“While the US media continues to leak information about possible compromise by the Zardari government on the Pakistani nuclear program [there are reports that Mr. Zardari has agreed to transfer used Pakistani uranium to US for disposal, in addition to reports about increased access for foreigners to the offices of the Strategic Plans Division, which oversees the nuclear and strategic arsenal], the Pakistani military intervenes once again at the highest level to confirm this will not be allowed. This is reassuring because it is difficult to trust an elected government that has come to power with full foreign backing and some of its key figures appear to be working on a foreign agenda.”

We all heard and read the leaked and calculated propaganda in the American media that seeks to spread worldwide confusion and alarm about Pakistan. Part of this campaign is the recent interesting American reports that Pakistani nuclear weapons are stored ‘disassembled’, as if Pakistan made huge investment in its strategic weapons only to end up storing them in pieces. Here is a credible and strong argument that sets the record straight, from one of Pakistan’s eminent nuclear experts.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—This is in reference to your editorial of June 8, 2009, titled “Safe and sound ".

While I am appreciative of the broader position taken by you on the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, on which there must be no doubt, western propaganda notwithstanding; there are at least two aspects that need to be seen in the correct perspective.
Firstly, while your assertion that Pakistan has invested heavily in the security of its facilities and weapons is absolutely valid, your interpretation that the warheads are 'stored in a disassembled state in more than one location. No warhead is attached to a delivery system. No delivery system is located in the same facility as the warhead parts' is basically speculative, conjectural and conveys a state of operational unpreparedness, which would be a very dangerous situation and seriously erode the credibility of our nuclear deterrence.

I have never seen any official statement, and I emphasize on 'any' official statement, depicting the status that you describe in your editorial. The best description that one comes across is the position that our weapons are not on hair trigger, contrary to the Cold War times regarding the American and Soviet nuclear weapons. Now, not being on hair trigger does not imply scattered and disassembled weapons. Somehow the latter perception seems to have caught the imagination, and needs to be corrected. Any military would want to strike a balance between operational readiness and preventing accidental or unauthorized use.
Secondly, I agree with your concern that there can be individuals in our society who may tend to think of an agenda to find links with people within Pakistan's strategic organisations to gain nuclear knowledge, thereby creating an 'insider threat'. This must, however, be seen in consideration of Pakistan's proactive response to such possibilities. Nuclear security is a multi-dimensional and robust mechanism that covers all aspects of security, including physical security tiers, intelligence systems, counter-intelligence set-ups, technical solutions to security and more importantly the so-called Personnel Reliability Programme (PRP) that amply covers the human factor risk. All individuals within the nuclear establishment are subjected to the PRP, which commences from background checks, police records, medical records, etc and goes on to include security screening, periodic, as well as random security clearances, closely monitored access controls, two-person rule, sensitive material accounting, etc. The list is long and stringent. While one is never complacent about security systems and one must never be- we should rest assured that any potential tendency of a possible 'insider threat' would be identified at the outset and would be nipped in the bud. Finally, much seems to have been made of the so-called US assistance in this area. To the best of my information, it has been extremely modest, focused on very elementary training and mostly inconsequential -- and most certainly non-intrusive. All of the security solutions in place are home-grown and entirely indigenous.

• Some fighters using infrared patches on shirts to signal they are ‘friends’
  
• GAO official says few regulatory controls exist for military technology sold domestically
  
• Lawmaker says infrared patches should be treated as munitions
  
• Retired four-star general says risk may be overstated

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: Some Taliban fighters have been able to ward off attacks by US aircraft by wearing special infrared patches on their shirts that signal they are friends rather than foes.
The patches, which can also help suicide bombers get close to US targets, are supposed to be the property of the US government alone, but can be easily purchased over the Internet for about $10 each, a report published in The Washington Times had revealed. Some of the patches have been stolen during raids on US re-supply convoys in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and reveal an American flag when looked at with an infrared light and are designed to avoid friendly fire during night-time battles.
Few controls: In a recent investigation, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) bought patches using fake names and a front company with only a valid credit card. Jonathan Meyer, assistant director of forensic audits and special investigations for the GAO, told The Washington Times: “Based on our conversations with the Department of Defence, terrorists have used US uniforms and the infrared patches to get close to US and allied forces on the battlefield and at bases. This is more of a potential suicide-bomber risk.” Meyer, who helped lead the GAO investigation, concluded that few regulatory controls exist for dual-use and military technology sold domestically.
Representative Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce oversight and investigations subcommittee, said the infrared patches are also made in China. “It is rather simple technology,” he said. “We not only sell this on the domestic market here, and they sell them to anybody, but you can get them from China, and the Chinese will sell them to others. They have been used by the enemy in the war. It’s of grave concern because you don’t know who is friendly or not,” he added.
“An enemy fighter wearing these [infrared] flags could potentially pass as a friendly service member during a night combat situation, putting US troops at risk,” the GAO report said. “Nevertheless, these items are completely legal to buy and sell within the US.” The report followed up on a 2008 GAO study that exposed the fact that military-surplus items, such as spare parts for fighter jets, could be purchased on eBay and Craigslist.
Munitions: Representative Brad Sherman, California Democrat and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that deals with export controls, said that it may be time to treat the infrared patches as a munition that would need to be controlled through the Arms Export Control Act. “If there is an item that has only a military use, like the patches, the fact that they are non-lethal doesn’t mean we should not treat them as munitions,” he said.
Overstated: However, a retired four-star general, Jack Keane, said the risk had been overstated. “Since the beginning of warfare, people have been dressing up as the enemy to infiltrate,” he said. “We certainly have done this in the past to our enemies, and our enemies have done this to us.” But “it would seem to me that something we are using to help identify ourselves should not be available to the general public, and it should be something that is only acquired through military channels,” he added.
Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said the military was reviewing the report. “The Department of Defence takes force protection very seriously. As a matter of course, we are concerned any time sensitive equipment has the potential to fall into enemy hands,” he said.
A spokesman for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, Dean Boyd, said that since October 2007, the US government has created 20 counter-proliferation task forces to look at the issue. However, he said “no one is really taking responsibility” in the US government to deal with the problem. The National Security Council, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security have declined comment on the GAO report.

Army in final stage of Swat offensive

ISLAMABAD: The army said on Monday it had completed the exercise of pre-positioning forces and equipment in South Waziristan to launch a decisive action against Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan chief Baitullah Mehsood and his network.

Military spokesman Maj-Gen Athar Abbas told a press briefing that the preparatory manoeuvring phase had already started to clear a key road in Wana, the headquarters of South Waziristan.
The objective of the operation would be to dismantle ‘suicide attack schools’ being run by the Mehsud network, he said.
According to him, a large number of foreign terrorists were holed up there.
In reply to a question, Gen Abbas said there was no authentic information about the encirclement of Baitullah Mehsud. However, he added, the main leadership of militants was being continuously targeted and many of them were reported to have been killed and secretly buried at unknown places. ‘We, however, do not have evidence in hand.’
Maj-Gen Abbas said the Swat operation had entered a final phase. The last stronghold of terrorists in Biha valley had been secured and Shamozai area was being cleared, the ISPR chief said.
He said that search operations were continuing in the secured areas to ensure safe return of the displaced people. He said that all areas, except Kabal and Shamozai, were safe for government employees and hence they had been asked to return to their duty.
‘A security cover will be available for government employees and there is no cause of concern that could hinder their return.’
He said that 1,592 terrorists had been killed and over 60, including foreigners, captured since the operation began last month.
The spokesman said that success had been achieved on the basis of information provided by the arrested militants and intelligence reports.
Photographs of over 50 dead militants, secret tunnels and hideouts and arms and ammunition recovered during the operation were screened during the briefing.
Maj-Gen Abbas said the level of preparation by insurgents was astounding as tunnels, hideouts and the quantity of arms recovered spoke volumes for their preparation for a ‘full-scale war’.
He said that troops had neutralised a number of improvised explosive devices and destroyed several tunnels.
Meanwhile, the ISPR said 22 militants had been killed and five captured during an operation in Malakand division on Sunday and Monday. Fourteen militants were killed on Shamozai bridge alone.
Eight IEDs left on the bridge were defused.
Security forces have cleared Biha valley and Bartana, south of Chuprial. Three small tunnels were destroyed in Loi Namal.
A jirga handed over a militant to security forces in Bahrain. Four militants were caught in Wanai, Shalkosar, Bashkhela and Drushkhela.
Eight militants were killed and one was injured during clashes with a tribal lashkar in Lower Dir.

MUMBAI, June 23: An Indian court issued arrest warrants on Tuesday for 22 Pakistani nationals accused of masterminding last year’s deadly Mumbai terrorist attacks, including the founder of a militant group recently freed by a Pakistani court.
An Indian prosecutor demanded that Islamabad extradite all the suspects, though Pakistan has vowed that it will not transfer any Mumbai suspects to India, saying instead it will try them in its own courts.

The warrants were issued in response to a prosecutors’ motion in the ongoing trial of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, the only surviving suspected gunman in last year’s attacks that left some 166 dead in a three-day siege.
Among those sought for arrest were Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, founder of Lashkar-i-Taiba, which India blames for the launching attacks, and Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah, two leaders of the group.

Pakistan arrested all three in December after Indian diplomats provided a dossier of evidence in a rare sharing of intelligence between the nuclear-armed rivals, who have fought three wars since independence. However, a court in Lahore earlier this month freed Saeed. Indian officials condemned the move.The Indian court’s issuance of arrest warrants on Tuesday had been expected, since New Delhi has long identified the 22 suspects as terrorists.

Still, the demand for extradition, which Pakistan is unlikely to meet, emphasised the animosity between the neighbours since teams of gunmen rampaged through Mumbai last November.
Public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said on Tuesday that the warrants would be handed to Interpol to deliver to the Pakistan government for extradition.
“We want the suspects to be sent to India to stand trial. There is sufficient evidence to prosecute them in India,” Nikam told The Associated Press.

On Tuesday, Nikam told Special Judge M.L. Tahiliyani that Saeed, Lakhvi and others planned the Mumbai terror attacks and gave training to those who carried out the assault.
Pakistan has acknowledged the Mumbai attacks were partly plotted on its soil.
Judge Tahiliyani is presiding over the trial of the only surviving suspected gunman, Kasab, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges against him in the Indian court, including waging war against the country and murder. Kasab, said to be in his early 20s, will face the death penalty if convicted

Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend

A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein.
The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.

Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.

The president expressed hopes that an Iraqi defector would be "brought out" to give a public presentation on Saddam's WMD or that someone might assassinate the Iraqi leader. However, Bush confirmed even without a second resolution, the US was prepared for military action. The memo said Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president".

The five-page document, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, and copied to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, the chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, and the UK's ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, outlines how Bush told Blair he had decided on a start date for the war.
Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning, noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

Last night an expert on international law who is familar with the memo's contents said it provided vital evidence into the two men's frames of mind as they considered the invasion and its aftermath and must be presented to the Chilcott inquiry established by Gordon Brown to examine the causes, conduct and consequences of the Iraq war.

Philippe Sands, QC, a professor of law at University College London who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry, said confidential material such as the memo was of national importance, making it vital that the inquiry is not held in private, as Brown originally envisioned.

In today's Observer, Sands writes: "Documents like this raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security. The restoration of public confidence requires this new inquiry to be transparent. Contentious matters should not be kept out of the public domain, even in the run-up to an election."

The memo notes there had been a shift in the two men's thinking on Iraq by late January 2003 and that preparing for war was now their priority. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning writes. This was despite the fact Blair that had yet to receive advice on the legality of the war from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which did not arrive until 7 March 2003 - 13 days before the bombing campaign started.

In his article today, Sands says the memo raises questions about the selection of the chair of the inquiry. Sir John Chilcott sat on the 2004 Butler inquiry, which examined the reliability of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, and would have been privy to the document's contents - and the doubts about WMD running to the highest levels of the US and UK governments.
Many senior legal experts have expressed dismay that Chilcott has been selected to chair the inquiry as he is considered to be close to the security services after his time spent as a civil servant in Northern Ireland.

Brown had believed that allowing the Chilcott inquiry to hold private hearings would allow witnesses to be candid. But after bereaved families and antiwar campaigners expressed outrage, the prime minister wrote to Chilcott to say that if the panel can show witnesses and national security issues will not be compromised by public hearings, he will change his stance.

Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff under Blair, described the memo as "quite shocking". He said that it underscored why the Chilcott inquiry must be seen to be a robust investigation: "It's important that the inquiry is not a whitewash as these inquiries often are."
This year, the Dutch government launched its own inquiry into its support for the war.

Significantly, the inquiry will see all the intelligence shared with the Dutch intelligence services by MI5 and MI6. The inquiry intends to publish its report in November - suggesting that confidential information about the role played by the UK and the US could become public before Chilcott's inquiry reports next year.

Hello all ...

The political creed of Zionism has big ears and a long trunk and I think it's time that was pointed out. It also stampedes through our lives at every level and that needs to be said, too.

It has created a pincer-movement on the human mind by hijacking staggering amounts of political, corporate, banking and media power on one side and by using the fear of being called 'anti-Semitic' if you dare to state the bloody obvious.

They have been able to do this by equating in public perception that Zionism = Jewish people. It does not. Zionism is a political creed introduced by the House of Rothschild to advance the goals of the Illuminati families that are largely controlled by the Rothschilds.

When people think of Zionism they think of Jewish people. When they think of Israel they think of Jewish people. That's understandable given the propaganda, but it is seriously misleading and those instant connections need to be broken if we are going to understand what's going on here. Zionism means Rothschild just as Israel means Rothschild.

When we see the extraordinary number of Zionists in key positions around the world we are looking not at 'manipulating Jews', but manipulating Zionists representing the interests and demands of the Rothschilds.

Significant numbers of Jewish people are not Zionists and oppose that appalling creed while many Zionists are not Jewish. These include the Christian Zionists and Obama's vice-president, Joe Biden, who told Israeli television 'I'm a Zionist'. Here's the clip if you can stand it ... If, as Biden rightly says, you don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, how can it be a racial rather than a political movement? It can't. It's just made to appear like that to manipulate public perception because opposing Zionism then becomes opposing Jewish people as a whole and the 'you're a racist' card can be played over and over.

Far from protecting and advancing the interests of the mass of Jewish people it has often been devastating for them and caused millions to be labelled unfairly by the actions of the Zionist elite. On the Jews Against Zionism website one feature highlights how Rothschild Zionism targeted Jews who had lived for generations in Palestine side-by-side with Arabs in peace and harmony:

'The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs.

They requested the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a defacto international city. They appealed to the diplomatic corps assigned to Jerusalem -- but to no avail. They were hence confronted with the choice of either becoming a part of the Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.

Let's get this straight. Zionism doesn't give a damn about Jewish people. To the Rothschilds and their Zionist gofers and thugs the Jewish people as a whole are merely cattle to be used and abused as necessary - just like the rest of the human population.

The networks of the House of Rothschild were behind Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party in the Rothschild heartland of Germany where they had changed their name from Bauer in 18th century Frankfurt and launched the dynasty that was to control global finance. After the war the Rothschilds used public sympathy for Jewish people targeted by the Nazis to press for a homeland in Palestine. This was the alleged reason for the founding of Zionism, but that is only part of it.

As I show in my books, the campaign to impose a Rothschild fiefdom in Palestine goes back at least to the earlier part of the 19th century and probably long before. It was given a massive boost with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared in a letter his government's support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This letter was sent by Balfour, an inner-circle member of an elite secret society called the Round Table, to Baron (Walter) Rothschild who funded the Round Table.

Today, Rothschild Illuminati fronts like the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and others, still answer to the Round Table which string-pulls and coordinates from the shadows. This is why Zionists in government are invariably connected with these Rothschild-controlled organisations.

The Rothschilds funded the early settlers from Europe to relocate in post-war Palestine and they also funded and armed the terrorist groups, like Irgun, which bombed and terrorised Israel into existence in 1948, a campaign which forced 800,000 Palestinians to leave the land of their birth.

Israel is simply the State of Rothschild and how appropriate that they paid for the construction of the Israeli parliament building, the Knesset, and the Israel Supreme Court. The name Rothschild means Red-shield and it originates with the red shield 'Star of David' symbol (not a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds) which they displayed on their house in Frankfurt ...

... Seen it somewhere before ...?

The very flag of Israel tells you who owns it. There are many reasons why the Rothschilds and their allies wanted to hijack Palestine and one was to keep the Middle East in a state of disruption and turmoil from which a global war can eventually be triggered to usher in the New World Order of world government dictatorship.

The creation of Israel is a means not an end and the Rothschilds will be quite happy to leave the Jewish population to their fate if it suits them. After all, they've done it before. The world's second biggest Zionist population is in the United States and given that both America and Israel are controlled by the Rothschild networks it is not hard to fathom why that slither of land in the Middle East receives around a third of all US overseas aid.

An average $3 billion a year is handed to the State of Rothschild as a result of decisions made by American administrations that are always, 'Republican' or 'Democrat', controlled by the Rothschilds. One hand of the network hands over the cash to another. This explains why the United States never talks about the arsenal of nuclear weapons stockpiled by one of the world's most trigger-happy states. Israel refuses to discuss them and the American policy, recently reconfirmed by Obama, is never to ask or bring up the subject.

The last two US administrations are testament to the extent of Zionist (Rothschild) control of America and thus its foreign policy, not least with regard to Iraq, the former land of Sumer and Babylon, which according to some just happens to be part of the 'Greater Israel' that the Zionists seek to secure. The 'Bush' government was the glove-puppet of the so-called neo-cons, or neoconservatives, whose only political philosophy in truth was the interests of Zionism.

At the heart of the Rothschild-controlled neocon cabal were Richard Perle (Zionist), Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), Dov Zakheim (Zionist), Douglas Feith (Zionist), John Bolton (Zionist), Lewis Libby (Zionist), the list goes on and on. These were the people who orchestrated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on behalf of the Rothschilds.

Economic policy was dictated through the years of Reagan-Bush, Father Bush, Clinton and most of Boy Bush by Alan Greenspan (Zionist), chairman of the privately-owned US 'central bank', the Federal Reserve. Privately owned, that is, by the Rothschilds through a network of front people and organisations.

Greenspan introduced the policies of deregulation that culminated, as designed, in the free-for-all frenzy of greed by banks and financial markets in general that led to the crash in the last weeks of the Bush presidency. Greenspan resigned from the Fed before the consequences of his long-term game-plan exploded in lost homes, jobs and savings. He was replaced by Bernard Bernanke (Zionist).

Greenspan was enthusiastically supported in his deregulation through successive administrations by Treasury Secretaries in the Clinton years, Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) and Larry Summers (Zionist), and also by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful in the Fed cabal, Timothy Geithner (Zionist). When Mr. Fake Change won the presidency amid the gathering financial crisis, caused by all of the above, and others, he appointed Geithner as his Treasury Secretary and Summers as head of the White House Economic Council.

Both are protégés of Robert Rubin who resigned from Citigroup earlier this year for his role in 'advising' it to the brink of collapse. Obama's Budget Director is Peter Orszag (Zionist) who headed the company that advised the Icelandic Central Bank in the prelude to the crash of Iceland's financial system. This has led to Iceland being fast-tracked into the Rothschild-created European Union to 'save' its economy.

Orszag also advised the Russian Treasury when state-owned assets and resources were handed to Zionist oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich who is famous in the UK as the owner of Chelsea Football Club. Add to all this the fact that the World Bank is headed by Robert Zoellick (Zionist), who replaced Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), and that the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, is run by Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Zionist).

Anyone still doubt that the Rothschild network controls global finance and therefore the lives and choices of virtually every man, woman and child on the planet? The Rothschilds are at the heart of the Obama White House in the form of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (Zionist) and Chief White House Advisor David Axelrod (Zionist). Emanuel has served in the Israeli army and his father was an operative with the Rothschild terrorist group, Irgun, as it bombed Israel into being. This included the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 that killed 91 people.

Rahm Emanuel also worked closely Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) during the Clinton years to impose NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was designed from the start to be a stepping-stone to a North American, and eventually an American Union, along the lines of the EU. The Zionist world is very small indeed.

David Axelrod ran Obama's election campaigns and now oversees his every word slavishly read from his teleprompter screens. There is little that Obama says that his Zionist handlers don't tell him or give him to say. They have also ensured that US policy for Iran and the Persian Gulf is headed by Dennis Ross (Zionist) who has served Israeli interests in successive American administrations.

There will not be a cigarette paper behind the scenes between him and that trio of tyranny, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, the prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister of Israel. Rothschild stooges, in other words. Zionist Mandelson works for the pyramid The most influential figure by far in the current British government is Peter Mandelson (Zionist) who continues to amass more titles and powers from the beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Mandelson is an insider operative for the Rothschilds and has frequently accepted hospitality from his close friend and associate, Nathaniel Rothschild. This week Mandelson called for the UK to join the (Rothschild) single European currency. Meanwhile, the hapless and hopeless Gordon Brown did as he was told and appointed Ivan Lewis (Zionist) to be minister of state with responsibility for, wait for it ...

British policy on the Middle East. Lewis, vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, was an outspoken supporter of Israel's slaughter of the innocent in Gaza this year. Lewis said of his new job: 'My responsibility for the Middle East peace process is particularly poignant. I have never hidden my pride at being Jewish or my support for the State of Israel.' What chance do the Palestinians have of fairness and justice? None.

In France, as I mentioned last week, President Sarkozy (Zionist) is a long-time asset of Mossad, the Rothschild enforcement agency masquerading as the intelligence agency of Israel. Mossad has been implicated in terror attacks and other horrors all over the world because it represents the Rothschild global agenda and not the people of Israel.

Look also at the Zionist (Rothschild) control of the entertainment and media industry in the form of people like Fox News President Peter Chernin (Zionist); Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Zionist); Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor (Zionist); Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (Zionist); Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer (Zionist); CBS CEO Leslie Moonves (Zionist); MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Zionist); and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker (Zionist).

The Rothschilds control America

The Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein (Zionist) wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don't think Jews (Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain 'dumb'. Stein went on: 'The Jews are so dominant. I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! ...

As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.' And not only Hollywood. Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, wrote: 'The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge'. Zionists have truly massive influence over the news media with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (Zionist) with his vast television and newspaper empire, and the Sulzberger family (Zionists) who own the New York Times.

The list is enormous across television, radio, newspapers and the Internet. When you look at the number of Zionists in key positions of power and control in politics, banking, corporations, news media, Hollywood and so on, it is sobering to think that Jewish people are just 1.7% of the American population and many of those won't be Zionists. What if the same situation happened with Arab people or Chinese, Irish or even black Americans?

There would be an outcry and questions asked about how one group can have so much influence over the lives of a whole nation, indeed many nations. And I stress again that, in the end, this control system leads to the Rothschilds and the spider they represent at the centre of the web.

B'nai Brith Front Man Harry Abrams

The Rothschilds established B'nai B'rith in 1843 to prevent exposure of the global Zionist networks. The ' BB' is an offshoot of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and operates worldwide to brand as 'anti-Semitic' anyone who exposes the Rothschild operation.

In 1913, B'nai B'rith launched an organisation specifically to target and defame researchers, in fact anyone, who questions, criticises or exposes Israel and the ever-gathering Zionist influence across the world. With typical irony they called it the Anti-Defamation League, better known as the ADL, and claimed it was there to protect Jewish people. As Plato said: 'This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector'.

The ADL is, in fact, a sub-agency of the Israeli (Rothschild) centre for covert operations, the Mossad, which, according to a former agent, has the motto: 'By way of deception, thou shalt do war'. If that isn't the motto, it should be. The ADL is behind the introduction of 'hate laws' which are aimed at silencing dissent against Zionism or Israel. The Jewish academic, Noam Chomsky, said this of the ADL in his book, Necessary Illusions:

'The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming "one of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on.

These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.' The American rabbi, Michael Lerner, agrees:

'The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern).'

Firstly, the ADL has never been a civil rights organisation. Its very purpose has been to take them away.

Secondly, it is not there to defend anyone, Jewish or otherwise. It's there to represent the sadistic interests of the House of Rothschild and the wider Illuminati.

It is so important that people are aware of this background to Zionism because at the moment it is basically speeding along unchallenged through lack of awareness and fear of being dubbed 'racist'.

Well, I couldn't care less what people say about me with regard to this or anything else. I want to uncover the truth, not win a popularity contest. Please, let's circulate this information as effectively as we can and bring it from the shadows to public attention.

We must refuse to be intimidated into silence over this.

Martin Luther King said: '... we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.' It is time to stand up, in every sense.

By Jeremy Scahill

Three days after his inauguration, on January 23, 2009, President Barack Obama ordered US predator drones to attack sites inside of Pakistan, reportedly killing 15 people. It was the first documented attack ordered by the new US Commander in Chief inside of Pakistan. Since that first Obama-authorized attack, the US has regularly bombed Pakistan, killing scores of civilians. The New York Times reported that the attacks were clear evidence Obama “is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy.” In the first 99 days of 2009, more than 150 people were reportedly killed in these drone attacks. The most recent documented attack was reportedly last Thursday in Waziristan. Since 2006, the US drone strikes have killed 687 people (as of April). That amounts to about 38 deaths a month just from drone attacks.
The use of these attack drones by Obama should not come as a surprise to anyone who followed his presidential campaign closely. As a candidate, Obama made clear that Pakistan’s sovereignty was subservient to US interests, saying he would attack with or without the approval of the Pakistani government. Obama said if the US had “actionable intelligence” that “high value” targets were in Pakistan, the US would attack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, echoed those sentiments on the campaign trail and “did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. ‘If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,’ she said.”

Last weekend, Obama granted his first extended interview with a Pakistani media outlet, the newspaper Dawn:

Responding to a question about drone attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal zone, Mr Obama said he did not comment on specific operations.
‘But I will tell you that we have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan. Pakistan and its military are dealing with their security issues.’

There are a number of issues raised by this brief response offered by Obama. First, the only difference between using these attack drones and using actual US soldiers on the ground is that the soldiers are living beings. These drones sanitize war and reduce the US death toll while still unleashing military hell disproportionately on civilians. The bottom line is that the use of drones inside the borders of Pakistan amounts to the same violation of sovereignty that would result from sending US soldiers inside the country. Obama defended the attacks in the Dawn interview, saying:

“Our primary goal is to be a partner and a friend to Pakistan and to allow Pakistan to thrive on its own terms, respecting its own traditions, respecting its own culture. We simply want to make sure that our common enemies, which are extremists who would kill innocent civilians, that that kind of activity is stopped, and we believe that it has to be stopped whether it’s in the United States or in Pakistan or anywhere in the world.”

Despite Obama’s comments about respecting Pakistan “on its own terms,” this is how Reuters recently described the arrangement between Pakistan and the US regarding drone attacks:

U.S. ally Pakistan objects to the U.S. missile strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and undermine efforts to deal with militancy because they inflame public anger and bolster support for the militants.
Washington says the missile strikes are carried out under an agreement with Islamabad that allows Pakistani leaders to publicly criticise the attacks. Pakistan denies any such agreement.

Pakistan is now one of the biggest recipients of US aid with the House of Representatives recently approving a tripling of money to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion a year for five years. Moreover, US special forces are already operating inside of Pakistan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Baluchistan. According to the Wall Street Journal, US Special Forces are:

training Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force responsible for battling the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, who cross freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said. The U.S. trainers aren’t meant to fight alongside the Pakistanis or accompany them into battle, in part because there will be so few Special Forces personnel in the two training camps.

A senior American military officer said he hoped Islamabad would gradually allow the U.S. to expand its training footprint inside Pakistan’s borders.

In February, The New York Times reported that US forces are also engaged in other activities inside of Pakistan:

American Special Operations troops based in Afghanistan have also carried out a number of operations into Pakistan’s tribal areas since early September, when a commando raid that killed a number of militants was publicly condemned by Pakistani officials. According to a senior American military official, the commando missions since September have been primarily to gather intelligence.

It is clear—and has been for a long time— that the Obama administration is radically expanding the US war in Afghanistan deeply into Pakistan. Whether it is through US military trainers (that’s what they were called in Vietnam too), drone attacks or commando raids inside the country, the US is militarily entrenched in Pakistan. It makes Obama’s comment that “[W]e have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan” simply unbelievable.

For a sense of how significant US operations are and will continue to be for years and years to come, just look at the US plan to build an almost $1 billion massive US “embassy” in Islamabad, which is reportedly modeled after the imperial city they call a US embassy in Baghdad. As we know very clearly from Iraq, such a complex will result in an immediate surge in the deployment of US soldiers, mercenaries and other contractors.

ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Rehman Malik made clear the government intention that the military operation against terrorists will continue till the last Taliban remnant is killed or tracked down by the forces.

Speaking to a group of media persons outside the Parliament House, Mr. Malik said latest reports indicate that the most troubled areas of Malakand and Swat had been cleared of the militants/terrorists and the forces in the second phase would stop Taliban from regrouping.

He said when each and every Pakistani citizen has stood up and says ‘No’ to Taliban, only then would it be possible to trace the sources who were providing finances, vehicles, infrastructure, ammunition, FM. Radio stations etc. to them.

Addressing the National Assembly earlier, interior minister said that the disturbance and suicide attacks in D.I. Khan were result of its location close to North and South Waziristan agencies as well as sectarian disturbance.

He assured the house that a detailed report on the D.I. Khan law and order would soon be presented in the lower house.

He told that two terrorists were nabbed by Islamabad police in the last twenty-four hours, one of whom intended to target the parliament house, while the other wanted to hit sensitive installations in Rawalpindi.

Responding to a query, the interior minister said that Pakistan was ready to nab anyone found guilty of Mumbai attacks to punish him under the law of land, provided India extends its cooperation. He however reiterated that there was no compromise on the principle that no Pakistani will be handed over to Indian authorities in the name of investigation.

‘Let me tell you that each Kalashnikov and every bullet is being provided to Taliban from Afghanistan and the Pakistan government has raised this issue with Afghan government at every available forum.

‘The terrorists who used to impose their own brand of Islam on Pakistani civilians have fled from Swat after having shaved their faces and now are on the run. We will not let them stay anywhere and would track them down,’ he added.

We have also urged the international community to help and expose such elements as our youth is being made drug addicted,’ he added.

‘We would not allow balkanization of the country and all the fanatic elements involved in target killings would be dealt with in real manner. Some elements are involved in target killing of Hazara and Punjabi settlers in Balochistan and the government would take them to task,’ he remarked.

On the murder of commander of Abdullah Mehsud group Qari Zainuddin, the minister said the investigation was on and all the aspects would be examined in the investigation.