If Raymond Davis is Freed, Islamabad Will Not Be Forgiven

The anger in Pakistan over the arrest and detention of U.S. Consulate employee Raymond Davis seems boundless. According to this editorial from Pakistan’s Frontier Post, if the country’s leadership is seen as caving into Washington and frees Davis, who killed two and caused the death of a third person in Lahore last week, President Zardari’s future is likely to be most unpleasant.
Frontier Post

Pakistan anger knows few bounds in the case of U.S. Consulate

employee Raymond Davis. All sides agree that he shot and killed

two people there last week, and a third was killed by Consulate

employees speeding to the scene of the shooting.


“If Musharraf turned Pakistan into a sprawling game park

for American adventurers, President Zardari has turned it

into a Wild West where cowboy Yankees can poach.”

This couldn’t be a slip-up by Fauzia Wahab, the information secretary of the [ruling] Pakistan Peoples Party: She read out the relevant passages of the Vienna Conventions to establish that American double murderer Raymond Davis enjoys diplomatic immunity. After all, she couldn’t be so naïve as to mistakenly issue such a categorical assertion on such a sensitive issue. There was obviously a method to her madness. Hers was unmistakably a choreographed act: she would make the statement, and then the movers and shakers would immediately jump in, refuting her pronouncement and asserting that neither was it her party’s stance nor that of the government’s. The clear intent was to sound out public opinion on releasing the American double killer.

Right:  Spokeswoman for the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party, Fauzia Wahab: Her assertion that American Raymond Davis is protected by the Vienna Conventions may have made her the most despised woman in the country. Fauzia Wahab has in the meanwhile been removed from her current post as secretary information, Pakistan peoples Party.


But why is the Islamabad leadership so hell-bent on playing with fire? The issue is clearly an emotional one, charged with boiling public sentiment. If the slayer is let off under some ruse, such as a contrived diplomatic immunity, public anger will in all likelihood burst into a storm, to the great woe of the leadership. Now that the case is before the courts, Islamabad must l forego any hanky-panky in their own interest and let them decide.

A court decision, whatever it is, will be accepted by the people, though if Davis is freed – grudgingly. Already, the public is greatly frustrated by the leadership’s not-so-deft moves to somehow set the American slayer free. They’ve shown no regard for the grief of the families of the two Pakistani nationals whom he put to death, let alone the third unfortunate victim. That man, who the slayer’s pals crushed under the speeding wheels of their vehicles, has become a forgotten nonentity, even to our own politicos, media and commentators who are playing to the gallery.

Despite his admittedly heinous crime of double murder, the Americans are so concerned about their citizen that they have employed every type of bullying, blackmail and coercion. Seeing that, it really hurts to watch our leaders show no such concern, let alone compassion or sympathy, for our own dead. As was previously pointed out, one of the victims has been forgotten by our politicians and media celebrities, his death disregarded as though he were a worm crushed underfoot, and the widow of another has taken her life in despair.

But why are our leaders so intent on burning every boat and committing themselves to uncertain shores? History shows that Americans are always the first to jump a sinking ship. For 30 years, Hosni Mubarak played their errand boy in the Middle East. Despite that, they batted not an eye at abandoning him once they found the going rough in the face of his people’s popular revolt. For decades, the Shah of Iran was their blue-eyed boy and much-eulogized hatchet man in the region. But when the crunch came and a furious people’s revolution overthrew him, they refused to grant him asylum and left him seeking refuge in Morocco, the Bahamas and Panama, only to die in Egypt.

Here in Pakistan, although he was their servile lackey, when Americans found he had turned into a liability, they turned away from Pervez Musharraf. If conditions take a similar turn, which they certainly will if our leaders continues to slap our own people to earn America’s favor, will the results be any different? Going even further than Musharraf in this frailty, the servility that the government humiliatingly shows Americans has lost them much of our people’s respect and credibility. If Musharraf turned Pakistan into a sprawling game park for American adventurers, President Zardari has turned it into a Wild West where cowboy Yankees can poach. To our people’s great anger, their adventurous exploits here have witnessed phenomenal growth under Zardari’s watch.

