US-Saudi Funded Terrorists Sowing Chaos in Pakistan


Fauzia Qurban
Photo: AP Pakistani sister Fauzia Qurban an ethnic Hazara, tries to hold back her tears as she talks about her brother Ali Raza Qurban, at her family home in Quetta, Pakistan.
Brutal sectarian bloodletting has killed hundreds of Shiite Muslims in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and fired a flourishing human smuggling business in the provincial capital of Quetta.
·

Balochistan, Pakistan – long target of Western geopolitical interests, terror wave coincides with Gwadar Port handover to China.

·

QUETTA KILLINGS: ORCHESTRATION FOR A PAKISTAN SPRING?

·

by Tony Cartalucci

·

Quetta, the capital of Pakistan’s southwest Balochistan province, bordering both US-occupied Afghanistan as well as Iran, was the site of a grisly market bombing that has killed over 80 people. According to reports, the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Billed as a “Sunni extremist group,” it instead fits the pattern of global terrorism sponsored by the US, Israel, and their Arab partners Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Why Balochistan? Gwadar in the southwest serves as a Chinese port and the starting point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese territory. The Iranian-Pakistani-Indian pipeline would enter from the west, cross through Balochistan intersecting China’s proposed logistical route to the northern border, and continue on to India. Destabilizing Balochistan would effectively derail the geopolitical aspirations of four nations.

The terrorist Lashkar-e-Jhangvi group was in fact created, according to the BBC, to counter Iran’s Islamic Revolution in the 1980′s, and is still active today. Considering the openly admitted US-Israeli-Saudi plot to use Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups across the Middle East to counter Iran’s influence, it begs the question whether these same interests are funding terrorism in Pakistan to not only counter Iranian-sympathetic Pakistani communities, but to undermine and destabilize Pakistan itself.

THE US -SAUDI GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK

While the United States is close allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is well established that the chief financier of extremist militant groups for the past three decades, including Al-Qaeda, are in fact Saudi Arabia and Qatar. While Qatari state-owned propaganda like Al Jazeera apply a veneer of progressive pro-democracy to its narratives, Qatar itself is involved in arming, funding, and even providing direct military support for sectarian extremists from northern Mali, to Libya, to Syria and beyond. (more…)

Advertisements

A Former Ambassador to Pakistan Speaks Out


Former Ambassador Cameron Munter testified on Capitol Hill before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Sept. 23, 2010. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo).
Mr. Munter had been urging Washington to selectively launch CIA drone strike against militants on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. His rare request, was forwarded to the head of the CIA, who dismissed it.
US officials said Leon Panetta’s decision who was then heading the CIA was driven by anger at Pakistan for imprisoning Raymond Davis for so long and a belief that the militants being targeted were too important to pass up.
The deadly March 17 attack helped send the US-Pakistan relationship into a tailspin from which it did not recover for a long time. Such were the things which led the former ambassador to be relinquished of his job.

·

AMERICA’S FORMER AMBASSADOR TO PAKISTAN TALKS ABOUT HIS BATTLE WITH THE CIA OVER DRONES.

·

by Tara McKelvey

·

Cameron Munter, the former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, looked suntanned, but not rested, as he sat in a Foggy Bottom bar a few blocks from the State Department on a fall evening. He placed an Islamabad Golf baseball cap on the table, a souvenir from a decades-long career that had recently ended in a public flameout.

This past May, it was announced that Munter would be leaving his post. At the time, a State Department spokesman said he had made “a personal decision” to step down. But a few weeks after the announcement, The New York Timesin an article about counterterrorism policyquoted one of Munter’s colleagues saying the ambassador “ didn’t realize his main job was to kill people.”

That didn’t sound like the man I had met several months earlier at a party in Washington—back then, he seemed to relish his job as ambassador. I wondered why Munter’s colleague had said that, and I also wanted to know why he had resigned. He agreed to meet me at a bar to tell his side of the story, explaining that the Times had been wrong about him. It made him sound like a softie, he said, a mischaracterization that he wanted to correct.

Munter—who grew up in Claremont, Calif.—was no stranger to geopolitical hot spots even before he took the Pakistan job. He had been ambassador to Serbia from 2007 to 2009 and later served as deputy chief of mission in Baghdad.

It was Richard Holbrooke, then serving as special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, who initially approached Munter about the ambassadorship to Pakistan. He arrived in Islamabad in October 2010; less than three months later, Holbrooke was admitted to a Washington hospital for heart surgery, and two days after that he was dead. “I miss him every day,” says Munter. “The only reason I took that damn job is because he talked me into it, and then he died.

Holbrooke had handed off an important but tough assignment. For months, the Obama administration’s relations with Pakistan had been in steady decline. Instead of diplomacy, Washington was increasingly employing brass-knuckle techniques, such as threatening to cut back on aid. “When I get calls from the White House, they say, ‘Dial up the pain,’” Munter tells me. “In Islamabad, they don’t respond well to dialing up the pain.”

Soon, Americans and Pakistanis were fighting over the drone program, a contentious issue they had previously worked together on. And this would also become a major source of tension between Munter and Washington officials.

“The use of drones is a good way to fight the war. But you’re going to kill drones if you’re not using them judiciously.”

It wasn’t that Munter was against drone strikes. “We prevented major attacks,” Munter tells me. “To me, that’s my job, and I’m proud we did it.” He also thinks allegations that drone strikes kill civilians are trumped up. “We have people who bring us the bodies of little girls,” he says, stretching out his arms as if he were carrying a small corpse, “and say drones killed them. They’re making it up, or they’re willfully believing lies.”

What Munter did want, however, was a more selective use of drones, coupled with more outreach to the Pakistani government—in short, a bigger emphasis on diplomacy and less reliance on force. “What they’re trying to portray is I’m shocked and horrified, and that’s not my perspective,” he said, referring to The New York Times article. “The use of drones is a good way to fight the war. But you’re going to kill drones if you’re not using them judiciously.” Munter thought the strikes should be carried out in a measured way. “The problem is the political fallout,” he says. “Do you want to win a few battles and lose the war?”

“What is the definition of someone who can be targeted?” I asked. “The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40,” Munter replied. “My feeling is one man’s combatant is another man’s—well, a chump who went to a meeting.”

Munter wanted the ability to sign off on drone strikes—and, when necessary, block them.

Then-CIA director Leon Panetta saw things differently. Munter remembers one particular meeting where they clashed. “He said, ‘I don’t work for you,’ and I said, ‘I don’t work for you,’” the former ambassador recalls. (George Little, a former CIA spokesman who is now at the Pentagon—where Panetta is currently serving as Defense secretary—disputed this account. “I’ve heard these rumors before,” he said. “That’s exactly what this is: rumor. [Panetta] has had productive relationships with Ambassador Munter and other ambassadors with whom he has worked.”)

Tara McKelvey, a 2011 Guggenheim fellow, is a correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. She is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times Book Review and the author of Monstering: Inside America’s Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War (Basic Books).
Source

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

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. 
We do not claim exclusive rights on all articles, images or videos published on this site. The sources we use to create our articles, images, videos etc. are credited with a proper linkback. However, we do host material from unknown authors we receive via mails, from friends and our readers.
If you own copyrights to some material and you want us to remove it from our pages, contact us to claim your ownership and we will either credit you, or if you wish – completely remove the content.

Strategy for the South East China Sea: U.S. Bid for Full Spectrum Global Dominance [5 of 6]



According to reliable sources the countries in Asia that are targeted for ”balkanization” on the basis of ethnic and religious diversity by the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action are: Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, and Sri Lanka.
Other Asian nations that are either being directly or indirectly targeted by Western power brokers, or which are being positioned into conflict with targeted nations include among other, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao, and the Philippines.
·

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ILLEGAL INTRERNATIONAL COURTS & POLITICIZED TRIALS – A PSEUDO-LEGALISTIC POLITICAL WITCH-HUNT & VICTORS JUSTICE

·

by Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann

·

·

Note for WoP readers: In this part of their thesis, the authors describe the strategem adopted by the US and her partners as to how the countries in the developing or even the developed world can be ‘moulded’ to meet the sinister agenda set by the neoconservtives outside the ambit of the White House or of those sitting within Washington’s presidential palace.

The modus operandi of this stratagem is now visible in Pakistan where ethnic, racial, geographical and economic factors are being fomented and then hyped up to achieve the nefarious agenda set by the US and her allies.

The situation is already being exploited on these lines in Pakistan to orchestrate a situation whereby the US controlled UN would be prompted to suggest an humanitarian intervention as has been done in case of Libya and now being implemented in Syria as well.

In particular are the points mentioned under

COMMON DENOMINATORS IN US/NATO SUBVERSION STRATEGIES, THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF IRREGULAR WARFARE AND SUBVERSION

and see for yourself how these subversive strategies are being employed to destabilise different nations in South East and South Asia including Pakistan.

And when I view these points in context of our tribal areas, Karachi and Balochistan, the modus operandi again becomes amply manifest. Its therefore for our policy makers and the leaders to see how they can galvanise the nation to thwart such sinister agendas. I am, however, afraid that henchmen of the west would do everything that would help the planners in Washington to do exactly what they want, for they go according to the Punjabi saying: “Koi maray koi jeeway, Lallo ghol patashay peeway” (whether somebody may die, or may live, “I dont care “). Such attitudionists and our of leaders of the sort whether this country gains or not, would do everything which would let them have their pie and that’s exactly what they want. [Nayyar]

(more…)

Strategy for the South East China Sea: U.S. Bid for Full Spectrum Global Dominance [4 of 6]



The coining of the term “unlawful-combatant” is designed by the US and her allies to try to evade the provisions of the Hague Convention, which clearly specifies that a population has the right to armed resistance against an aggressor’s military forces.
·

THE DETERIORATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION

·

by Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann

·

·

The Geneva Convention xxxiv comprises four treaties and additional three protocols that establish standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of victims and participants of war. It was updated to its current version in 1949, following two wars of global reach and unspeakable violence and it is thus, like the Treaty of Westphalia, a reaction to unspeakable acts of violence and human suffering, that has affected large populations. (more…)

Strategy for the South East China Sea: U.S. Bid for Full Spectrum Global Dominance [3 of 6]


Right after the concept finalization of the Project for a New American Century, practical work on its implementation was started a decade before the 9/11 happened. In the Balkans, soon after the  NATO members cooperated with a wide variety of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden’s Mujahideen, the USA financed, trained, and sent arms to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) which was heavily supported by Al Qaeda brigades and which to a large extend was financed by the Heroin trade and trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe and Northern America. 
·

THE DETERIORATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED IN THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

·

by Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann

·

·

Many of these principles and laws were implemented after unspeakable human suffering. Unless this regression into global barbarism is opposed by all necessary popular, political, diplomatic, economical, legal, and if necessary military means, humanity will descend into a state of global barbarism and unspeakable outrages. The most serious deteriorations over the past two decades are:

THE DETERIORATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ENSHRINED IN THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA AND NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

The treaty of Westphalia xxii was one of the international legal principles that was used as a guideline for the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations and it is by many considered as thé most important principle of international law with respect to the regulation of bi-lateral and multilateral diplomacy and politics. 

RESPONSIBIITY2PROTECT HAS NO MORAL AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION. ITS PURE ‘MIGHT IS RIGHT’

The principle of non-interference into domestic affairs and the principle of national sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter is increasingly being challenged by those who argue, that is the Americans, that the “international community”, again that is the Americans, has a “responsibility to protect” civilians in cases where the government of a sovereign state is not able to protect its citizens, or when the government of a sovereign state is committing severe violations of other principles such as human rights. A resolution that implemented the responsibility to protect was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, in violation of the UN Charter. xxiii

This false responsibility was first termed humanitarian intervention, but it appears that that term could only be used in propaganda when a crisis was already in progress.

The slogan responsibility to protect was coined in order to give this strategy more flexibility so that “intervention” could be used even before the US had succeeded in creating a crisis.

The ”responsibility to protect” (R2P) also had the advantage of claiming to make a moral argument, of course never addressing how the USA came to claim this “responsibility” or why it operates only against its enemies and never its vassals and allies.

Although the guiding arguments for the primacy of human rights and the responsibility to protect “R2P” may sound convincing at first inspection, a closer analysis reveals that the erosion of national sovereignty based on the R2P opens a Pandora´s Box of serious problems.

The first instance where the R2P, which was then still termed humanitarian intervention, was used to override national sovereignty was NATO´s intervention into the internal affairs of Yugoslavia during the Clinton Administration in which the Secretary of State was Madeleine Albright.

It is now a well established and documented fact that the internal conflict in Yugoslavia was initially manufactured by an alliance of Slovenian and Croatian separatists with ties to WWII German National Socialism, with the covert support of the German government and the German Intelligence Service BND xxiv, and the Vatican. The German intelligence service BND provided the first weapons, second-hand Bulgarian AK 47 assault rifles, to Slovenian and Croat separatists.

As the conflict escalated and the country was forced apart along ethnic, and religious lines, the USA and other Western powers became increasingly involved, resulting in NATO´s “intervention” in fact its outright aggression against the Federal Republic, without approval from the United Nations Security Council and in complete violation of the UN Charter and NATO’s own Charter.

NATO member states cooperated with a wide variety of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden’s Mujahideen. xxv The USA financed, trained, and was arming the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) which was heavily supported by Al Qaeda brigades and which to a large extend was financed by the Heroin trade and trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe and Northern America. xxvi, xxvii

The war on and dismemberment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has according to retired French Brigadier General Pierre Marie Gallois been planned and prepared by European powers in unofficial meetings on a farm in Germany since 1976; more than a decade ahead of the first public Slovenian and Croatian demands for secession from Yugoslavia. Brig. Gen. Pierre Marie Gallois was the French representative to these meetings and has disclosed many of the details in a stunning interview. xxviii, xxix

According to Gallois, one of the principle motivating factors for the covert and subsequent overt war on Yugoslavia was that Yugoslavia was the sole Russian ally in the Balkan region and the last functioning socialist state in Europe. Other motivating factors were that Germany wanted to re-establish its geo-political influence in the region which it had lost subsequent to world wars one and two. Yet another factor was to define a post cold war role for NATO. In fact, so the former French Brigadier General, the war on Yugoslavia provided the model for the war on Iraq and subsequent wars.(ibid.) xxx

The sole correlation between the intervention in Yugoslavia and Serbia, and the still ongoing NATO occupation of Kosovo and human rights is, that a humanitarian crisis was cynically manufactured with the intention to create a pretext for a military “intervention” in fact a military attack, based on the “R2P” the claimed responsibility to protect.

The usurpation by the United States of the role of the United Nations by arrogantly claiming to itself this invented responsibility has resulted in the deterioration of the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia and the UN Charter that both guarantee the sovereignty of nations and the concomitant right of the self determination of peoples.

It is is nothing less than western colonialism once again justified by the “white man’s burden”. In a recent article, Dr. Henry Kissinger discussed whether nations like Syria and other Arab nations would at all qualify for protection against interference into their internal affairs under the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia. xxxi

Kissinger argues, that almost all Arab nations, with the exclusion of eventually Iran, Turkey and Egypt, were nations whose borders had been more or less arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers and that it was therefore questionable whether they could be defined as nation states that would be protected by the provisions in the Treaty of Westphalia. Iran, Turkey, and Egypt on the other hand, so Kissinger argues, had a long history as nations.

Lehmann has written an article in response to that of Dr. Kissinger. According to Lehmann, Kissinger´s interpretation is representative of the condescending, ethnocentric, colonialist attitude of Western nations towards countries world wide. It is also symptomatic for the social constructionism that guides Western foreign politics. While Kissinger questions the national sovereignty of almost all Arab nations on the basis that their borders were arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers, he does not mention Israel, whose borders have been arbitrarily drawn by the same former colonial powers. xxxii

Neither does he mention the fact that the United States itself is also an artificial creation resulting from the extermination of the native peoples, the Louisiana Purchase of the south from France in 1803, and Florida from Spain, the War of 1812 against Canada, the war of conquest against Mexico in 1846, the war between two nations the United States and the Confederates states, known as the Civil War in the 1860s and the artificial extensions into Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

The most recent example of a successful abuse of the erosion of national sovereignty under the pretense of a manufactured Responsibility to Protect is NATO´s abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya. xxxiii

It can be argued that this Resolution never existed as the UN Charter requires that resolutions have the concurring votes of all permanent members of the Security Council. Russia and China abstained. An abstention is not a concurrent vote. It may be that Russia and China expected that the abstentions were enough to kill the resolution from being passed. Legally they were correct, but regardless whether Russia and China were taking a calculated Risk, or whether Russia, which was then under the presidency of Medvedyev was trying to appease the USA/NATO, which would have left China to deal with the impact of the US and NATO and GCC member states as well as Israel alone, will only be answered by future historical analysis.

What is certain, however, is that both the Russian and Chinese political leadership must have been aware that even though a UNSC resolution arguably is not legally valid unless all Security Council members vote in favor of it, it is a long established political practice that only a veto is sufficient for blocking an intervention. Since the first Russian, then USSR, abstention on UNSC Resolution 4 (1946) on Spain, an abstention has interpreted as not preventing the adoption of the resolution.

The claim that the USA, France and the UK abused the UN Charter was compounded when the US and its allies exceeded even the terms of their own resolution and conducted a war of aggression against Libya. A repetition of this abuse, directed against Syria, has so far been successfully stopped by Russia and China at the Security Council who since have consequently vetoed resolutions on Syria.

 

Contd…

Next: The Deterioration of the Geneva Convention

Pages  1   2   3  4  5  6

Related Posts: 

1. NATO Tied to Muslim Slaughter at Srebrenica (in two parts)

 Source    Title image

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

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.
We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
%d bloggers like this: