three body-mounted gyros for attitude and lateral acceleration control. In addition, “a pendulum integration gyro assembly serves for speed control.” The [] range and throw weight has been variously estimated between 800-1,500km and 700-1,300kg, respectively.
Pakistan could also use the Hataf IV or the Shaheen I as a SLV to launch its own satellites.
Hatf IV. The DF-15/M-9 (NATO designation CSS-6) is a single-stage, solid-propellant, road mobile, short-range ballistic missile. It can reportedly deliver a 500kg warhead over a range of 600km; other reports suggest that with a smaller warhead, the missile could have a range of 800km. Pakistani government statements suggest that the missiles in Pakistan’s possession have a maximum range of 700-800km. Like the M-11 missiles, control during boost phase is exercised through “exhaust vanes or small scale vernier motors.” The M-9 has a reported 300m circular error probability (CEP) and is believed to employ some form of terminal guidance. Analysts suggest that the missile has a “strapdowninertial guidance system with an onboarddigital computer,”….which “enables rapid targeting and eliminates need for wind corrections prior to launch.” Unconfirmed reports suggest that the “separating warhead section has a miniature propulsion system to correct the attitude before re-entry, as well as adjusting the terminal trajectory.”Source NTIShaheen 1:The high-precision Shaheen-1 missile has a range of up to 700 kilometers (about 440 miles).
Speaking about the status of Pakistan’s space programme in comparison to that of other countries in the region, Dr Suddle asserted that Pakistan’s space/satellite development programme “needs to make rapid and sustained progress to meet national needs.”.
At present, Pakistan has a communications satellite, Paksat-1, in orbit, providing coverage across Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and the South Asian subcontinent. It is being used by TV broadcasters, telecom companies, data and broadband internet service providers and government organisations.
Paksat-1R will replace Paksat-1, a leased satellite, to ensure continuity of service.
In the 1990s, Pakistan also operated a small satellite, Badr-A, in low earth orbit. The country’s modest space program, however, has been more oriented towards remote sensing applications.
Badr-A was Pakistan’s first indigenously developed satellite and was launched from the Xichang Launch Centre in China on July 16, 1990 aboard a Chinese Long March 2E rocket. Badr-A weighed 150 pounds, and was inserted into an elliptical orbit of 127-615 miles by the rocket. The satellite successfully completed its design life.
Pakistan’s second satellite, Badr-B, was an earth observation satellite and was launched on Dec 10, 2001, on a Zenit-2 rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. It was designed by Space Innovations Limited, a UK-based company.
Paksat-1 was Pakistan’s first geostationary satellite. It was originally known as Palapa C1, was launched in 1996 and had been designed to serve Indonesia. After an electronics failure, it was renamed Anatolia-1 and then renamed again to become Paksat-1 in 2002. It was originally manufactured by Boeing and uses the HS601 spacecraft design.
Suparco set about trying to replace Paksat-1 by signing a consultancy deal with Telesat in March 2007, under which the company will advise Pakistan on the purchase, manufacture and launch of Paksat-1R. Under the agreement, Telesat will help Suparcofind a manufacturer and provide technical and commercial advice during the negotiations process. Telesatwill also help to oversee the construction of the new satellite and will monitor the launch and provide in-orbit testing services.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

CIA: US does not know location of all Pakistan's nuclear weapons

CIA: US does not know location of all Pakistan's nuclear weapons
Leon Panetta, the CIA director, has said that the US does not know the location of all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons but is confident they are 'pretty secure'
Leon Panetta: CIA: US does not know location of all Pakistan's nuclear weapons
The admission by the chief of the Central Intelligence Agency was made amid growing concern about the country's nuclear facilities falling into the hands of the Taliban or al-Qaeda, and also claims that Pakistan is increasing its number of warheads.
Mr Panetta was asked at a forum organised by the Pacific Council on International Policy if nuclear weapons in Pakistan are better guarded than those in the former Soviet Union.
"Obviously, we do try to understand where all of these are located," he replied. "We don't have, frankly, the intelligence to know where they all are located."
He added that the US is confident that Pakistani government has a "pretty secure approach to try to protect these weapons".
"It is something that we continue to watch. The last thing we want is to have the Taliban have access to nuclear weapons in Pakistan."
At a congressional hearing last week, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked whether there was evidence that Pakistan was adding to its nuclear arsenal. He replied: "Yes."
The Pakistani government denied the claim.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Locations of visitors to this page
Landscape Photography