Thread: Bin Laden Hoax to Expand War: building a case against Pakist

Bin Laden Hoax to Expand War

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Globalist think-tanks are already building a case against Pakistan

Bangkok, Thailand May 3, 2011 - Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD) scribe and all around intellectually dishonest propagandist, Bill Roggio of the "Long War Journal," has dedicated his life to perpetuating the entirely fake "War on Terror," abandoning all objectivity with the very name of his now officially government funded, Neo-Conservative establishment affiliated blog. The term "Long War" of course is a throwback to the Bush era and constant reassurances by the president that indeed the "War on Terror" will be endless.

FDD and their doppelganger organization Foreign Policy Initiative - essentially the reincarnation of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) - were amongst the first in the wake of Obama's announcement to begin implicating Pakistan for harboring Bin Laden leading up to his death. These calls have only intensified.

Roggio's recent article, "Pakistani complicity in sheltering Osama bin Laden is evident" lays out what appears to be a convincing argument that not only was Pakistan aware of Bin Laden's presence in the city of Abbotabad, the center of Pakistan's military and intelligence community, but were complicit in providing him with sanctuary. Roggio is quick to remind readers of Pakistan's "vast links to terrorist groups."

Despite arguing that Pakistan was knowingly harboring the most notorious fugitive in human history, Roggio suggests that the US kept the operation a complete secret from Pakistani intelligence until the operation itself was underway - and even then - the US did not reveal the location of the operation because of a supposed lack of trust. Unfettered, Roggio skips past this lapse of logic either out of his own lack of imagination or his utter contempt for his readership. Of course, if Osama Bin Laden was actually in Abbotabad, and Pakistan was providing him sanctuary, wouldn't the compound itself be under constant watch? At the very least, after the operation was announced to Pakistani officials, wouldn't they already know the exact location?


Roggio's poorly contrived narrative, like the entire Bin Laden hoax itself, along with FDD and FPI's entire existence is not meant to advance our understanding of the world but rather advance the agenda of the corporate-financier interests that drive these nefarious organizations. In this case, Pakistan stands as an obstacle on the war path that begins in the Middle East with the engineered, US-funded "Arab Spring" and stabs outward through Eastern Europe, Central Asia and as far as Moscow and Beijing.

Tensions in Pakistan have been rising dramatically as of late. Open calls from corporate-financier funded think-tanks have been made to literally carve Pakistan into smaller states via a US-funded insurrection in the province of Baluchistan. This is in direct response to Pakistan's growing relationship with China and its increasing defiance against serving American interests in the region.

Globalist scribe Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy has published two pieces regarding the overarching importance of Pakistan in a broader geopolitical context and ways to bring about favorable "change." Harrison's February 2011 piece, "Free Baluchistan," in name alone indicates yet another "freedom movement" contrived and fueled to give a favorable outcome to his corporate-financier patrons. He explicitly calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces."

Harrison would follow up his call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis." He begins by stating, "China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."

Considering that Baluchi rebels are already being funded and armed to wage war inside of Iran, it is more than likely similar aid is being rendered to them to confront the ISI and Pakistan's government. After a recent show of defiance by Pakistan calling on the US to halt all drone operations within its borders, the CIA responded with multiple attacks, the latest of which killed at least 22, including woman and possibly children, seemingly just to spite and incense this reassertion of national sovereignty.

Now, finding "Osama Bin Laden" in the heart of Pakistan's intelligence and military community serves as an overt threat to Pakistan, with cheerleaders like Roggio already waving the accusing finger particularly at the ISI and leaving it for now, to our and Pakistani officials' imaginations as to what the next logical course of action will be.

Pakistan is faced with two choices. Remain complicit with the West as it sets out to dominate the planet to Pakistan's own detriment, or call the United States' bluff - a bluff they have no way of making good on. Life is going to be miserable in Pakistan for the foreseeable future no matter what decision they make as they serve as a point of convergence for the West's designs on Iran, China, and Russia.

Concurrently, while Washington poses as India's ally, the sole purpose of this relationship is to manage the growth of competition in both China and across the entirety of Central and South Asia - including India. Perhaps India as well has been getting cold feet, unwilling to play its part against Pakistan and China, necessitating another convenient precision release from Wikileaks targeting the Indian government for rampant corruption - which in turn has generated an "anti-corruption movement."

While India seems to hope the announcement of Bin Laden's latest death will finally give America the excuse to make a graceful exit from the region, the warmongers who started and perpetuated the war, including FDD, FPI, and propagandists like Bill Roggio suggest it will only serve as an impetus to stay longer and expand operations further. Perhaps now would be a good time for India, Pakistan and China together to abandon this strategy of tension that ultimately serves none of their best interests and eject the West once and for all from their borders and the region as a whole. At the very least, it is most certainly time for individuals to claim back their personal and national sovereignty from a ruling elite that has clearly lost its mind.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/bin ... d-war.html

State Dept Tries To Hide Its Funding Syrian Opposition

Monday, May 2, 2011

Syria Attempts to Break Free

More reports of armed gangs, snipers, and dead Syrian security forces.

Bangkok, Thailand May 2, 2011 - As the media circus over Bin Laden's latest reported death just begins to set up camp, Syria is still fighting desperately against an admittedly foreign-funded campaign of sedition and unrest. Meanwhile, the West is attempting to increase pressure on Syria via sanctions and by expanding support for further intervention.

Syrian security forces have recently overrun the city of Deraa claimed to be the "cradle" of the "pro-democracy" protests. The operation coincides with widespread arrests and an amnesty offer by the Assad government for protest leaders to turn themselves in to avoid prosecution. Perhaps fearing order will ultimately be restored, the West has increased pressure on the Arab League to "take a stance" against Syria's crackdown.

While the corporate owned media continues to rely on "rights groups" and their "witness accounts," most of which are admittedly being funded, directed, and equipped by the US, Syria's state news service SANA has reported that on Monday the army "tracked down terrorist groups that have terrorized civilians and killed 10 of its members and arrested 499 of them." SANA also reported that security forces "killed five snipers who were shooting at pedestrians."

This concurs with earlier reports and an increasing amount of evidence that suggests, just as in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and last year in Thailand, the foreign-funded "pro-democracy" protesters are serving as unwitting fodder for armed militants and provocateur gunmen.


It should be noted that in Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report, the option of providing military support for US-sparked "popular revolutions" was not only considered, but deemed as an absolute necessity for nations with fully functioning and competent security forces. The combination of popular revolution, insurgency, and inviting a military coup were all discussed and suggested for use in tandem. Undeniably this formula, despite being fashioned for Iran, has served as a template for the entire "Arab Spring."

The report states, "as far as the regime change options themselves, an American administration might choose to pursue all three of the specific routes—popular revolution, insurgency, and coup—on the grounds that doing so would increase the likelihood that one of them will succeed. Moreover, employing all three simultaneously might create helpful synergies among them. For instance, if the regime becomes bogged down fighting various insurgencies, Iranian military officers might become convinced that the leadership must be replaced and that there is an opportunity to do so."

It continues by specifically mentioning the use of military aid to perpetuate popular revolutions by stating, "consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it." In Libya, quite obviously this has been done on record, and emerging evidence suggests that it is now being done in Syria.

Syrian unrest is admittedly US-funded

Syria has long been slated for regime change. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton, would add Syria to the growing "Axis of Evil." It would be later revealed that Bolton's threats against Syria would manifest themselves as covert funding and support for opposition groups inside of Syria spanning both the Bush and Obama administrations.

In a recent CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, "We're not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we're trying to do in countries around the globe. What's different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people."

Toner's remarks come after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 under the Bush administration and was continued under Obama. As we can see, the campaign against Syria transcended presidential administrations for nearly two decades.

In a recent AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."

The West, perhaps seeing their window of opportunity closing, has become overtly aggressive in both their ongoing military campaign in Libya and their attempted military intervention in Syria. Indeed, calls have increased to exact a similar intervention against Assad that is currently unfolding against Libya's Qaddafi. All of this must be seen within the greater context of the admittedly foreign-funded and engineered "Arab Spring," and the greater campaign unfolding against Moscow, Beijing, and their peripheries.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/syr ... -free.html