If Zardari earns the people’s scorn and indignation by acting outside the law of our land by releasing the murderer Davis to please America in the short term, he may rue it later. Doing so may also place him in a very difficult confrontation with the judiciary. He would do well to sit back and let the courts rule.

Related Stories

1. New U.S. Study – The Taliban have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda 1/4 2. New U.S. Study – The Taliban have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda 2/4 3. NEW U.S. STUDY – The Taliban have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda 3/4 4. NEW U.S. STUDY – The Taliban have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda 4/4 5. What was Raymond Davis Shooting for in Lahore? 6. One Rule for Foreign Consulates in the US, Another for US Consulates Abroad 7. Raymond Davis Affair: Deeper than you think–and profound repercussions 8. American Adjudication…The Rule of Law…or the Law of the Rulers 9. The Deepening Mystery of Raymond Davis and Two Slain Pakistani Motorcyclists 10. Raymond Davis Case: Obama Fires Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Qureshi 11. Pakistan: walking a tightrope 12. Raymond Davis, Murder and Vienna Convention 1961 13. The (Very) Strange Case of Raymond Davis 14. Senators oppose US gunman`s release 15. Raymond Davis Incident
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.



The UN report is a time bomb

Bhutto, the first woman to become prime minister of a Muslim country, was killed on December 27, 2007 in a gun and suicide attack just after she had addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi, a garrison city near the capital Islamabad.



First a warning  note from Peter Chamberlin of There are no sunglasses weblog.

[The following report is dead-on accurate about the real dangers to Pakistan that the UN Bhutto Report might create in the near future.  When the time comes to quit playing nice, the United States will use the report in the UN to gain authorization from the Security Council for the use of military force, under Chapter VII authority.
“A Security Council Resolution is considered to be ‘a Chapter VII resolution’ if it makes an explicit determination that the situation under consideration constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and/or explicitly or implicitly states that the Council is acting under Chapter VII in the adoption of some or all operative paragraphs.”
This will give the planned invasion of Pakistan the appearance of legitimacy.  The “Establishment” of Pakistan will officially be branded as “state sponsors” of terrorism.  (Think of Radovan Karadzic.) If the people of Pakistan have any real hope of avoiding or surviving the planned onslaught it will be by quickly standing-up real leaders who will defend your country from the parasitic Establishment.]

Shafqat Mahmood


The drone attacks in the tribal areas have picked up since the Faisal Shahzad episode, as has the rhetoric from the United States. Attorney General Holder found a Pakistani Taliban link and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked of severe consequences had the attack materialised.

These statements were tempered by the US military that, playing the good cop, praised Pakistan for its vital role in the Afghan conflict. Ambassador Holbrooke also tried to fudge the issue by suggesting that Clinton’s statement had been misinterpreted.

Whatever the real nature of the signals emanating from the US, one thing is clear. The botched Times Square bombing have reinforced negative perceptions in the West about Pakistan.

Coming on the heels of the media hype in India after Ajmal Kasab’s conviction, it puts not just a few criminals but the entire country in the dock.

Those in Pakistan always looking for a conspiracy are having a field day. Their prognosis is that ground is being prepared for an invasion. These dire predictions have been reinforced by veiled suggestions from the US that American ground forces may indeed penetrate into this country.

While this seems unlikely, the propaganda unleashed against Pakistan is a cause for alarm. Recent history of Western incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq indicates that negative reports about these countries were used as a basis to seek UN Security Council resolutions to justify an invasion.

In this day and age, international approval for an invasion by a super power is necessary. This is facilitated if there is enough negative material to paint the target country black. Or, even better, if there is a report by a recognised international body that has prima facie authenticity.

It is in this context that the report by the UN Commission on Benazir Bhutto’s murder becomes relevant to Pakistan’s current predicament. It accuses Pakistani state organs, or elements within, of having links with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It suggests they were used by the Pakistani “Establishment” for assisting insurgency in Indian-held Kashmir. And it alleges a connection between organisations involved in cross border terrorism and Pakistani intelligence.

Though the Commission’s terms of reference were narrowly defined–to determine facts and circumstances of the assassination–it chose to go far beyond that. In a style reminiscent of investigative journalism, it went into Pakistan’s history, its political culture, the role of the establishment, and drew conclusions without substantiating anything. It did not indicate who was interviewed, what method of inquiry it had devised for itself and why it came to certain determinations.

These were serious lapses, as pointed out by leading lawyer Ahmer Bilal Sufi in a TV interview with Talat Hussain. The Commission was akin to a court of inquiry and its conclusions amounted to a judgement. Anything that it said had to be substantiated and backed by testimony. It did not have the luxury of vague hypothesis or veiled allusions.

It is important to remember that it is one thing for charges to fly to and fro in Pakistan about the establishment. Ever since the military became involved in politics, this has become an essential part of the Pakistani political lexicon.

But this report of the UN Commission is not for the Pakistani government or a part of the Pakistani political give-and-take. It has been submitted to the UN secretary general and is part of the Security Council archives. Any determinations that it has made can and will be used against Pakistan if and when the time is ripe.


It would also be important to remember that before the US invasion of Iraq a team of UN inspectors had been sent in to find out whether the country had an active nuclear programme. Their report was to be used for a Security Council resolution that would authorise an invasion. In the end, it did not come to that because the Inspectors were expelled by Iraq. But this in itself became a pretext.

Thus, UN reports are not some run-of-the mill documents. They are like a ticking bomb that can explode when the time is ripe. It is for this reason that the conclusions drawn by the Commission are so potentially damaging for Pakistan.

It first defines the establishment as the military high command and the intelligence agencies, plus leaders of some political parties, top bureaucrats and business people. In other words, the entire slice of the Pakistani ruling elite. It then accuses it of a variety of crimes.

In the case of Benazir Bhutto murder, it says: “Many sources interviewed by the Commission believe that the Establishment was threatened by the possibility of Ms Bhutto’s return to high public office and that it was involved in or bears some responsibility for her assassination.”

Talking about the Taliban connection, it says that “these elements (within the military) included, in particular, those who retain links with radical Islamists, especially the militant jihadi and Taliban groups and are sympathetic to their cause, or view them as strategic assets for asserting Pakistan’s role in the region.”

And on cross-border terrorist organisations: “The Pakistani military and ISI also used and supported some of these groups (Punjab-based jihadi organisations) in the Kashmir insurgency after 1989. The bulk of the anti-Indian activity was and still remains the work of groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has close ties with the ISI.” This last assertion is damning in the context of the Mumbai massacre.

No concrete evidence has, of course, been adduced to support these conclusions. These assertions are the normal stuff of hearsay that is prevalent in the media, but not enough for a UN commission report. As A G Noorani has observed in his article for the Frontline magazine in India, “the issue is not whether the assessments, the conjectures, ‘the hypotheses,’ and the homilies are sound or not. The issue is starkly simple. Such passages do not belong to the report of a UN inquiry, let alone one on a murder.”

I will not go into the reasons why Mr. Zardari was insistent on a UN Commission to investigate the assassination. Whether this was done deliberately to malign the military or not is a topic for another discussion. What concerns me is the time bomb ticking in UN Security Council archives. Are we going to let it remain there without a challenge?

There is only one answer. We cannot. The government has to write a strongly worded rejoinder to the conclusions drawn by the Commission regarding Pakistani state institutions. Whether any reply is received or not, whether the report is amended or not, we must place on record our objections. This is the only way to protect Pakistan’s national interest.

If this is not done, the government will be complicit in jeopardizing Pakistan’s future.


The writer is a former ambassador of the Pakistan Foreign Service. He can be contacted at his Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
Source: There are no sunglasses
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. Constraints include comments judged to be in violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.

Cry, The beloved Pakistan

Governance in Pakistan ‘Corruption is thy name!



by Roedad Khan


At length Corruption, like a general Flood,

(so long by watchful ministers withstood),

Shall deluge all’


Citizens! Our country is in grave danger. 62 years after Mr. Jinnah gave us a great country, little men, mired in corruption, hijacked it and destroyed Jinnah’s legacy.

In this country, nothing has so altered the fortunes of so many people so suddenly as political power. Here money and power seek each other. No wonder, the business of politics attracts the scum of the community and a legion of scoundrels.
In the name of democracy, unspeakable sins are committed. 

The highway robbers called thugs in 19th century India have reincarnated in the Pakistani capital which abounds with looters in every corridor of power these days.


These practitioners of the art of grand larceny, loot, and plunder in broad day light, with no fear of accountability, reminiscent of the situation in the early 19th century in India when highway robbers, professional dacoits, and assassins or thugs, as they were called, travelled in gangs in the darkness of the night throughout Central India and when a favourable opportunity occurred, strangled unsuspecting wayfarers by throwing a handkerchief or noose round their necks and then plundered and buried them.

The country was rid of this evil only when Captain Sleeman hanged over 400 members of this confederacy of robbers. The people of Hindustan heaved a sigh of relief and welcomed the Raj. What is distressing is that mega corruption has reached the summit of power in this country and is acquiring an aspect of high respectability and great social distinction.

“If a ruler trips”, Churchill wrote, “He must be sustained. If he makes mistakes, he must be covered. If he sleeps, he must not be wantonly disturbed. But if he is no good, he must be pole-axed”. And, let me hasten to add, if he is corrupt, if he has looted and plundered the wealth of his country while million starve, he must be tried in an open court and given exemplary punishment.

A year ago, Zardari was anointed, as the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, literally behind the coffin of his wife, only to find the reins of power slipping from his grasp just as his moment in history arrived. He has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. With Zardari in the Presidency, one doesn’t have to read the tea leaves for a glimpse of our future. I fear for thee, my country.

All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but no elected president in history has fallen this far this fast. All Presidents are opposed, of course, and many are disliked; but few suffer widespread attacks on their personal integrity or veracity. President Zardari is one of those few. He knows well the man responsible for the trouble he is in. He looks at him everyday while shaving.

A year after he captured the Presidency, Mr. Zardari has lost his “mandate of heaven”. His Presidency is collapsing all around us; the wolf is at the door. At a time when leadership is desperately needed to cope with matters of vital importance to the very survival of the country, Pakistan is led by a President, who lacks both credibility and integrity. If you came up with ten words to describe Zardari, integrity and credibility would not be two. What is worse, he seems oblivious to the realities of his awesome responsibilities and is only interested in perpetuating himself and amassing wealth.

No corrupt authoritarian ruler can afford a free press or an independent judiciary. No wonder, both are under attack in this country. Zardari has openly challenged the Supreme Court, the Guardian of the Constitution, the defender of all our liberties. He has betrayed his oath to uphold the Constitution. At a time when his fortunes have sunk to their lowest and his foes picture him as a man consumed by rancor and determined on revenge, his reluctance to implement the landmark Supreme Court judgment, and his plan to pack the superior courts have aroused the anger and disgust of the people.

It is hard to exaggerate the baleful impact of Zardari’s rule: the oligarch and the mafia who have stolen away every asset of any value, the inflation that has ruined the middle class and the poor, the corruption that has corroded all values and humiliated every decent citizen; and the insecurities that have filled everyone with fear and anxiety. What will become of poor Pakistan? “What the end will be”, Carlyle wrote, “is known to no mortal; that the end is near all mortals may know”.

[Its not corruption when we do it, says the poster, no wonder a PPP minister felt no shame when he openly admitted  in a TV appearance. “The others too have done corruption, so what if we do as well”].

Henry Adams once wrote that the essence of leadership in the Presidency is “a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek”. President Zardari grasped the helm more then a year ago but the country still doesn’t know whether he has an inner compass, or a course to steer or a port to seek. It is now abundantly clear that Zardari is not worthy of the trust placed in him by his people. He carries a serious baggage, dogged for years by charges of corruption until they were abruptly dropped under NRO. No democrat should come to power through such an array of backroom machinations, deals with Generals or Washington. No wonder, too many people reject his political legitimacy.

Today the nation is clearly at a fork in the road. We can follow the line of least resistance, turn a blind eye to all that Zardari is doing and continue to follow the road that has led us to where we are today. Or we can choose the other road. We don’t need pitchforks and guns. If parliament is unable or unwilling to respond to public demands and declines to defend the Constitution and support the Supreme Court, people will, perforce, take the issue to the Parliament of Man, the parliament of the streets, as they have done in the past.

If people want a change, they will have to vote with their bodies and keep voting in the streets – over and over and over. A regime like this, which is defying the Supreme Court, can only be brought down or changed if enough people vote in the streets. This is what the regime fears most, because it either has to shoot its people or quit.

In a recent TV interview President Zardari associated me with “the Establishment”, a curious observation that can be explained only by Zardari himself. What seem to have aroused his ire is that in pursuit of my rights as a free citizen of Pakistan, no longer constrained by government service rules, I have, from time to time, made public expression of my concern over the serious charges of corruption that have been leveled against Zardari, at home and abroad. I also had the privilege of moving a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of a deplorable legislation, not because I had an animus against any particular person. Nor did I stand to personally gain anything. I did so because, as a citizen, I felt it my duty to challenge such an iniquity being imposed on millions of my fellow citizens.

I have publicly denounced the policies of General Musharraf in print and electronic media when he was at the peak of power. I have participated in rallies and demonstrations for the independence of the media and the restoration of Chief Justice and other deposed Judges. Today I can say with great pride: I was there. I was there.

Mr. Zardari’s statement associating me with “the Establishment” is therefore utterly baseless. I shall continue to exercise my right of free expression and association, as I have done in the past. All I want is that justice be done without fear and favour. Nothing shall deter me from following this course of action. As the Chief Prosecutor for the United States at the Nuremberg trials, Robert Jackson warned: “law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power”. “Fiat justitia Ruat coelum”, (let justice be done if the heavens fall). Heaven won’t fall. That is for sure. It will be morning once again in Pakistan.

I end this article with the profound observations of a great philosopher, which are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago.

“The Ruler must be careful about his own virtue. Possessing the virtue will give him the people. Possessing the people will give him territory. Possessing the territory will give him wealth. Possessing the wealth, he will have resources for his expenditure. Virtue is the root, wealth is its branches. If the ruler makes the root his secondary object and the branches his first, he will only anger the people and teach them dishonesty. Hence, the accumulation of wealth is the way to disintegrate the people, and the distribution of wealth is the way to consolidate the people. Likewise, when his words are not in accord with that which is right, they will come back to him in the same way, and wealth got by improper means will leave him by the same road”.


Source: text. roedadkhan.com image. industry.bnet.com/…/
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. Constraints include comments judged to be in violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.

Democracy in Pakistan

Elections are an important virtue of government, but they are not the only virtue. Democracy does not end with the ballot, it begins there.
Governments should be judged by yardsticks related to constitutional liberalism as well. Despite the limited political choice they offer, countries like Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand provide a better environment for the life, liberty and happiness of their citizens than do illiberal, sham, democracies like Slovakia, Ghana and Pakistan under their elected governments.
Constitutional Liberalism has led to democracy everywhere, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism. In fact, democratically elected regimes in the third world generally ignore constitutional limits on their powers, deprive the citizens of their basic rights and freedoms and, in the process, open the door to military rule as has happened several times in Pakistan.



by Roedad Khan


In the West, democracy means liberal democracy – a political system, prevailing in a free and independent country, marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by Rule of Law, separation of powers, independent judiciary, the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, sanctity of contract and property etc.

This bundle of freedoms called constitutional liberalism – is not synonymous with democracy and is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. For much of modern history what characterized governments in Europe and North America, and differentiated them from those around the world, was not democracy but constitutional liberalism. Magna Carta, Rule of Law, Habeas Corpus, are all expressions of constitutional liberalism not democracy. During the 19th century most European countries went through the phase of liberalization long before they became democratic. (more…)

9/11 and Mumabi Attacks were “Inside” Jobs (Part 1)


Pakistan’s former ISI Chief General Hamid Gul talks to ALEX JONES

Alex Jones: Well, ladies & gentlemen, out of the gates, we have Gen. Hamid Gul, and of course he was the head of Pakistani intelligence ISI back in the 1980’s, he went on CNN on one of their international programs and talked about the fact that he believed 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Mumbai attacks, formerly Bombay, were also an inside job.

Mumbai Attacks, an inside job

As you know, we have detailed that that was a False Flag attack, carried out by western intelligence, clearly, in India, as a pretext to start World War III between the two nations. There were also calls, the Pakistani government said were officially made, confirmed with the phone records, from the Indian Foreign Ministry, saying “we are going to attack you”, attempting to trick the Pakistanis into launching some type of attack, and that almost happened.

So, for the next thirty minutes I’m very honored to be joined by Gen. Hamid Gul, and General, joining us from Pakistan, thank you so much for coming on with us today.

Hamid Gul: You are welcome.

Alex Jones: Uh, just out of the gates, I was told by your son that you were not happy with the CNN interview, that they edited you. So, you’ve got the floor, sir. We’re not going to edit you. You are live, so tell the world what is really going on.

Hamid Gul: Well, at the moment, we have to look at this human — great human tragedy that took place in Bombay. I sympathize with India; they’ve been rocked very badly. And their response was a bit nervous. They want to go to war with Pakistan if Pakistan does not behave or does not hand over whoever they want from us. They have given a list of people.

But I think that there has been a long record of the Indians accusing Pakistan whenever something like this happens, and in the past they have turned out to be every time wrong. Of course Pakistan is willing to cooperate. And I think that is a very good position that President Zardari has taken, that “you provide the evidence and we will try them out; we will arrest them we will put them to trial, and you can come and watch, see, and let the international cameras come and see. And there shall be a transparent, open trial, and if that does not satisfy you, then what else will?”

So, this is the situation where we stand today: there is an ominous tack from India, and America seems to be partly patting them on the back, and asking Pakistan to do whatever India is demanding. Now this is an unfair position, because India is not like America. America demanded from Pakistan back in — after 9/11 to cooperate and hand over anybody that Pakistan could lay their hands on. Seven hundred or so people were caught in Pakistan, they were sent to Guantanamo Bay, to Baghram and to Kandahar jail. And nothing came out — Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was the only one who was tried in that case: all others have been let off.

So, to get innocent people like that, just because you accuse them, and you don’t even provide the evidence, you pick them up and shove them in jails, this is not on [misses ]. I think that this belittles the values that particularly democracies uphold, and they talk so much about. And so I think that my son-in-law putted it good enough, and today Pakistan backed down on some of the defunct organizations — in fact these were banned in the year 2002, immediately after 9/11, but there could be some maverick elements among them who would still — I won’t rule out, could carry out uhhh [bumper music begins in background]— in — uh, on their own or in conjunction with some other forces [“partic”??] that kind of atrocities. But we have to wait and see, how it goes.

Alex Jones: OK, Mr. — uh, Mr. Gul, General Hamid Gul, please stay with us. We’re gonna break and come back in a long segment, uh, plenty of time for you to break down what’s going on, the serious tensions, uh being, un being risen due to what happened a few weeks ago in India. Please stay with us.

Alex Jones: Reading from Wikipedia, “General Hamid Gul, served as director general of Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence, ISI, during ‘87-’89, mainly in the time when Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan. He was instrumental in the anti-Soviet support of the mujahideen in the Afghan War, ‘79 to ‘89, a pivotal time during the Cold War, and the estab — ” and it goes on. And we have him on line with us. We of course yesterday played the CNN, uh, TV interview that he did. This is live, and is not edited. Going back to him in Pakistan we’ve tried three different lines, this is the best one we have, we apologize our audio is not very loud to him, not very audible, and his back to us is very, very broken up. But we nevertheless have him joining us, we’re very thankful.

9/11 too, was an inside job, says the General & explains, how!

Uh, sir, continuing, on the CNN program, at least what they edited you to say, you talked about 9/11, the evidence being that nine eleven was an inside job, and the attacks in Bombay, now Mumbai, of a few weeks ago, that the evidence was, it was an inside job. Can you go over the evidence that you believe that these were
False Flag events, sir, and why these False Flag events are being staged.

Hamid Gul: Are you talking about 9/11?

Alex Jones: Yes, sir.

Hamid Gul: Well, I have my own reasons, you know, Rod Nordland was the CNN reporter here, I think he was based in Islamabad at that time, and he came to me immediately after 9/11, and his version that, uh, that I put out, it was given to the Newsweek, and unfortunately it was blocked, but it appeared on the internet, on the website of the Newsweek. And you can see it, I think it is dated 16th or 17th of September, 2001. [Note: the article is Prejudice In Pakistan: Why Is Islamabad Reluctant To Pressure Neighboring Afghanistan Into Turning Over Osama Bin Laden?, by Rod Nordland, dated 9/14/2001].

And in that I had said the same thing, and I still maintain that that’s my position. I have [“seven”??] reasons for it:

a. that 9/11 took place on the American soil, not a single person has been caught inside America, even though for doing such a job I think a huge amount of logistic support is required in the area where such operation is carried out.

b. Secondly, the air traffic control, when they saw the four aircraft were changing direction — going from east coast to west coast where they were headed, they started traveling in different directions. And it is quite amazing that for a very long period of time the air traffic control did not report this, nor did the US Air Force act in time. If, er, one were to calculate from the first flight, when it took off from Logan, till the first aircraft, and the solitary aircraft that took off was an F16 that took off from Langley, which is CIA headquarters, instead of one of the operational bases. So many of them are available in that area. And then a single aircraft never takes off, because we have been told that whenever the aircraft scramble they scramble in twos. And the time that it took was enormous. It took a hundred and twelve minutes! A hundred twelve minutes is a very long time in which to react. Was the US Air Force sleeping? And if it was sleeping, which heads will roll?

c. Second [NB: his third point] it was a huge intelligence failure, and no heads have been rolled, nobody has been taken to task, not a single person has resigned for this.

d. Thirdly, the air traffic control should have been rehashed, they should have been turned inside out, but nothing of the sort happened.

e. And finally, how come this is a coincidence that all transponders did not work, and it is not possible — and the direction is changed and it is not noticed?

f. Secondly, the US Air Force has the ability, because in the past whenever a plane has been hijacked, the record is that within seven minutes the US aircraft has been on the wing of the hijacked aircraft. In this case it — uh, it did not happen. The US alert system is so high, and it is so sophisticated, that if a missile were to take off from Moscow, and were to head toward New York, it takes about eighty minutes. And the US Air Force, and the missile systems, is supposed to intercept it within nine minutes — that means only Atlantic: around the Pacific it must stop that missile from coming in.

The system is in place, but it didn’t work, and nobody tried to question this.

g. Lastly, no inquiry has so far been held formally into the incident, and the whole world has been turned upside down, so many people have been killed, the American economy is going into a meltdown, and everything is gone wrong with the world, and yet no formal inquiry has been ordered by the US government. So I really don’t know. There are so many questions which hang in the balance.

h. And then to top it all, they say that [Obama Hamodu??(Hani Hanjour)] took the training by light aircraft in the army for six months, he could have maneuvered a jumbo 745 — uh, 757 from a height where it was traveling — that height was 9,000, and it came within seconds to a height of 1000, and then went straight into its target. Now this is not possible for a person who has been trained on a light aircraft to be able to do this.

Alex Jones: Yes, sir.

Hamid Gul: And there is no mention of the second aircraft, and so there are a number of things which remain unanswered.

Alex Jones: Yes, sir.

Hamid Gul: Whenever the journalists come, and visit me here, and I ask them these questions, that “why haven’t you taken the answers about this?”, and they say that “Patriotic Act comes in the way”, and we are not supposed to ask that question”.

Alex Jones: General — we are talking to General Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistani ISI, during the key period of fighting the Russians, he was also, before he was the head of ISI, one of the chiefs according to our media, running operations against the Russians. And of course working with the United States closely, as well as the Saudi Arabians, and the British. Y’know, if that’s incorrect, correct me.

And staging 9/11 has its motives

Uh, General Gul, what are the motives? We have the PNAC, with Dick Cheney saying we need a Pearl Harbor event, we have 44,000 US troops massing in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the days before 9/11, we have Bush on September 10, Newsweek reported ordering the launch of attacks the next week, we have, of course, the buildings being blown up with explosives, and all of the witnesses to that, now the government admits that Building 7 did fall in freefall, was not hit by a plane — specifically, sir, motives. Why would the Military Industrial Complex controlling the United States, why would they stage a 9/11 attack?

Hamid Gul: Well, I think there’s also the Cold War, when the — Reaganomics it was known as, the inflation was very high, and, domestic issues had to be addressed, but, uh, Bill Clinton, [two and hammose??] they really amassed a lot of money, American economy went booming, and he left a lot of money, and the — hard boys, Cold Warriors, when they came in they — they found that the situation was ready, they had money and they had resources, and they looked upon the conquest of the world, for which there was an opportunity window.

The Muslim world was lying prostrate, Russia was not still picking up from the — it’s foreign position, China was not ready yet, and therefore they looked upon it as an opportunity to go and do the [forming??]. And in this, I am a soldier, and I know that there has to be a single aim, but they mixed up the aims and they have botched up everything. First they said that they would go into such specific areas where there was no US presence before, as — such as the western Asia and South Asia — South Asia, where there was no American [???] present, and they wanted it there.

They had to keep the Chinese off from getting into the Middle East, they had to lay their hands on the energy tap of the world, which presently lies in the Middle East, but in future it will be in Central Asia, and so Afghanistan is the gateway to Central Asia, and finally to suppress any resistance, particularly which could threaten the state of Israel.

Now that is where they, instead of pursuing the American objectives, they started pursuing the Israeli objectives, and that is where they went wrong. You have to pick out a single aim, that is the first principle of war, and I don’t know why the generals and the politicians of America, they could be so naïve and so ignorant, that they started mixing aims, and they went into this war, without a buildup, without particular preparation, and without the American support behind them.

Because if they had gone to war, and asked for the support of the American people, they would never given them their support. So they had to create a pretext, and this was the pretext that they created.

Alex Jones: General, we’re gonna break in a second, and come back for the final segment. I’m hoping I can get you to stay a little longer, because I want you to speak unedited to the American people and the people of the world. I want to shift gears into Mumbai, what happened in India. Clearly the evidence of even the Indian intelligence chief, as you know, was saying that the Indian government was staging terror attacks on the train, an army captain was caught doing that and arrested, the chief of anti-terror was threatened, he was killed that day when it started in Mumbai, now they have caught an anti-terror police officer giving cell phones to the supposed terrorist that they’re saying came from Pakistan, we know the West is deeply in bed with some of the blocks of the former mujahideen, uh, can you speak to that?


Hamid Gul: Can you hear me — I can’t hear you properly, can you hear me all right?

Alex Jones: Yes, sir, I can hear you. When we come back, we will s  — we will speak to what happened in India. Did you hear that?

Hamid Gul: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Alex Jones: Good. Why they are staging terror attacks there, the evidence of False Flag/Inside Job in India. So when we return after this quick break [music begins] with the former head of Pakistani intelligence, uh, General Hamid Gul, joining us from Pakistan. I am coming to you from Austin, Texas, hence the phone troubles. We will work on those, sir, during the break. My websites of course are InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.com.

Stay with us, we’ll be right back with this exclusive interview.


[bumper music: Leonard Cohen —
Everybody knows the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows — the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost


%d bloggers like this: