Greetings – 2010


This lonely kingfisher perching on a tree shoot in Jinnah Garden, Lahore, Pakistan sends us all a message that 2010 will indeed be a happy new year, free from terrorism, neo-imperialism, hegemonies, and a world full of cackles from children playing in the open, without any fear of bomb blasts or a suicide attack. That the new year will usher us into a new era of peace and harmony where humanity everywhere in the world will have the chance to do its best in creating a heaven on this not so lonely planet.


Thank you all for another successful though eventful; some very happy, some sad and some terribly ugly events, but this is life. Surrendering to forces of evil and finding some recluse is what those very forces wish us to. But life never stops and forces of good will continue to nurture this world with all their goodness which is its due and therefore we look forward to a brighter, lucrative 2010 with you!
Dearest colleagues, loveliest friends, readers, writers and photographers!
With the New Year peeping around the corner, everybody is feeling the holiday cheer and getting in an auspicious and festive mood. We feel that the holiday is in the air. Every passing day is bringing us closer and closer to the long-awaited peace and harmony promising to give us positive emotions, miraculous experiences and fabulous adventures.
We all get super excited about new goals and horizons this coming year will definitely bring along. When looking ahead to the future with hopes and desires, we reflect on our achievements and proudly say: we have been working very hard and are fully satisfied with what we have achieved.
Yet, our performance would not have been what it is without the support, commitment and talent of our writers and photographers. We owe much of our impressive success to their amazing work, vast experience and profound knowledge. We are tremendously grateful to them all for their unwavering faith in our mission and the very strong link they create with our readers. And dear readers, we are tremendously grateful to you all for your unwavering faith in our mission and the appreciation you have for our content.
May this New Year 2010 bring you and your families all the very best that is out there and all the love and happiness you deserve! May joy and peace fill every day of your life throughout the year and always! We wish you all the success and luck in this world.
We have done a lot of interaction together. We can do still more and even better as friendship and true cooperation are something we cherish in our hearts!

Once again wishing you a Happy New Year.

Photograph: White-throated kingfisher by Nadeem Khawar
Published in: on 31/12/2009 at 10:57 pm  Comments (1)  

America Needs Pakistan’s Help — Again [3 of 5]

Ordinary Americans simply do not know the scope of the current criminality. Americans are not stupid; we’re just badly misinformed—and purposefully so. Our system of informed choice steadily atrophied as a transnational criminal syndicate steadily gained dominance in mainstream media. The depth of this corruption suggests the potential for a dramatic change in U.S. politics as Americans identify its common source. The U.S. and Pakistan share a common enemy in those who are adept at displacing facts with what a targeted population can be deceived to believe. To prevail in this sophisticated form of Information Age warfare, we must fight as allies to rid our nations from the influence of those who would have us hate each other in order to advance their extremist agenda.




by Jeff Gates


The destabilization of Pakistan began with the December 2007 murder of Benazir Bhutto after Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazi biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that her return was “the only possible way we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.” That advice is consistent with how Israel wages game theory warfare.

See: How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare

Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf signed his own political death warrant, when he announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was essential to resolve conflicts in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Should Barack Obama concede the truth of that long-obvious fact, Zionist extremists may well ensure that his presidency is brought to an abrupt end too. (more…)

Imperial U.S. vs Political Islam



by Rodrigue Tremblay


I am as intolerant of imperialistic designs on the part of other nations as I was of such designs on the part of Germany. The choice is between two ideals; on the one hand, the ideal of democracy, which represents the rights of free peoples everywhere to govern themselves, and, the ideal of imperialism which seeks to dominate by force and unjust power, an ideal which is by no means dead and which is earnestly [sought] in many quarters still.

– U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, July 1919
Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.
– The Qur’an (9:5), Islam’s holy book
We are fighting them (the terrorists) over there so that we won’t have to fight them here at home.
– Former U.S. President George W. Bush’s political slogan
I, like any head of state, reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.
– U.S. President Barack Obama, December 10, 2009
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest…and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war.

– Plato, ancient Greek philosopher (428/427-348/347 B.C.)
In the political movie Charlie Wilson’s War about the Soviet-Afghanistan war, the hero states,
“America does not fight religious wars.” Is this possibly wrong, dead wrong?
In fact, is it not possible that since September 11, 2001, a new type of “holy war” may have begun? This time, the new crusade with strong religious overtones pits fundamentalist Christian America and its allies, against political Islam and the Islamist al Qaeda terrorist organization.

On September 16, 2001, then President George W. Bush set the tone when he said: “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is gonna take awhile.”
On December 1, 2009 Nobel “Peace” laureate Barack Obama, president of the United States since January 20, 2009, decided to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, President George W. Bush. He announced a policy of stepping up the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan-Pashtunistan. He announced an escalation in the military occupation of Afghanistan by sending extra American troops in that Muslim country, putting the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan at more than 100,000.
Not satisfied in using the same vocabulary as George W. Bush, Barack Obama pushed the symbolism by adopting Bush’s practice of announcing policies surrounded by more than 4,000 students dressed as soldiers at the West Point Academy. This was all too reminiscent of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s fatal decision in 1965 to acquiesce to the request from U.S. commanders to enlarge the Vietnam war by sending scores of additional U.S. soldiers to that Asiatic country.

America seems to be in a constant need of a foreign enemy. First, it was the British. Then it was the Indigenous peoples. Then it was the Mexicans. Then it was the Spanish. Then it was the Filipinos. Then it was the Japanese. Then it was the Germans. Then it was the Italians. Then it was the Koreans. Then it was the Cubans. Then it was the Vietnamese. Then it was the Soviets. Then it was the Iraqis. Then it was the Islamists. Then it was the Taliban. And, once the current conflict in Pashtunistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan is over, it will possibly be the Iranians, the Chinese, the Russians…etc.!
The reason for such a permanent-war mentality is most likely related to the U.S. military-industrial complex, an enormous beast that must be fed regularly hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, to sustain itself.
In the months following the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the high echelons at the Pentagon were busy designing a new post-cold-war strategy designed to keep the U.S. war machine humming. Paul Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in the George H. Bush administration, wrote a memorandum titled “The Defense Policy Guidance 1992-1994”, which was dated February 18, 1992. The new so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine was a blueprint to “set the nation’s [military] direction for the next century.” This new neocon military doctrine called for the replacement of the policy of “containment” with one of military “preemption” and international “unilateralism”, in effect, discarding the United Nations Charter that forbids such international behavior.
The Pentagon’s overall goal was to establish, through military force, a “one-Superpower World”. The more immediate objectives of the new U.S. neocon doctrine was to “…preserve U.S. and Western access to the [Middle East and Southwest Asia] region’s oil”, and, as stated in an April 16, 1992 addendum, to contribute “to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel’s security”.
Because of some opposition within the U.S. Government, the new policy did not become immediately effective. But the objective remained.
For instance, in September 2000, under the auspices of “The Project for the New American Century”, a new strategic document was issued and was entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Strategy: Forces and Resources For a New Century”. The same goals expressed in the 1992 document were reiterated.
The belief was expressed that the kind of military transformation the (neocon) planners were considering required “some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”, to make it possible to sell the plan to the American public.

They were either very prescient or very lucky, because exactly one year later, they were served with the “New Pearl Harbor” they had been openly hoping for. Indeed, the Islamist terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, turned out to have been a bonanza for the American military-industrial complex. The military planners’ wish for a “New Pearl Harbor”, was fulfilled at the right time.
It is important to remember that from 2001 to 2005, Paul Wolfowitz served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, reporting to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In this capacity, he was well positioned to implement his own Wolfowitz doctrine that later morphed into the George W. Bush Doctrine.
For the time being, this is the “doctrine” that newly-elected President Barack Obama continues to implement in the Pashtunistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan corridor. As a politician, Barack Obama may be new at the job, but the policy he is being asked to implement was crafted long before he even set foot in Washington D.C.
Another possible reason why the United States is so often involved in foreign wars, besides its obvious aim of imposing a New American Empire on the world, may be due to the strong influence of religion in the United States. Just as for some aggressive Islamic countries, the U.S. is also the most religious of all first world countries. Researchers have found strong positive correlations between a nation’s religious belief and high levels of domestic stress and anxiety, and other indicators of social dysfunction such as homicides, the proportion of people incarcerated, infant mortality, drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, teenage births and abortions, corruption, large income inequalities, economic and social insecurity…etc.
It is possible that wars serve as an emotional outlet that allows some Americans to forget about their nation’s domestic problems. I suppose more research would be necessary on this issue. Indeed, is it possible that foreign wars, including wars of aggression, are a way for the American elites to deflect attention from domestic social problems and, as such, are a convenient pretext to direct tax money to defense expenditures rather than to social programs? The issue deserves at least to be raised. This could explain why U.S. foreign policy is so devoid of fundamental morality.
U.S. politicians who become president understand this American proclivity for war. They know that the best way to popularity is to be seen as a “war president”. A president who does not start a war abroad or who does not enlarge one already in progress is open to criticism and is likely to suffer politically. He must be seen less as a president than as “commander-in-chief”, in effect, as an emperor. How could this be, when the framers of the U.S. Constitution attempted precisely to avoid that?
Indeed, Article One (the War Powers Clause) of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, and not the President, the authority to declare war.
Since World War II, however, this central article of the U.S. Constitution has been circumvented by having Congress give the President a blanket authorization to deploy troops abroad for euphemistically called “police actions, without an explicit or formal congressional declaration of war. The term was first used by President Harry S. Truman to describe the Korean War.
This artifice has done a lot to trivialize the act of war. It also contributed much in the transfer of the powers of war and peace from the legislative branch to the executive branch. In doing so, it has reinforced the role of the U.S. president as a commander-in-chief or as a de facto emperor. Only a formal constitutional amendment could restore, in practice, the framers’ initial intent.
All said, it is easy to understand why when political faces change in Washington D.C., policies do not necessarily change. This push toward empire on the part of the United States can also explain why there is resentment and an anti-Americanism movement abroad.
Rodrigue Tremblay is a Canadian economist who lives in Montreal; he can be reached at: Check Dr. Tremblay’s coming book The Code for Global Ethics. Read other articles by Rodrigue, or visit Rodrigue’s website.


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the ‘Wonders of Pakistan’. The contents of this article too are the sole responsibility of the author(s). WoP will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this post.



Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.

Asher Hasan’s message of peace from Pakistan at TEDTalk, India

Asher Hasan’s message of peace from Pakistan at TEDTalk, India

Asher Hasan, CEO of Naya Jeevan who was a TEDIndia Fellow at the TEDIndia conference held in Mysore, Bangalore this November. Asher brilliantly articulated the message of peace from Pakistan within the short 5 minute TED talk, truly Asher did the entire Pakistani delegation proud that afternoon in Mysore.

About this talk

One of a dozen Pakistanis who came to TEDIndia despite security hassles entering the country, TED Fellow Asher Hasan shows photos of ordinary Pakistanis that drive home a profound message for citizens of all nations: look beyond disputes, and see the humanity we share.

About Asher Hasan

Asher Hasan’s social enterprise Naya Jeevan (the name means “new life” in Urdu and Hindi) is the emerging world’s first HMO for the urban, working poor.

Source: TEDIndia Cross posted at
Published in: on 29/12/2009 at 3:50 pm  Comments (1)  

The Truth about America & Pakistan [2 of 5]

Be not deceived by Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name or by the fact that he spent several childhood years in Indonesia. His political career is a product of a Westside Chicago Ashkenazi network with roots that trace directly back to organized crime of the 1920s. Top fundraiser Penny Pritzker traces her family lineage to grandfather Abe and great-grandfather Nicholas who served as lawyers for organized crime. She declined a nomination as Secretary of Commerce in the Obama Cabinet, a post typically offered to top fundraisers. Her confirmation hearings could have proved a political embarrassment by reminding us of the suspect origins of “our” latest president. Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva aptly described this high-profile product of the Chicago Outfit as “the first Jewish president.” Plus his Vice President, only a heartbeat from the reins of power, is the reliably obsequious Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden.



by Jeff Gates


Be not deceived by Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name or by the fact that he spent several childhood years in Indonesia. His political career is a product of a Westside Chicago Ashkenazi network with roots that trace directly back to organized crime of the 1920s. (more…)

%d bloggers like this: