The postwar humanitarian crisis in Gaza takes a turn for the worse with the Israeli Navy intercepting a relief ship headed toward the coastal strip.
A group of 21 activists sailing to Gaza said Tuesday that Israeli forces had threatened to gun down their boat unless they changed direction.
"There is a patrol boat around us and we were told that if we did not turn back they would open fire," Reuters quoted Irish activist Derek Graham as saying.
"We are continuing our course to Gaza," he added.
The Free Gaza Movement activists had left the Cypriot port of Larnaca earlier on Monday to deliver three tons of medical supplies, some tool kits and copper wiring to Gaza.
The activists onboard included an Irish Nobel peace laureate and a former US congresswoman.
Tel Aviv has tightened a blockade on Gaza, which is home to some 1.5 million people, since the democratically elected government of Hamas took power of the strip two years ago.
Israel's consistent blockades have cost Palestinians dearly with unemployment and poverty rates in the territory being amongst the highest in the world.
According to the official statistics agency of the Palestinian Authority, a steady decline is to be expected in the economy of the West Bank and Gaza.
With more than six months after Israel's three-week attack on the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are fighting to survive the acute shortages of fuel, food and medical supplies.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said Friday that Israel's full-scale offensive on Gaza has taken a heavy toll on the territory's agriculture sector and has heightened risks of food insecurity and undernourishment.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Brookings Publication mentions possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation’ to Trigger Iran Invasion
Jurriaan Maessen
Prisonplanet.com
June 29, 2009
In a recent policy paper published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia by the new world order, including bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering by an all-out military assault of Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of the firm intent of the globalists to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources in the same effort.
The group of authors- a cozy little convergence of globalists- contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but is really nothing more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.
To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:
‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’
This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):
‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’
But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favourable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.
‘(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’
Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset. They mean to rally the ‘international community’ through bribery and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.
Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the bravura of their manuscript.
‘We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.’
As the geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:
‘Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’
And exactly in line with their masters tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.
‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’
Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it. Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:
‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’
Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):
‘Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?‘Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:
‘Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.’
The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called ‘Inspiring an Insurgency’, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists lute their nation:
‘The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.’
Isn’t that a familiar sight? Could one way to ‘highlight’ group grievances be to mass distribute the death of a poor woman and then claim it’s all thanks to Twitter?
All this hinting at another false-flag attack underway and prepping the international community for a future invasion of Iran is becoming increasingly serious as the warmongering is being stepped up. This is the time to fix our eyes upon these globalists and their think tanks. If their blatant arrogance permits them to openly publish their bloodthirsty musings, we should be vigilant enough to pass this knowledge around lest we have another 9/11 on our hands.
Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
Prisonplanet.com
June 29, 2009
In a recent policy paper published by the influential Brookings Institute, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia by the new world order, including bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering by an all-out military assault of Iran. The paper ‘Which path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran’ is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of the firm intent of the globalists to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources in the same effort.
The group of authors- a cozy little convergence of globalists- contemplate four separate options on ‘how to deal with Iran’ in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but is really nothing more than the intelligent musings of a calculating psychopath. The first option, ‘Dissuading Tehran’ through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and discarded. The second option, ‘Disarming Tehran’ covers several ways of rallying the ‘international community’ around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, ‘Toppling Tehran’ the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, ‘Deterring Tehran’ the option of ‘containment’ is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.
To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that ‘it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy’, the authors continue with their ‘brainstorming’, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:
‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.’ And further on: ‘To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.’
This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the ‘international community’ around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these ‘unpleasant compromises’, the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):
‘Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.’
But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favourable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.
‘(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.’
Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset. They mean to rally the ‘international community’ through bribery and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.
Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the bravura of their manuscript.
‘We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.’
As the geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:
‘Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’
And exactly in line with their masters tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.
‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’
Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it. Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:
‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’
Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):
‘Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?‘Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:
‘Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.’
The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called ‘Inspiring an Insurgency’, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists lute their nation:
‘The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.’
Isn’t that a familiar sight? Could one way to ‘highlight’ group grievances be to mass distribute the death of a poor woman and then claim it’s all thanks to Twitter?
All this hinting at another false-flag attack underway and prepping the international community for a future invasion of Iran is becoming increasingly serious as the warmongering is being stepped up. This is the time to fix our eyes upon these globalists and their think tanks. If their blatant arrogance permits them to openly publish their bloodthirsty musings, we should be vigilant enough to pass this knowledge around lest we have another 9/11 on our hands.
Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/06_iran_strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
Iran’s Presidential Elections, Islamic Populism and Liberation Theology
by Prof. Akbar E. Torbat
In Iran’s presidential elections, on June 12, 2009, the incumbent president Mahmud Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory. His main contender Mir-Hossein Mousavi could only secure about one third of the votes. The following is an explanation of what has happened and why Ahmadinejad has gained popularity to be reelected despite the Western media showing him differently.
Iran’s Presidential Elections 2009
A day before the election, the Iranian political activist Nasser Zarafshan said “a Ukraine-type velvet revolution” is in the cards to be played by the West in order to dominate Iran. A well financed high-tech campaign using YouTube, Facebook and twitter on the Internet and text messaging communication was underway in Iran. Yet, these means of communication are only known to a small fraction of Iran’s population. In addition, thousands of expensive posters, CDs, and other items prepared by pro-Mousavi green camp quickly flooded the streets of Tehran. The Western Media and especially the Farsi Language television programs such as the Persian BBC and Voice of America had potent impacts on the so called “reformists” or the neoliberal candidates’ supporters, but not Ahmadinejad’s constituencies that are masses not affected by such modern propagandas. The Western media boasted Mousavi’s image without knowing much about who he was. Obviously, he could not be painted as “Iran’s Gandhi” as some Western reporters ridiculously touted. Mousavi is not a charismatic leader and does not have an impressive record. In fact he was an Islamic fanatic when he became prime minster. He helped to shut down the Iranian universities for three years in order to launch the so called “Cultural Revolution”. Also, during his repressive premiership, thousands of Iranian political prisoners were executed. He has been out of politics for about 20 years and has not been socially active. He does not have broad view of what is happening in the world and especially in the neighboring countries.
In this election, behind the scene, the former president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was the key architect of Mousavi’s election campaign and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei backed Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani wishes to dominate the Islamic regime’s political structure replacing the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is at the top echelon of the clerical regime. Rafsanjani is very wealthy and is the most favorite cleric by the West. He does not seem to mind letting the West control Iran’s oil resources in exchange for ruling Iran by himself. In the past, people have called him “King Akbar”. In such situation, if he succeeds, the Islamic Republic could be turned into a Persian Gulf type monarchy or sheikhdom instead of a Western democracy as is dreamed by some Iranian political elites. However, Rafsanjani has been under pressure because of his corruption in arms purchases during Iran-Iraq war and the money he and his family members received to give oil contracts to the French oil company Total and his roles in ordering political assassinations of many of dissidents at home and abroad. Before the elections, Mousavi’s campaign spent conspicuously in the city of Tehran under the banner of Green color. Where he got the money from is an unanswered question.
The Presidential candidates in Iran are vetted by a twelve member body that is called Council of Guardian. In this election only three candidates from within the Islamic regime were selected by the Guardian Council to contest Ahmadinejad; the other nominees were not allowed to run. In the election, the incumbent President faced the last Iranian prime minister, Mir-Hossein Mousavi; a cleric and a former Parliament speaker, Mehdi Karroubi; and a former senior military commander, Mohsen Rezaei. However, none of the three contenders were delivering any new agenda on how to deal with the countries’ problems; they only criticized what the incumbent president had not done well in their view. Nearly 40 million Iranians or 85% of the eligible voters participated in the election. This was the highest turnout in ten presidential elections held in Iran. The official results as announced on June 14 by the Interior Ministry were: Ahmadinejad 24.5 million (63.62%), Mousavi 13.2 million (33.75%), Rezaei 0.67 million (1.73%), and Karroubi 0.33 million (0.85%) of the votes. The invalid votes canceled were 0.40 million (1.4%). The Spokesman for the Interior Ministry Ali Asghar Sharifi-Rad said the results were accurate and the representatives of all candidates had been present at the polling stations and signed off the final tallies.
Disputing the Election Results
Surprisingly, some well known Iranians became tools of Western media propaganda during and after the elections. An Iranian professor at Columbia University, an Iranian academic in the Hoover Institution, and a well known Iranian filmmaker residing in France were among many who jumped the bandwagon to claim the election was rigged. None of them showed any credible evidence to prove how a candidate who had more than 10 million votes compared to his main contender was not legitimately elected. Many filled the media with false claims, saying genuine results could not be declared as fast as they had been by the Iranian media. They misled the public because in reality about 3 hours after the poles were closed, Iranian media started announcing the election results of only 20% of the votes counted, and that was followed with more up-to-date data until the final tallies were announced at a later time. At the end, the announced results in favor of the incumbent were close to what had been predicted by several respected polling agencies (for example see The Washington Post June 15) in the runoff to the elections.
The three candidates who did not have any credible evidence for the alleged rigging asked for annulling the elections from the very beginning. They never wanted a recount because their representatives had been present at the polling stations and had already signed off on the results. They knew the numbers were not on their side as was largely predicted. In the following days, the main contender, Mousavi, brought his supporters to the streets of Tehran, the only major city he had won, to pressure the regime for annulling the results. This did not prevent millions of Iranians from coming out to the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities to express their support for the status quo versus the West campaign to put its most favorite candidate who was Rafsanjani’s proxy in power. After a few days of protests in the streets of Tehran in which a number of people were killed; on June 19 in a powerful speech at Tehran University, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei called for an end to street protests and assured the public that the government by no means had betrayed the votes of the nation. He blamed the Zionists and the Western powers, “specially the malicious British government”, for the post election protests and the riots.
Ahmadinejad's Populism
In 2005, Ahmadinejad advocated populist economic policies during his presidential campaign, which included “putting oil money on impoverished peoples’ dining table (Sofreh).” As a result, he gained strong grassroots’ support from urban poor and rural dwellers. Ahmadinejad became the first enduring non-cleric president who wanted to pursue the initial goals of the revolution that included economic justice and political sovereignty. When he became president, he implemented some small-scale development projects, including building hospitals, bridges, roads, and schools in the rural areas, financed by the oil money. Ahmadinejad gained support from underprivileged Iranians who favor his economic justice program. He was also supported by those who believe he has promoted Iran’s technological and defense progress. There are about three million impoverished women in Iran who weave carpets in their homes. Ahmadinejad brought a law to give them full insurance. Also, Ahmadinejad initiated distribution of some government-owned enterprises’ shares called “Justice Shares,” to redistribute state wealth to the low income Iranians. Justice shares are mutual fund shares of the state-owned enterprises that are privatized.
The election in Iran depicted a class struggle between those who live comfortably in modern urban centers and want Western style social life versus impoverished people in rural areas and smaller cities who seek better life in the traditional Islamic culture. The former had strong support from the West for social change, while the latter relied on the status quo in the country. The affluent Iranians do not like Ahmadinejad but the urban poor and those in the rural areas love him. As has been reported by the Christian Science Monitor, Ahmadinejad is greeted like a rock star when he visits small cities and rural Iran.
Some university professors and student groups do not like Ahmadinejad because they consider him to be an Islamic fanatic. In December 2005, Abbasali Amir Zanjani, a cleric was appointed the Chancellor of Tehran University. The appointment caused strong backlash from the intellectuals and the university students against the President. Zanjani was finally replaced in February 2008 by an economist Farhad Rahbar. Also, early forced retirement of a number of professors in Tehran University caused wide student protests. Tehran University is the first university established in Iran and has been historically the center of intellectual activism. As a result, Ahmadinejad became unpopular within some circles of Iranian intellectuals. But that has not affected his popularity among the majority of lower-middle class and impoverished Iranians.
Radical Islam and Liberation Theology
Ahmadinejad has been able to make alliance with some countries in Latin America. Latin America’s Catholic Church and radical Islam have something in common. Both religious movements have support of the masses to challenge domination of their countries by the Western imperial powers. There is a similarity between radical Islamists in Iran and the supporters of liberal theologians’ movements in Latin America. They both have common ideology to resist the West hegemony. Liberation theology, originated in Catholic Church, emphasizes effort to bring justice to the poor and oppressed. Liberation theology uses democratic socialism as a political theory to combat poverty. Radical Islam similarly uses political aspects of Islam as a force for creating national liberation and economic justice. Ali Shariati is known to be the first Islamist thinker who merged Islam political ideology and liberation theology. He was influenced by Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara, but unlike them who rejected religion in supporting national liberation, Shariati tailored Iran’s Islamic ideological roots as a means to mobilize masses for national liberation. However, Shariati was against clerical rule. He died mysteriously before the revolution in 1977, widely believed to be a victim of the Shah’s secret police (Savak) assassination. He did not live to see the clerics dominating political leadership in Iran.
Ahmadinejad pursues the same brand of Islamic radicalism as Shariati. He has been able to use religion to challenge the hegemony of the West as the liberation theologian leaders have done in Latin America. In this context Ahmadinejad joins similar brand of political figures such as Luiz Lula da Silva of Brazil, Hugo Chavez Venezuela, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, and Bolivian President Evo Morales who enjoy popularity among the Roman Catholic Church followers. However, there is an important distinction between the Islamic Republic and the Latin American governments. The Islamic Republic is a quasi-theocracy run by the clerics, while the Latin American countries are secular republics that are only supported by the Church. In the past, some Muslim political leaders have advocated Islamic Socialism. Examples are: Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Zulfakar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan, and Jamal Abdul Nasser in Egypt. Ahmadinejad too has strived for a socially just Islamic State in Iran. It remains to be seen whether he can succeed.
Akbar E. Torbat (atorbat@csudh.edu ) teaches at the College of Business Administration and Public Policy, California State University – Dominguez Hills. He has published a number of articles in scholarly journals concerning Iran. He received his Ph.D. in political economy from the University of Texas at Dallas.
In Iran’s presidential elections, on June 12, 2009, the incumbent president Mahmud Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory. His main contender Mir-Hossein Mousavi could only secure about one third of the votes. The following is an explanation of what has happened and why Ahmadinejad has gained popularity to be reelected despite the Western media showing him differently.
Iran’s Presidential Elections 2009
A day before the election, the Iranian political activist Nasser Zarafshan said “a Ukraine-type velvet revolution” is in the cards to be played by the West in order to dominate Iran. A well financed high-tech campaign using YouTube, Facebook and twitter on the Internet and text messaging communication was underway in Iran. Yet, these means of communication are only known to a small fraction of Iran’s population. In addition, thousands of expensive posters, CDs, and other items prepared by pro-Mousavi green camp quickly flooded the streets of Tehran. The Western Media and especially the Farsi Language television programs such as the Persian BBC and Voice of America had potent impacts on the so called “reformists” or the neoliberal candidates’ supporters, but not Ahmadinejad’s constituencies that are masses not affected by such modern propagandas. The Western media boasted Mousavi’s image without knowing much about who he was. Obviously, he could not be painted as “Iran’s Gandhi” as some Western reporters ridiculously touted. Mousavi is not a charismatic leader and does not have an impressive record. In fact he was an Islamic fanatic when he became prime minster. He helped to shut down the Iranian universities for three years in order to launch the so called “Cultural Revolution”. Also, during his repressive premiership, thousands of Iranian political prisoners were executed. He has been out of politics for about 20 years and has not been socially active. He does not have broad view of what is happening in the world and especially in the neighboring countries.
In this election, behind the scene, the former president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was the key architect of Mousavi’s election campaign and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei backed Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani wishes to dominate the Islamic regime’s political structure replacing the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is at the top echelon of the clerical regime. Rafsanjani is very wealthy and is the most favorite cleric by the West. He does not seem to mind letting the West control Iran’s oil resources in exchange for ruling Iran by himself. In the past, people have called him “King Akbar”. In such situation, if he succeeds, the Islamic Republic could be turned into a Persian Gulf type monarchy or sheikhdom instead of a Western democracy as is dreamed by some Iranian political elites. However, Rafsanjani has been under pressure because of his corruption in arms purchases during Iran-Iraq war and the money he and his family members received to give oil contracts to the French oil company Total and his roles in ordering political assassinations of many of dissidents at home and abroad. Before the elections, Mousavi’s campaign spent conspicuously in the city of Tehran under the banner of Green color. Where he got the money from is an unanswered question.
The Presidential candidates in Iran are vetted by a twelve member body that is called Council of Guardian. In this election only three candidates from within the Islamic regime were selected by the Guardian Council to contest Ahmadinejad; the other nominees were not allowed to run. In the election, the incumbent President faced the last Iranian prime minister, Mir-Hossein Mousavi; a cleric and a former Parliament speaker, Mehdi Karroubi; and a former senior military commander, Mohsen Rezaei. However, none of the three contenders were delivering any new agenda on how to deal with the countries’ problems; they only criticized what the incumbent president had not done well in their view. Nearly 40 million Iranians or 85% of the eligible voters participated in the election. This was the highest turnout in ten presidential elections held in Iran. The official results as announced on June 14 by the Interior Ministry were: Ahmadinejad 24.5 million (63.62%), Mousavi 13.2 million (33.75%), Rezaei 0.67 million (1.73%), and Karroubi 0.33 million (0.85%) of the votes. The invalid votes canceled were 0.40 million (1.4%). The Spokesman for the Interior Ministry Ali Asghar Sharifi-Rad said the results were accurate and the representatives of all candidates had been present at the polling stations and signed off the final tallies.
Disputing the Election Results
Surprisingly, some well known Iranians became tools of Western media propaganda during and after the elections. An Iranian professor at Columbia University, an Iranian academic in the Hoover Institution, and a well known Iranian filmmaker residing in France were among many who jumped the bandwagon to claim the election was rigged. None of them showed any credible evidence to prove how a candidate who had more than 10 million votes compared to his main contender was not legitimately elected. Many filled the media with false claims, saying genuine results could not be declared as fast as they had been by the Iranian media. They misled the public because in reality about 3 hours after the poles were closed, Iranian media started announcing the election results of only 20% of the votes counted, and that was followed with more up-to-date data until the final tallies were announced at a later time. At the end, the announced results in favor of the incumbent were close to what had been predicted by several respected polling agencies (for example see The Washington Post June 15) in the runoff to the elections.
The three candidates who did not have any credible evidence for the alleged rigging asked for annulling the elections from the very beginning. They never wanted a recount because their representatives had been present at the polling stations and had already signed off on the results. They knew the numbers were not on their side as was largely predicted. In the following days, the main contender, Mousavi, brought his supporters to the streets of Tehran, the only major city he had won, to pressure the regime for annulling the results. This did not prevent millions of Iranians from coming out to the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities to express their support for the status quo versus the West campaign to put its most favorite candidate who was Rafsanjani’s proxy in power. After a few days of protests in the streets of Tehran in which a number of people were killed; on June 19 in a powerful speech at Tehran University, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei called for an end to street protests and assured the public that the government by no means had betrayed the votes of the nation. He blamed the Zionists and the Western powers, “specially the malicious British government”, for the post election protests and the riots.
Ahmadinejad's Populism
In 2005, Ahmadinejad advocated populist economic policies during his presidential campaign, which included “putting oil money on impoverished peoples’ dining table (Sofreh).” As a result, he gained strong grassroots’ support from urban poor and rural dwellers. Ahmadinejad became the first enduring non-cleric president who wanted to pursue the initial goals of the revolution that included economic justice and political sovereignty. When he became president, he implemented some small-scale development projects, including building hospitals, bridges, roads, and schools in the rural areas, financed by the oil money. Ahmadinejad gained support from underprivileged Iranians who favor his economic justice program. He was also supported by those who believe he has promoted Iran’s technological and defense progress. There are about three million impoverished women in Iran who weave carpets in their homes. Ahmadinejad brought a law to give them full insurance. Also, Ahmadinejad initiated distribution of some government-owned enterprises’ shares called “Justice Shares,” to redistribute state wealth to the low income Iranians. Justice shares are mutual fund shares of the state-owned enterprises that are privatized.
The election in Iran depicted a class struggle between those who live comfortably in modern urban centers and want Western style social life versus impoverished people in rural areas and smaller cities who seek better life in the traditional Islamic culture. The former had strong support from the West for social change, while the latter relied on the status quo in the country. The affluent Iranians do not like Ahmadinejad but the urban poor and those in the rural areas love him. As has been reported by the Christian Science Monitor, Ahmadinejad is greeted like a rock star when he visits small cities and rural Iran.
Some university professors and student groups do not like Ahmadinejad because they consider him to be an Islamic fanatic. In December 2005, Abbasali Amir Zanjani, a cleric was appointed the Chancellor of Tehran University. The appointment caused strong backlash from the intellectuals and the university students against the President. Zanjani was finally replaced in February 2008 by an economist Farhad Rahbar. Also, early forced retirement of a number of professors in Tehran University caused wide student protests. Tehran University is the first university established in Iran and has been historically the center of intellectual activism. As a result, Ahmadinejad became unpopular within some circles of Iranian intellectuals. But that has not affected his popularity among the majority of lower-middle class and impoverished Iranians.
Radical Islam and Liberation Theology
Ahmadinejad has been able to make alliance with some countries in Latin America. Latin America’s Catholic Church and radical Islam have something in common. Both religious movements have support of the masses to challenge domination of their countries by the Western imperial powers. There is a similarity between radical Islamists in Iran and the supporters of liberal theologians’ movements in Latin America. They both have common ideology to resist the West hegemony. Liberation theology, originated in Catholic Church, emphasizes effort to bring justice to the poor and oppressed. Liberation theology uses democratic socialism as a political theory to combat poverty. Radical Islam similarly uses political aspects of Islam as a force for creating national liberation and economic justice. Ali Shariati is known to be the first Islamist thinker who merged Islam political ideology and liberation theology. He was influenced by Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara, but unlike them who rejected religion in supporting national liberation, Shariati tailored Iran’s Islamic ideological roots as a means to mobilize masses for national liberation. However, Shariati was against clerical rule. He died mysteriously before the revolution in 1977, widely believed to be a victim of the Shah’s secret police (Savak) assassination. He did not live to see the clerics dominating political leadership in Iran.
Ahmadinejad pursues the same brand of Islamic radicalism as Shariati. He has been able to use religion to challenge the hegemony of the West as the liberation theologian leaders have done in Latin America. In this context Ahmadinejad joins similar brand of political figures such as Luiz Lula da Silva of Brazil, Hugo Chavez Venezuela, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, and Bolivian President Evo Morales who enjoy popularity among the Roman Catholic Church followers. However, there is an important distinction between the Islamic Republic and the Latin American governments. The Islamic Republic is a quasi-theocracy run by the clerics, while the Latin American countries are secular republics that are only supported by the Church. In the past, some Muslim political leaders have advocated Islamic Socialism. Examples are: Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Zulfakar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan, and Jamal Abdul Nasser in Egypt. Ahmadinejad too has strived for a socially just Islamic State in Iran. It remains to be seen whether he can succeed.
Akbar E. Torbat (atorbat@csudh.edu ) teaches at the College of Business Administration and Public Policy, California State University – Dominguez Hills. He has published a number of articles in scholarly journals concerning Iran. He received his Ph.D. in political economy from the University of Texas at Dallas.
US 'has agents working inside Iran'
The US has intelligence agents in Iran but it is not clear if they are providing help to the protest movement there, a former US national security adviser has told Al Jazeera.
Brent Scowcroft said on Wednesday that "of course" the US had agents in Iran amid the ongoing pressure against the Iranian government by protesters opposed to the official result of its presidential election.
But he added that he had no idea whether US agents had provided help to the opposition movement in Iran, which claims that the authorities rigged the June 12 election in favour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president.
"They might do. Who knows?" Scowcroft told Josh Rushing for Al Jazeera's Fault Lines programme.
"But that's a far cry from helping protesters against the combined might of the Revolutionary Guard, the militias and so on - and the [Iranian] police, who are so far completely unified."
Limited options
Scowcroft's admission that Washington has agents stationed in Iran comes a day after the US president issued tougher rhetoric against the government in Iran.
Barack Obama's sterner tone came after days of deadly clashes between the opposition and Iranian security forces and militias.
Obama has been criticised by US conservative politicians for not taking a stronger line against Tehran amid the government crackdown, but Scowcroft, a former adviser to presidents Gerald Ford and the senior George Bush, said the US could only do so much.
"We don't control Iran. We don't control the government, obviously," he said.
"There is little we can do to change the situation domestically in Iran right now and I think an attempt to change it is more likely to be turned against us and against the people who are demonstrating for more freedom.
"Therefore, I think we need to look at what we can do best, which is to try to influence Iranian behaviour in the region."
At least 19 people have been killed in post-election violence in Iran, which broke out at the scene of protests questioning the veracity of the poll results.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger to Ahmadinejad, has rejected the official results of the vote and has called for a fresh election to be held, while Mehdi Karoubi, another defeated candidate in the election, has called the new government "illegitimate".
But the Guardian Council, Iran's highest legislative body, has said that there were no incidences of major fraud in the vote and has declared that the official results will stand.
Brent Scowcroft said on Wednesday that "of course" the US had agents in Iran amid the ongoing pressure against the Iranian government by protesters opposed to the official result of its presidential election.
But he added that he had no idea whether US agents had provided help to the opposition movement in Iran, which claims that the authorities rigged the June 12 election in favour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president.
"They might do. Who knows?" Scowcroft told Josh Rushing for Al Jazeera's Fault Lines programme.
"But that's a far cry from helping protesters against the combined might of the Revolutionary Guard, the militias and so on - and the [Iranian] police, who are so far completely unified."
Limited options
Scowcroft's admission that Washington has agents stationed in Iran comes a day after the US president issued tougher rhetoric against the government in Iran.
Barack Obama's sterner tone came after days of deadly clashes between the opposition and Iranian security forces and militias.
Obama has been criticised by US conservative politicians for not taking a stronger line against Tehran amid the government crackdown, but Scowcroft, a former adviser to presidents Gerald Ford and the senior George Bush, said the US could only do so much.
"We don't control Iran. We don't control the government, obviously," he said.
"There is little we can do to change the situation domestically in Iran right now and I think an attempt to change it is more likely to be turned against us and against the people who are demonstrating for more freedom.
"Therefore, I think we need to look at what we can do best, which is to try to influence Iranian behaviour in the region."
At least 19 people have been killed in post-election violence in Iran, which broke out at the scene of protests questioning the veracity of the poll results.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger to Ahmadinejad, has rejected the official results of the vote and has called for a fresh election to be held, while Mehdi Karoubi, another defeated candidate in the election, has called the new government "illegitimate".
But the Guardian Council, Iran's highest legislative body, has said that there were no incidences of major fraud in the vote and has declared that the official results will stand.
REAL LIFE DRAMA IN THE AIR Remembering 12th October, 1999
October, 1999 Capt Sarwat of Pakistan International Airlines Airbus-300, an old buddy, and I had gone to Colombo , SriLanka for Airlanka Golf classic tournament.
On the 10th October, after returning from the 18th hole (towards the finish of the game) that I saw General Pervez Musharraf (chief of Joint staff and Chief of the army staff) teeing- off with the Bangladeshi COAS for a friendly match. Gen Musharraf had gone to Colombo to represent Pakistan on the 50th anniversary of Sri Lankan armed forces. On the 12th October we were to return back to Pakistan and our flight route was Colombo-Male (Maldives )- Karachi . The flight time between Male and Karachi was almost three and a half hours. Capt. Sarwat was Commander of the flight PK/805 and I was traveling as a passenger in the club class but being cockpit crew of PIA I could visit the cockpit with the consent of the Capt. of the flight. The First officer of the flight was Mr. Shami {who was on his first clearance check flight to Sri Lanka } and the flight engineer Mr. Amir. Gen Pervez Musharraf boarded the plane with his wife and two of his personal staff officers. Gen. Musharraf and his wife were seated in the front extreme right hand side seats and the PSO's occupied the last two seats on the same side. There were a total of 198 persons aboard that flight out of which almost 50 were children from the American school with six foreign teachers.
The flight to Male was bumpy due to rain and clouds. At Male, which was a transit stop, Gen. Musharraf, his wife and the PSO's disembarked to see the strange looking island which had nothing but just a runway strip. At Male, Capt. Sarwat after getting the weather information of Karachi and Nawabshah decided to refuel the aircraft, keeping Nawabshah airfield as an alternative (Nawabshah airfield is almost 110 nautical miles north east of Karachi ). It meant that the aircraft could reach Karachi and in contingency could divert to Nawabshah and keep flying in air for another 45 minutes before landing at Nawabshah which is normally the fuel policy of the airlines throughout the world.
The departure from Male was uneventful. The airplane started cruising at 29000 feet, I was sitting in the cockpit jump seat and occasionally would stand up to stretch and walk in the cabin. During the flight, the air guards and the cabin crew requested Gen Pervez Musharraf for individual and group photographs. Capt Sarwat also came to the club class from the cockpit to greet the VIP.
After two and half hours of flight and now cruising at 33000 feet, we established contact with Karachi air traffic controller. The first thing the Karachi radio controller asked was how much fuel was on board? What was our alternate airfield? And how many passengers were on board? I was standing behind the flight Engineer's seat and listening to the whole conversation through the cockpit speakers. On hearing this I did point out to Capt. Sarwat "Isn't it strange for Karachi to be asking this?" to which he nodded "yes". It was a clear night and probably the third of moon was out but we could later on see Karachi very clearly. The initial approach given to us was direct Marvi (shortest route) but after a while Karachi changed the clearance via Nansi (the longer route) and gave us descent clearance to 10000ft. As the airplane reached almost within 60 miles the Karachi tower said "PK /805 you are not cleared to land at Karachi ". "Can we proceed to Nawabshah?" Capt Sarwat asked ATC after pondering for a little while as to what must be going on down below. "Nawabshah is also closed" came the reply. "But Nawabshah is our alternate!" said Capt Sarwat forcefully. Karachi ATC said "you will land at your own risk you cannot land in Pakistan . All airfields are closed". "We do not have fuel for any other airfield!" Capt. Sarwat replied but once again but there was complete silence from the ATC.
The Karachi ATC was questioned thrice but all in vain ---- there was no answer. During the ATC conversation it seemed quite obvious that someone behind the controller was passing the instruction because more than three or more persons could be heard in the background of the reception. A KLM flight which was somewhere in air and listening to this conversation also shouted, "Karachi why don't you give the reason to the PK 805". While the commotion was on, Capt Sarwat assumed that perhaps it may be due to the VIP sitting aboard. Sarwat knowing my air force background asked me and the other crew "Partner what do you think, should I tell the general about this?" I butted in and said why not, let's get whatever help we can!"
Capt called the purser and asked him to inform the personal staff officers of the general. Both the PSO's were informed and they came rushing into the cockpit. After listening to the Capt. they went to inform the General. Meanwhile Capt Sarwat asked the flight engineer as to how much fuel was left, and if we could make it to Muscat . "No way, we have only five and a half tons of fuel left at this 10000 feet altitude" he calculated. Meanwhile General Musharraf had entered the cockpit. During the discussion between the flight crew members, two other alternate airfields for diversion were considered. Chahbahar in Iran and Ahmedabad in India . After a little discussion with the flight engineer regarding remaining fuel and new airfield and night landing facility, Chahbahar was not considered as an alternate airfield. "Do we have the approach and landing information on Ahmedabad? Please open and consult Jeppesen (the flight crew bible} immediately" Sarwat asked the co-pilot.
General Musharraf was listening to the conversation and he asserted "We will not go to India, that is not an option", to which Capt Sarwat said "okay General as you say." Now the Gen said that he wanted to talk to the Corp commander Karachi , immediately. After a while the PSO gave the mobile telephone number to the flight engineer and wrote the land telephone number of the Corp. Commander. Karachi . The flight engineer Amir tried many times to dial the telephone but there was no dial tone. In this hurry and in presence of the general, the flight engineer mishandled his flash light and broke its glass. The flight engineer Amir said we are not getting the connection through and it seems as if the telephone lines have been cut. The general then asked as to why we couldn't speak on the long range radio- the high frequency. The flight engineer tried to establish contact through company high frequency phone patch but it was all quiet, and no answer was received.
The other airplanes flying in Karachi vicinity were instructed by the Karachi ATC to divert because Karachi airport was closed. An aircraft of Pakistan Air Force which was in inbound to Karachi from Islamabad was instructed by the Karachi air traffic controller to land at Nawabshah, immediately. But the PAF Captain was not willing to accept this order and asserted that the PAF flight would go back to Islamabad . While the argument between the PAF aircraft and Karachi ATC were going on the Capt Sarwat changed the radio frequency. However later on I investigated about the PAF flight and I found out that it was a Boeing 737 VIP aircraft, which was on routine maintenance trip to Karachi but was forced to land at Nawabshah airfield. The police at Nawabshah, with special instructions was waiting for the two engine jet aircraft. Since it is difficult for a common man to distinguish between a Boeing 737 and an Airbus A-300, therefore Nawabshah police cordoned off the aircraft after parking. But as the doors were opened Pakistani Army soldiers rushed to the aircraft and shouted at the police to buzz off otherwise they would be shot at. The Police dispersed and now the army took charge of the aircraft. An Army officer entered the aircraft. To their dismay, they found the wife and children of the PAF Capt sitting inside, "Where is the General?" inquired the army officer. "What General?" asked the crew? PAF crew told them that they were going to Karachi from Islamabad . "But we were told that you are coming from Colombo " said the officer surprised
In the air at the very same time, the first officer of the aircraft saw two blips on traffic collision avoidance system and shouted "We are being intercepted; probably there are two fighter aircraft".
The conversation in the cockpit our plane had become tense and was blended with other actions in the cockpit, which had become rather twice demanding. I noticed that at no point any of the crew or the VIP lost their cool. The general insisted several times that we land at Karachi . He also inquired as to why we couldn't land at the air force runways at Karachi . But probably due to the fighter aircraft and no knowledge as to what was happening below on ground, with no runway lights landing at PAF Airfields was considered as the last option. If we could not land at Karachi or at Nawabshah due to runway blockade with tractors and bulldozers etc then Shahrah-e-Faisal or Masroor was the last option anyways. At this point Capt Sarwat changed to PIA company radio channel. Sarwat was asked about the remaining fuel. Someone at the company channel directed PK805 to proceed and land at Nawabshah, then refuel the airplane with 30 tones of fuel and once again get airborne and wait for further instructions.
After a few minutes, the Karachi ATC came on air and cleared PK805 to divert to Nawabshah. . Capt Sarwat then heaved a sigh of relief and said "Let's go to Nawabshah". The Airbus climbed like a missile to 20000 feet in no time since there was hardly any fuel left in the aircraft and it was rather light. At about 60 miles north of Karachi PK805 was redirected to come and land at Karachi by the Karachi ATC. A quick turnabout and descent was initiated. Someone from the ATC asked to speak to the general. Capt Sarwat gave his microphone to the general and said, "Sir please speak".
"This is Pervez Musharraf, who is there?" the general inquired very assertively. "I am Gen. Iftikhar sir, your retirement was announced two hours before but we are in control. Please land at Karachi "Where is the Corp Commander?" the general questioned "He is in the next room waiting for you "was the reply. Both the PSO's were listening and the younger PSO (a Major) said" Sir, ask him the name of his dog". Probably he wanted to be sure in recognizing the GOC, but the general who had kept his cool all along said confidently, "He is my man, don't worry!"(Later on this officer on ground happened to be a friend of mine who told me that General Musharraf had given him two puppies and that's how the PSO wanted to determine his identity)
Meanwhile he plane was reaching for its final approach. Suddenly the low fuel warning light of right wing fuel tank came on with an audio chime. The cockpit was dead silent and everyone was waiting to feel the touchdown as soon as possible. We had waited almost one hour and ten minutes in the air. The remaining fuel of 1.2 ton in the wing tanks, if reliable, was only available for approximately ten minutes of flight time. At twelve miles short of landing, the left wing fuel tank warning light also appeared with chime.
After touch down PK 805 was asked to park at the remote area (Bay 66) and was informed that no other person than the VIP will come out of the aircraft. After the engines shut down, the army soldiers who were almost two hundred cordoned-off the aircraft. The General was looking from the cockpit window and seemed relaxed. Before disembarking from the aircraft the general shook hands with all of us and said, "Thank you, don't worry all is well, he's my man." And he immediately passed his very first order through his PSO, "Tell them I don't want anyone to leave the country."
The General, his wife, who was trying to control her tears, and the two PSO's disembarked from the plane and were greeted by the Corp. Commander and the GOC with salutes from the soldiers. They all went inside a building for a short conference, which took almost 15 min after which the whole contingent drove away very fast. PK805 was not allowed to start the engines perhaps because of the security and almost no remaining fuel and was thus towed to the international arrival side (Bay 23). During the whole episode I was the quietest and the closest observer in the cockpit and was thoroughly impressed to watch total professionalism from Capt Sarwat and his crew. Not to mention the way General carried himself and remained confident and totally composed throughout the whole episode.
Capt. Tariq
On the 10th October, after returning from the 18th hole (towards the finish of the game) that I saw General Pervez Musharraf (chief of Joint staff and Chief of the army staff) teeing- off with the Bangladeshi COAS for a friendly match. Gen Musharraf had gone to Colombo to represent Pakistan on the 50th anniversary of Sri Lankan armed forces. On the 12th October we were to return back to Pakistan and our flight route was Colombo-Male (Maldives )- Karachi . The flight time between Male and Karachi was almost three and a half hours. Capt. Sarwat was Commander of the flight PK/805 and I was traveling as a passenger in the club class but being cockpit crew of PIA I could visit the cockpit with the consent of the Capt. of the flight. The First officer of the flight was Mr. Shami {who was on his first clearance check flight to Sri Lanka } and the flight engineer Mr. Amir. Gen Pervez Musharraf boarded the plane with his wife and two of his personal staff officers. Gen. Musharraf and his wife were seated in the front extreme right hand side seats and the PSO's occupied the last two seats on the same side. There were a total of 198 persons aboard that flight out of which almost 50 were children from the American school with six foreign teachers.
The flight to Male was bumpy due to rain and clouds. At Male, which was a transit stop, Gen. Musharraf, his wife and the PSO's disembarked to see the strange looking island which had nothing but just a runway strip. At Male, Capt. Sarwat after getting the weather information of Karachi and Nawabshah decided to refuel the aircraft, keeping Nawabshah airfield as an alternative (Nawabshah airfield is almost 110 nautical miles north east of Karachi ). It meant that the aircraft could reach Karachi and in contingency could divert to Nawabshah and keep flying in air for another 45 minutes before landing at Nawabshah which is normally the fuel policy of the airlines throughout the world.
The departure from Male was uneventful. The airplane started cruising at 29000 feet, I was sitting in the cockpit jump seat and occasionally would stand up to stretch and walk in the cabin. During the flight, the air guards and the cabin crew requested Gen Pervez Musharraf for individual and group photographs. Capt Sarwat also came to the club class from the cockpit to greet the VIP.
After two and half hours of flight and now cruising at 33000 feet, we established contact with Karachi air traffic controller. The first thing the Karachi radio controller asked was how much fuel was on board? What was our alternate airfield? And how many passengers were on board? I was standing behind the flight Engineer's seat and listening to the whole conversation through the cockpit speakers. On hearing this I did point out to Capt. Sarwat "Isn't it strange for Karachi to be asking this?" to which he nodded "yes". It was a clear night and probably the third of moon was out but we could later on see Karachi very clearly. The initial approach given to us was direct Marvi (shortest route) but after a while Karachi changed the clearance via Nansi (the longer route) and gave us descent clearance to 10000ft. As the airplane reached almost within 60 miles the Karachi tower said "PK /805 you are not cleared to land at Karachi ". "Can we proceed to Nawabshah?" Capt Sarwat asked ATC after pondering for a little while as to what must be going on down below. "Nawabshah is also closed" came the reply. "But Nawabshah is our alternate!" said Capt Sarwat forcefully. Karachi ATC said "you will land at your own risk you cannot land in Pakistan . All airfields are closed". "We do not have fuel for any other airfield!" Capt. Sarwat replied but once again but there was complete silence from the ATC.
The Karachi ATC was questioned thrice but all in vain ---- there was no answer. During the ATC conversation it seemed quite obvious that someone behind the controller was passing the instruction because more than three or more persons could be heard in the background of the reception. A KLM flight which was somewhere in air and listening to this conversation also shouted, "Karachi why don't you give the reason to the PK 805". While the commotion was on, Capt Sarwat assumed that perhaps it may be due to the VIP sitting aboard. Sarwat knowing my air force background asked me and the other crew "Partner what do you think, should I tell the general about this?" I butted in and said why not, let's get whatever help we can!"
Capt called the purser and asked him to inform the personal staff officers of the general. Both the PSO's were informed and they came rushing into the cockpit. After listening to the Capt. they went to inform the General. Meanwhile Capt Sarwat asked the flight engineer as to how much fuel was left, and if we could make it to Muscat . "No way, we have only five and a half tons of fuel left at this 10000 feet altitude" he calculated. Meanwhile General Musharraf had entered the cockpit. During the discussion between the flight crew members, two other alternate airfields for diversion were considered. Chahbahar in Iran and Ahmedabad in India . After a little discussion with the flight engineer regarding remaining fuel and new airfield and night landing facility, Chahbahar was not considered as an alternate airfield. "Do we have the approach and landing information on Ahmedabad? Please open and consult Jeppesen (the flight crew bible} immediately" Sarwat asked the co-pilot.
General Musharraf was listening to the conversation and he asserted "We will not go to India, that is not an option", to which Capt Sarwat said "okay General as you say." Now the Gen said that he wanted to talk to the Corp commander Karachi , immediately. After a while the PSO gave the mobile telephone number to the flight engineer and wrote the land telephone number of the Corp. Commander. Karachi . The flight engineer Amir tried many times to dial the telephone but there was no dial tone. In this hurry and in presence of the general, the flight engineer mishandled his flash light and broke its glass. The flight engineer Amir said we are not getting the connection through and it seems as if the telephone lines have been cut. The general then asked as to why we couldn't speak on the long range radio- the high frequency. The flight engineer tried to establish contact through company high frequency phone patch but it was all quiet, and no answer was received.
The other airplanes flying in Karachi vicinity were instructed by the Karachi ATC to divert because Karachi airport was closed. An aircraft of Pakistan Air Force which was in inbound to Karachi from Islamabad was instructed by the Karachi air traffic controller to land at Nawabshah, immediately. But the PAF Captain was not willing to accept this order and asserted that the PAF flight would go back to Islamabad . While the argument between the PAF aircraft and Karachi ATC were going on the Capt Sarwat changed the radio frequency. However later on I investigated about the PAF flight and I found out that it was a Boeing 737 VIP aircraft, which was on routine maintenance trip to Karachi but was forced to land at Nawabshah airfield. The police at Nawabshah, with special instructions was waiting for the two engine jet aircraft. Since it is difficult for a common man to distinguish between a Boeing 737 and an Airbus A-300, therefore Nawabshah police cordoned off the aircraft after parking. But as the doors were opened Pakistani Army soldiers rushed to the aircraft and shouted at the police to buzz off otherwise they would be shot at. The Police dispersed and now the army took charge of the aircraft. An Army officer entered the aircraft. To their dismay, they found the wife and children of the PAF Capt sitting inside, "Where is the General?" inquired the army officer. "What General?" asked the crew? PAF crew told them that they were going to Karachi from Islamabad . "But we were told that you are coming from Colombo " said the officer surprised
In the air at the very same time, the first officer of the aircraft saw two blips on traffic collision avoidance system and shouted "We are being intercepted; probably there are two fighter aircraft".
The conversation in the cockpit our plane had become tense and was blended with other actions in the cockpit, which had become rather twice demanding. I noticed that at no point any of the crew or the VIP lost their cool. The general insisted several times that we land at Karachi . He also inquired as to why we couldn't land at the air force runways at Karachi . But probably due to the fighter aircraft and no knowledge as to what was happening below on ground, with no runway lights landing at PAF Airfields was considered as the last option. If we could not land at Karachi or at Nawabshah due to runway blockade with tractors and bulldozers etc then Shahrah-e-Faisal or Masroor was the last option anyways. At this point Capt Sarwat changed to PIA company radio channel. Sarwat was asked about the remaining fuel. Someone at the company channel directed PK805 to proceed and land at Nawabshah, then refuel the airplane with 30 tones of fuel and once again get airborne and wait for further instructions.
After a few minutes, the Karachi ATC came on air and cleared PK805 to divert to Nawabshah. . Capt Sarwat then heaved a sigh of relief and said "Let's go to Nawabshah". The Airbus climbed like a missile to 20000 feet in no time since there was hardly any fuel left in the aircraft and it was rather light. At about 60 miles north of Karachi PK805 was redirected to come and land at Karachi by the Karachi ATC. A quick turnabout and descent was initiated. Someone from the ATC asked to speak to the general. Capt Sarwat gave his microphone to the general and said, "Sir please speak".
"This is Pervez Musharraf, who is there?" the general inquired very assertively. "I am Gen. Iftikhar sir, your retirement was announced two hours before but we are in control. Please land at Karachi "Where is the Corp Commander?" the general questioned "He is in the next room waiting for you "was the reply. Both the PSO's were listening and the younger PSO (a Major) said" Sir, ask him the name of his dog". Probably he wanted to be sure in recognizing the GOC, but the general who had kept his cool all along said confidently, "He is my man, don't worry!"(Later on this officer on ground happened to be a friend of mine who told me that General Musharraf had given him two puppies and that's how the PSO wanted to determine his identity)
Meanwhile he plane was reaching for its final approach. Suddenly the low fuel warning light of right wing fuel tank came on with an audio chime. The cockpit was dead silent and everyone was waiting to feel the touchdown as soon as possible. We had waited almost one hour and ten minutes in the air. The remaining fuel of 1.2 ton in the wing tanks, if reliable, was only available for approximately ten minutes of flight time. At twelve miles short of landing, the left wing fuel tank warning light also appeared with chime.
After touch down PK 805 was asked to park at the remote area (Bay 66) and was informed that no other person than the VIP will come out of the aircraft. After the engines shut down, the army soldiers who were almost two hundred cordoned-off the aircraft. The General was looking from the cockpit window and seemed relaxed. Before disembarking from the aircraft the general shook hands with all of us and said, "Thank you, don't worry all is well, he's my man." And he immediately passed his very first order through his PSO, "Tell them I don't want anyone to leave the country."
The General, his wife, who was trying to control her tears, and the two PSO's disembarked from the plane and were greeted by the Corp. Commander and the GOC with salutes from the soldiers. They all went inside a building for a short conference, which took almost 15 min after which the whole contingent drove away very fast. PK805 was not allowed to start the engines perhaps because of the security and almost no remaining fuel and was thus towed to the international arrival side (Bay 23). During the whole episode I was the quietest and the closest observer in the cockpit and was thoroughly impressed to watch total professionalism from Capt Sarwat and his crew. Not to mention the way General carried himself and remained confident and totally composed throughout the whole episode.
Capt. Tariq
Taliban Losses Are No Sure Gain for Pakistani's
By:JANE PERLEZ and PIR ZUBAIR SHAH
For the past month and a half the Pakistani military has claimed success in retaking the Swat Valley from the Taliban clawing back its own territory from insurgents who only a short time ago were extending their reach toward the heartland of the country.Yet from a helicopter flying low over the valley last week the low rise buildings of Mingora the largest city in Swat now deserted and under a 24 hour curfew appeared unscathed. In the surrounding countryside farmers had harvested wheat and red onions on their unscarred land.
All that is testament to the fact that the Taliban mostly melted away without a major fight possibly to return when the military withdraws or to fight elsewhere military analysts say. About two million people have been displaced in Swat and the surrounding area as the military has carried out its campaign.The reassertion of control over Swat has at least temporarily denied the militants a haven they coveted inside Pakistan proper. The offensive has also won strong support from the United States which has urged Pakistan to engage the militants.
But the Taliban’s decision to scatter leaves the future of Swat and Pakistan’s overall stability under continued threat military analysts and some politicians say.The tentative results in Swat also do not bode well for the military’s new push in the far more treacherous terrain of South Waziristan another insurgent stronghold where officials have vowed to take on the leader of the Pakistani Taliban Baitullah Mehsud who remains Pakistan’s most wanted man.
Signs abound that the military’s campaign in Swat is less than decisive. The military extended its deadline for ending the campaign. Even in the areas where progress has been made the military controls little more than urban centers and roads say those who have fled the areas. The military has also failed to kill or capture even one top Taliban commander.
It was “very disappointing ” said Aftab Ahmed Sherpao a senior politician from the region that none of the commanders had been eliminated. It turned out he said that early reports of the capture of Ibn Amin a particularly brutal commander from Matta were incorrect.
Many Taliban fighters have infiltrated the camps set up for those displaced by the fighting and are likely to return with them to Swat said Himayatullah Mayar the mayor of Mardan the city where many of the refugees are staying. “Most of the Taliban shaved their beards and they are living here with their families ” he said.As of two weeks ago the police had arrested 150 people in the camps suspected of being members of the Taliban Mr. Mayar said. This figure did not include suspects arrested by the Intelligence Bureau Pakistan’s domestic intelligence outfit and the Directorate forInter Services Intelligence the country’s main spy agency he said.
Meanwhile the government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has yet to announce a full plan for how it will provide services like courts policing and health care that will allow the refugees to return home and the government to fully assert control.Those plans appear to be mired in conflict and mutual suspicion between the military and the civilian government raising serious questions about whether the authorities can secure Swat and other areas and keep them from being taken back by the Taliban military experts said.
“I’ve told the president and the prime minister and the chief of the army this is the time to act. Just take basic things and implement them ” said Gen. Nadeem Ahmad the commander of the Special Support Group an arm of the Pakistani military that is providing temporary buildings and some food for the displaced. “This is not talking rocket science.”On a notepad General Ahmad had drawn a chart of the four elements of what he called “lasting peace.” They were good government improved delivery of services including rebuilt schools speedy justice (something the Taliban had provided) and social equity.
He appeared to be skeptical that those aspects could be delivered within what he called an essential one year time frame. He said he had warned the leaders “If you don’t deliver it will be trouble. You will come back and do the operation again.”Having witnessed past episodes of deal making with the Taliban the people of Swat say they want tangible proof that the military is serious this time and that they will be safe if they return home.
From the start a rallying cry has been a demand that the army kill or capture Taliban leaders a ruthless group of highly trained fighters some with links to Al Qaeda. But the army has not been able to show any evidence that it killed any of the Taliban leaders.The daily newspaper The News said in a recent editorial that unless Maulana Fazlullah the Taliban’s main commander in Swat and Mr. Mehsud the country’s top enemy were captured “the Taliban are going to live to fight another day.”
Indeed most of the damage from the recent fighting appears confined to small agricultural hamlets outside Mingora according to interviews with displaced people. Some said they had heard from recent arrivals to the camps that areas 500 yards off the roads remained in control of the militants.
The “outlook was bleak” in Swat because the civilian government did not have the money or the skills to rebuild said Shuja Nawaz the author of a history of the Pakistani military and now the director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington.Most of the two million displaced people are still living in tent camps and cramped quarters with relatives and even strangers in cities as far flung as the southern port of Karachi.
Many displaced people were fed up with the cruelties inflicted under Taliban rule and have backed the military campaign. But as the fighting drags on in places the mood among them grows increasingly despondent.Some displaced people said that they were angry at the army for indiscriminate shelling in civilian areas. Others said they were confused about why the military operation was even necessary.
“We had no problem with the Taliban ” Umar Ali a poultry trader from Qambar in Swat said as he sat on the veranda of a home in Swabi a town filled with displaced people. “We’re here because of the military shelling. I’m a trader and the thing that affects my life is the curfew.”
Earlier Pakistani campaigns against the Taliban do not offer an encouraging precedent. In Bajaur a part of the tribal areas two main economic centers the market towns of Loe Sam and Inayat Kalay remain in ruins nearly eight months after the army smashed them in pursuit of the Taliban and claimed victory.
For the past month and a half the Pakistani military has claimed success in retaking the Swat Valley from the Taliban clawing back its own territory from insurgents who only a short time ago were extending their reach toward the heartland of the country.Yet from a helicopter flying low over the valley last week the low rise buildings of Mingora the largest city in Swat now deserted and under a 24 hour curfew appeared unscathed. In the surrounding countryside farmers had harvested wheat and red onions on their unscarred land.
All that is testament to the fact that the Taliban mostly melted away without a major fight possibly to return when the military withdraws or to fight elsewhere military analysts say. About two million people have been displaced in Swat and the surrounding area as the military has carried out its campaign.The reassertion of control over Swat has at least temporarily denied the militants a haven they coveted inside Pakistan proper. The offensive has also won strong support from the United States which has urged Pakistan to engage the militants.
But the Taliban’s decision to scatter leaves the future of Swat and Pakistan’s overall stability under continued threat military analysts and some politicians say.The tentative results in Swat also do not bode well for the military’s new push in the far more treacherous terrain of South Waziristan another insurgent stronghold where officials have vowed to take on the leader of the Pakistani Taliban Baitullah Mehsud who remains Pakistan’s most wanted man.
Signs abound that the military’s campaign in Swat is less than decisive. The military extended its deadline for ending the campaign. Even in the areas where progress has been made the military controls little more than urban centers and roads say those who have fled the areas. The military has also failed to kill or capture even one top Taliban commander.
It was “very disappointing ” said Aftab Ahmed Sherpao a senior politician from the region that none of the commanders had been eliminated. It turned out he said that early reports of the capture of Ibn Amin a particularly brutal commander from Matta were incorrect.
Many Taliban fighters have infiltrated the camps set up for those displaced by the fighting and are likely to return with them to Swat said Himayatullah Mayar the mayor of Mardan the city where many of the refugees are staying. “Most of the Taliban shaved their beards and they are living here with their families ” he said.As of two weeks ago the police had arrested 150 people in the camps suspected of being members of the Taliban Mr. Mayar said. This figure did not include suspects arrested by the Intelligence Bureau Pakistan’s domestic intelligence outfit and the Directorate forInter Services Intelligence the country’s main spy agency he said.
Meanwhile the government led by President Asif Ali Zardari has yet to announce a full plan for how it will provide services like courts policing and health care that will allow the refugees to return home and the government to fully assert control.Those plans appear to be mired in conflict and mutual suspicion between the military and the civilian government raising serious questions about whether the authorities can secure Swat and other areas and keep them from being taken back by the Taliban military experts said.
“I’ve told the president and the prime minister and the chief of the army this is the time to act. Just take basic things and implement them ” said Gen. Nadeem Ahmad the commander of the Special Support Group an arm of the Pakistani military that is providing temporary buildings and some food for the displaced. “This is not talking rocket science.”On a notepad General Ahmad had drawn a chart of the four elements of what he called “lasting peace.” They were good government improved delivery of services including rebuilt schools speedy justice (something the Taliban had provided) and social equity.
He appeared to be skeptical that those aspects could be delivered within what he called an essential one year time frame. He said he had warned the leaders “If you don’t deliver it will be trouble. You will come back and do the operation again.”Having witnessed past episodes of deal making with the Taliban the people of Swat say they want tangible proof that the military is serious this time and that they will be safe if they return home.
From the start a rallying cry has been a demand that the army kill or capture Taliban leaders a ruthless group of highly trained fighters some with links to Al Qaeda. But the army has not been able to show any evidence that it killed any of the Taliban leaders.The daily newspaper The News said in a recent editorial that unless Maulana Fazlullah the Taliban’s main commander in Swat and Mr. Mehsud the country’s top enemy were captured “the Taliban are going to live to fight another day.”
Indeed most of the damage from the recent fighting appears confined to small agricultural hamlets outside Mingora according to interviews with displaced people. Some said they had heard from recent arrivals to the camps that areas 500 yards off the roads remained in control of the militants.
The “outlook was bleak” in Swat because the civilian government did not have the money or the skills to rebuild said Shuja Nawaz the author of a history of the Pakistani military and now the director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington.Most of the two million displaced people are still living in tent camps and cramped quarters with relatives and even strangers in cities as far flung as the southern port of Karachi.
Many displaced people were fed up with the cruelties inflicted under Taliban rule and have backed the military campaign. But as the fighting drags on in places the mood among them grows increasingly despondent.Some displaced people said that they were angry at the army for indiscriminate shelling in civilian areas. Others said they were confused about why the military operation was even necessary.
“We had no problem with the Taliban ” Umar Ali a poultry trader from Qambar in Swat said as he sat on the veranda of a home in Swabi a town filled with displaced people. “We’re here because of the military shelling. I’m a trader and the thing that affects my life is the curfew.”
Earlier Pakistani campaigns against the Taliban do not offer an encouraging precedent. In Bajaur a part of the tribal areas two main economic centers the market towns of Loe Sam and Inayat Kalay remain in ruins nearly eight months after the army smashed them in pursuit of the Taliban and claimed victory.
Lobbying dollars flowing out of Pakistan at super speed
By Shaheen Sehbai
WASHINTGON: At least 11 big and small, known and unknown, lobbying companies have been hired by Pakistan and state-owned Pakistani organisations in the US, paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars every month, some of them having mysterious names and almost dubious credentials.
Although lobbying is a legal profession in Washington, the way it is conducted has earned it the nickname of “officially certified corruption” and what the Pakistan government, Pakistan Embassy and Pakistani organisations are doing may come close to this unofficial definition, analysts say.
The information about these lobbying firms is public record and is available on official websites of US government agencies and organisations. But somehow Pakistani clients of these lobbying firms have tried to camouflage their widely spread activities under different names and different categories so that at one time not more than two or three companies could be officially acknowledged as government lobbyists.
The lobbying debate was fired by Geo TV’s talk show “Meray Mutabiq” hosted by Dr Shahid Masood on Saturday night but details gathered by The News revealed much more than the programme could cover.
All lobbyists are registered in the US as “foreign agents” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and have to disclose their activities and operations under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. All this data is then made available to the public through information posted on their official websites.
Under FARA data seven Pakistani entities are listed as clients of at least 11 lobbying companies. One such firm was de-listed in March and its client was the PPP.
Likewise lobbyists’ info, an official organisation that keeps all the data on lobbyists for the last 40 years and is the best recognised source of latest information on lobbying and lobbyists, lists seven Pakistani entities, which have hired the 11 lobbying firms in the US. These in their order of listing include:
- Council on Pakistan Relations (CPR): This is said to be based in Michigan but no other information is available except an expensive Washington DC address, 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, one block away from the White House and next to the famous Willard Hotel. There is a website for this organisation, www.pakistanrelations.org, but it does not name any one or any organisation, which can be identified. The details of the website are also hidden and when The News tried to find who owned the website and where it was located, Go-Daddy.com, the domain provider listed it as a secret/private website. Go-Daddy.com charges $10 extra to keep all the information about the website owner secret. CPR has hired one of the most expensive firms in Washington, Cassidy and Associates which has former Assistant Secretary Robin Raphel as one of the senior vice presidents. General Musharraf had also hired this company in October 2007 at $1.2 million per year to lobby for him just before the imposition of the emergency in Nov 07.
- Pakistan American Business Association: This is described as a non-profit organisation and has hired a big firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, ranked by The National Law Journal in 2006 as one of the 100 largest law firms in the country. Who are these Pak-American businessmen and where are they getting the huge dollars to pay this firm and for what results is not yet known.
- Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has hired Benazir Bhutto’s personal lobbyist, Mark Siegel’s firm Locke Lord Strategies on a one-time payment of $150,000 to lobby for PIA’s landing rights in the US.
- Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) until recently had three lobbyists, BKSH, a subsidiary of Burson Marsteller, Mark Siegel’s firm LLS and a firm owned by one T Dean Reed. Lakhs of dollars were paid by PPP before the elections 2008 when Benazir Bhutto was trying to win over the US leaders to replace General Musharraf. On March 9, 2009 PPP terminated the contract of BKSH.
- Embassy of Pakistan in Washington: The latest information on lobbyists.info shows that the Pakistan Embassy has currently retained three main lobbying firms: Moses Boyd, Mark Siegel’s LLS and Ogilvy Public Relations (one of the names in this firm’s list of associates is Irfan Kamal. Who is he and what role he plays, whether any, is not known).
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan: Under this name, a mysterious firm named ‘Team Eagle’ has been hired as one of the two lobbying companies, the other bang White & Case LLP in which one Pakistani name, Imran R Mir, is mentioned as an associate.
- Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting: Under this name only one name of a Pakistan-based company Asiatic Advertising is registered. No details of transactions are available for this firm.
These seven Pakistani organisations have thus hired 11 firms, separately and mysteriously in some cases, but what output and results are these companies providing is unknown and not clear. It would be a suitable case for parliamentary oversight bodies like the Public Accounts Committee to look into the details of these firms and how much they were paid for what results.
The data provided by US government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) until June 2008 is as follows. This lists some of the firms hired and paid by the Musharraf regime and some by the PPP government. It is amusing to note that the purpose of payment in some cases is just ridiculous like training Pakistani officials in the Embassy on how to deal with US media. The following is the data as listed on FARA web site:
- BKSH & Associates #5402, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005
Pakistan People’s Party (t) Nature of Services: Public Relations.
The registrant contacted congressional staffers, members of the Congress, and the US government officials to check on status of Resolution 445 and to assist the foreign principal in its effort to promote democracy in Pakistan and in providing its views on the current political, economic and humanitarian situation on the ground in Pakistan. The registrant also contacted congressional staffers to discuss upcoming visit of representatives of the foreign principal to the United States. $31,299.65 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.
- Burson-Marsteller #2469 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3544
Pakistan People’s Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.
The registrant developed media monitoring reports, spoke with media representatives, secured and attended meetings for party representatives, and secured and staffed interviews for party representatives on behalf of the foreign principal. $49,837.13 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.
- Cassidy & Associates, Inc #5643 700 13th Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Lobbying.
The registrant contacted congressional staffers and the US government officials to promote a better understanding of the foreign principal’s political, social and economic developments. $100,000.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008. Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 160 of 229 Pakistan.
- Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP #5835 1101 New York Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-4213
Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Embassy 60 Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.
The registrant provided services to the foreign principal including developing action plans that advance Pakistan’s commercial and trade objectives vis-‡-vis the US government and the private sector. $294,042.83 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.
- JWT Asiatic, a division of WPP Marketing Communications (Pvt.) Ltd #5722 ABN Amro Bank Building 16 Abdullah Haroon Road Karachi, Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan 60 Nature of Services: Advertising. Activities: None Reported Finances: None Reported.
- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP); Asif Ali Zardari, Co-Chairperson of the PPP 60.
Nature of Services: Lobbying.
The registrant agreed to promote the democratic transition of Pakistan and to encourage the international investigation of the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Finances: None Reported
- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004
The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 60. Nature of Services: Lobbying.
The registrant will conduct strategic and governmental affairs communications on behalf of the foreign principal. Finances: None Reported
Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 161 of 229 Pakistan.
- Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide #5807 1111 19th Street, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036
Embassy of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.
On behalf of the foreign principal, the registrant provided media training to embassy staff, drafted informational materials for distribution to journalists and other media outlets, facilitated the embassy’s interactions with journalists and other media outlets, and provided strategic guidance with respect to the United States media. $256,809.00 for the six-month period ending May 31, 2008.
- Reed, T Dean #5044 37277 Branchriver Road Purcellville, VA 20132-1922
Pakistan Peoples Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Public Relations.
The registrant provided public relations advice and consultation to the foreign principal and the editing of a newsletter. $10,500.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008.
- Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc. #5401 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 600 West Washington, DC 20001
Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Embassy (t) 60
Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.
The registrant monitored, advised and evaluated legislative issues, as well as arranged meetings and accompanied Pakistani government officials to meetings with members of the Congress, and congressional staffers to discuss general US-Pakistan issues. Representatives of the registrant also traveled to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani government officials. $330,000.00 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.
Courtesy: The News International, 28-06-09
WASHINTGON: At least 11 big and small, known and unknown, lobbying companies have been hired by Pakistan and state-owned Pakistani organisations in the US, paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars every month, some of them having mysterious names and almost dubious credentials.
Although lobbying is a legal profession in Washington, the way it is conducted has earned it the nickname of “officially certified corruption” and what the Pakistan government, Pakistan Embassy and Pakistani organisations are doing may come close to this unofficial definition, analysts say.
The information about these lobbying firms is public record and is available on official websites of US government agencies and organisations. But somehow Pakistani clients of these lobbying firms have tried to camouflage their widely spread activities under different names and different categories so that at one time not more than two or three companies could be officially acknowledged as government lobbyists.
The lobbying debate was fired by Geo TV’s talk show “Meray Mutabiq” hosted by Dr Shahid Masood on Saturday night but details gathered by The News revealed much more than the programme could cover.
All lobbyists are registered in the US as “foreign agents” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and have to disclose their activities and operations under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. All this data is then made available to the public through information posted on their official websites.
Under FARA data seven Pakistani entities are listed as clients of at least 11 lobbying companies. One such firm was de-listed in March and its client was the PPP.
Likewise lobbyists’ info, an official organisation that keeps all the data on lobbyists for the last 40 years and is the best recognised source of latest information on lobbying and lobbyists, lists seven Pakistani entities, which have hired the 11 lobbying firms in the US. These in their order of listing include:
- Council on Pakistan Relations (CPR): This is said to be based in Michigan but no other information is available except an expensive Washington DC address, 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, one block away from the White House and next to the famous Willard Hotel. There is a website for this organisation, www.pakistanrelations.org, but it does not name any one or any organisation, which can be identified. The details of the website are also hidden and when The News tried to find who owned the website and where it was located, Go-Daddy.com, the domain provider listed it as a secret/private website. Go-Daddy.com charges $10 extra to keep all the information about the website owner secret. CPR has hired one of the most expensive firms in Washington, Cassidy and Associates which has former Assistant Secretary Robin Raphel as one of the senior vice presidents. General Musharraf had also hired this company in October 2007 at $1.2 million per year to lobby for him just before the imposition of the emergency in Nov 07.
- Pakistan American Business Association: This is described as a non-profit organisation and has hired a big firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, ranked by The National Law Journal in 2006 as one of the 100 largest law firms in the country. Who are these Pak-American businessmen and where are they getting the huge dollars to pay this firm and for what results is not yet known.
- Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has hired Benazir Bhutto’s personal lobbyist, Mark Siegel’s firm Locke Lord Strategies on a one-time payment of $150,000 to lobby for PIA’s landing rights in the US.
- Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) until recently had three lobbyists, BKSH, a subsidiary of Burson Marsteller, Mark Siegel’s firm LLS and a firm owned by one T Dean Reed. Lakhs of dollars were paid by PPP before the elections 2008 when Benazir Bhutto was trying to win over the US leaders to replace General Musharraf. On March 9, 2009 PPP terminated the contract of BKSH.
- Embassy of Pakistan in Washington: The latest information on lobbyists.info shows that the Pakistan Embassy has currently retained three main lobbying firms: Moses Boyd, Mark Siegel’s LLS and Ogilvy Public Relations (one of the names in this firm’s list of associates is Irfan Kamal. Who is he and what role he plays, whether any, is not known).
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan: Under this name, a mysterious firm named ‘Team Eagle’ has been hired as one of the two lobbying companies, the other bang White & Case LLP in which one Pakistani name, Imran R Mir, is mentioned as an associate.
- Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting: Under this name only one name of a Pakistan-based company Asiatic Advertising is registered. No details of transactions are available for this firm.
These seven Pakistani organisations have thus hired 11 firms, separately and mysteriously in some cases, but what output and results are these companies providing is unknown and not clear. It would be a suitable case for parliamentary oversight bodies like the Public Accounts Committee to look into the details of these firms and how much they were paid for what results.
The data provided by US government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) until June 2008 is as follows. This lists some of the firms hired and paid by the Musharraf regime and some by the PPP government. It is amusing to note that the purpose of payment in some cases is just ridiculous like training Pakistani officials in the Embassy on how to deal with US media. The following is the data as listed on FARA web site:
- BKSH & Associates #5402, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005
Pakistan People’s Party (t) Nature of Services: Public Relations.
The registrant contacted congressional staffers, members of the Congress, and the US government officials to check on status of Resolution 445 and to assist the foreign principal in its effort to promote democracy in Pakistan and in providing its views on the current political, economic and humanitarian situation on the ground in Pakistan. The registrant also contacted congressional staffers to discuss upcoming visit of representatives of the foreign principal to the United States. $31,299.65 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.
- Burson-Marsteller #2469 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3544
Pakistan People’s Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.
The registrant developed media monitoring reports, spoke with media representatives, secured and attended meetings for party representatives, and secured and staffed interviews for party representatives on behalf of the foreign principal. $49,837.13 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.
- Cassidy & Associates, Inc #5643 700 13th Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Lobbying.
The registrant contacted congressional staffers and the US government officials to promote a better understanding of the foreign principal’s political, social and economic developments. $100,000.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008. Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 160 of 229 Pakistan.
- Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP #5835 1101 New York Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-4213
Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Embassy 60 Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.
The registrant provided services to the foreign principal including developing action plans that advance Pakistan’s commercial and trade objectives vis-‡-vis the US government and the private sector. $294,042.83 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.
- JWT Asiatic, a division of WPP Marketing Communications (Pvt.) Ltd #5722 ABN Amro Bank Building 16 Abdullah Haroon Road Karachi, Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan 60 Nature of Services: Advertising. Activities: None Reported Finances: None Reported.
- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP); Asif Ali Zardari, Co-Chairperson of the PPP 60.
Nature of Services: Lobbying.
The registrant agreed to promote the democratic transition of Pakistan and to encourage the international investigation of the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Finances: None Reported
- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004
The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 60. Nature of Services: Lobbying.
The registrant will conduct strategic and governmental affairs communications on behalf of the foreign principal. Finances: None Reported
Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 161 of 229 Pakistan.
- Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide #5807 1111 19th Street, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036
Embassy of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.
On behalf of the foreign principal, the registrant provided media training to embassy staff, drafted informational materials for distribution to journalists and other media outlets, facilitated the embassy’s interactions with journalists and other media outlets, and provided strategic guidance with respect to the United States media. $256,809.00 for the six-month period ending May 31, 2008.
- Reed, T Dean #5044 37277 Branchriver Road Purcellville, VA 20132-1922
Pakistan Peoples Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Public Relations.
The registrant provided public relations advice and consultation to the foreign principal and the editing of a newsletter. $10,500.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008.
- Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc. #5401 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 600 West Washington, DC 20001
Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Embassy (t) 60
Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.
The registrant monitored, advised and evaluated legislative issues, as well as arranged meetings and accompanied Pakistani government officials to meetings with members of the Congress, and congressional staffers to discuss general US-Pakistan issues. Representatives of the registrant also traveled to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani government officials. $330,000.00 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.
Courtesy: The News International, 28-06-09
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Confirmation of PPPISTAN, portraits of Founders of Pakistan removed from Presidency!
Just a couple of days ago, a reception ceremony in the Pakistan President Avenue was organized to honor the victorious Pakistan Cricket Team. One thing that should have been noticed but was not noticed probably, was that in the avenue, there were big portraits of former Pakistani PM Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, former PM Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, current President Asif Ali Zardari and their son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. The real portraits by which the Presidency should have been graced with, were missing, I am referring to the portraits of founders of Pakistan i.e. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Dr. Allama Iqbal.
My mind is flooded with lots of questions right now. Is this the personal property of Asif Ali Zardari? Or is it their family house? No way! This is the constitutional avenue that is a big responsibility for the President. Please don’t get my wrong, I in no way mean to disrespect the Bhutto family, I respect them. But the thing is if the President is allowed to throw away the main portraits and replace with the portraits of his family, then former President Pervez Musharraf’s family’s portraits should have been there too.
This is the thing that is making me sick. The President House is the temporary residency for the President of Pakistan, and the Public Avenue of the Presidency should have remained uninfluenced. It should have been graced with the photos of founders of Pakistan and the respectable historical personalities like Liaquat Ali Khan, Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar etc.
I respect everyone’s opinion so my readers are welcomed to share their views here in the comments, as for me, I strongly condemn and Protest against such kind of blunders at the Presidency.
Road to Guntanamo
The terrifying first-hand account of three Pakistani British citizens who were held for two years without charges in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Known as the "Tipton Three," in reference to their home town in Britain, the three were eventually returned to Britain and released, still having had no formal charges ever made against them at any time during their ordeal.
A Minute’s Silence For The Death Of Common Sense, Please.
by Dan Qayyum of PKKH.com
Just when you think our so called ‘elected representatives’ can’t embarrass us anymore, they tend to prove us wrong.
The Sindh Assembly has this morning held a minute’s silence for Michael Jackson’s sad demise. Yes, you can read that again.
Our army is busy fighting a bitter war against foreign funded terrorists, over 3 million of our people have been made homeless and we’re facing what could potentially be the worst crisis in our history if not dealt with properly. Our politicians on the other hand just cannot grasp the seriousness of the situation.
The Federal Information Minister feels it important to entertain himself with a $15,000 lapdance from an Indian hooker while on a begging round. Is begging that stressful? Maybe he should learn something off his President who doesn’t seem to mind it at all.
When did the president or any senior members of his team last visit the affected areas to show solidarity with our people? Why have they never bothered turning up and paying respect at the homes of our fallen soldiers? What have they contributed out of their own pockets towards caring for our internal refugees?
The point isn’t whether Jacko was a global superstar or that he had reportedly converted to Islam – Michael Jackson had absolutely f*ck-all to do with Pakistan, its history, its culture, its language, its people and its politics. This is the Provincial Assembly of Sindh, Pakistan, not the California State Assembly. Or are we now officially the 51st state?
What next? Will Muttahida’s gun toting ‘activists’ and PPP Jayalas forcefully shut all businesses in Karachi for a shutter-down strike next time Britney shaves her head? Or will we have a national day of mourning when Paris Hilton’s little pooch dies?
Why have we as a nation become so passive about these incompetent crooks who are turning us into a joke? And not a funny one either.
Just when you think our so called ‘elected representatives’ can’t embarrass us anymore, they tend to prove us wrong.
The Sindh Assembly has this morning held a minute’s silence for Michael Jackson’s sad demise. Yes, you can read that again.
Our army is busy fighting a bitter war against foreign funded terrorists, over 3 million of our people have been made homeless and we’re facing what could potentially be the worst crisis in our history if not dealt with properly. Our politicians on the other hand just cannot grasp the seriousness of the situation.
The Federal Information Minister feels it important to entertain himself with a $15,000 lapdance from an Indian hooker while on a begging round. Is begging that stressful? Maybe he should learn something off his President who doesn’t seem to mind it at all.
When did the president or any senior members of his team last visit the affected areas to show solidarity with our people? Why have they never bothered turning up and paying respect at the homes of our fallen soldiers? What have they contributed out of their own pockets towards caring for our internal refugees?
The point isn’t whether Jacko was a global superstar or that he had reportedly converted to Islam – Michael Jackson had absolutely f*ck-all to do with Pakistan, its history, its culture, its language, its people and its politics. This is the Provincial Assembly of Sindh, Pakistan, not the California State Assembly. Or are we now officially the 51st state?
What next? Will Muttahida’s gun toting ‘activists’ and PPP Jayalas forcefully shut all businesses in Karachi for a shutter-down strike next time Britney shaves her head? Or will we have a national day of mourning when Paris Hilton’s little pooch dies?
Why have we as a nation become so passive about these incompetent crooks who are turning us into a joke? And not a funny one either.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Terrorists "Made in Miami, USA" by Nil Nikandrov
Miami, a coastal city in southeastern Florida, US, is known worldwide for its sandy beaches, high-class tourism and entertainment.
Well-off people from Latin America are striving to buy houses in Miami and join the clubs which are popular among American 'high society'.
Miami is a kind of Latin American bridgehead in the US territories. There you may see diverse people from countries located to the south of the Rio Grande: retired businessmen, politicians who worked for the State Department (harmfully to the national interests of their countries), popular actors, singers and also drug dealers and other criminals.
In the western media, Miami is rarely mentioned as a stronghold of terror organizations. And it is clear why. There are terrorists whom FBI, CIA and other services have long cooperated with, so the authorities and the partisan media do not view them as a threat to US national security.
The permanent anti-terror campaign launched after the 9/11 attacks in no way disturbs the terrorists in Miami. It seems that US ultra-right circles still believe those hirelings could help them in their fight against "alien" regimes in Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay, Nicaragua and Salvador.
Secret camps for training terrorists in Miami appeared in the very first years of the CIA's existence. Their major goal was to suppress Communist-like regimes in Latin America and the countries of the Caribbean. They successfully worked in Guatemala at the time of Jacobo Arbenz`s rule (1951-1954). In late 1940s there was a wave of attacks on Soviet diplomatic missions in Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Cuba. Soviet diplomats were threatened also in Uruguay and Argentina. Those were the first years of the Cold War, and the demand was quite clear: “Soviets, get away from Latin America!” Thus Moscow had to close half of its embassies in the region.
The 'renaissance' of terror organizations in Miami happened after Fidel Castro`s triumphant guerrilla campaign. Dictator Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba, followed by hundreds of war criminals and police agents involved in bloody repressions. And they were hired into terrorist groups by the CIA to later again be sent to Cuba and serve the US there. Miami militants are responsible for hundreds of killings and assassinations in Havana and other cities. Since Fidel Castro was their major enemy, the CIA used everything - from an exploding cigar to a scuba tank with toxic gas.
The number of terrorists among Cuban immigrants grew so fast that they felt they could interfere in US domestic policies. A prominent American documentarist Michael Moore used to say that each serious incident in the US in the past few decades had Cuban trace: John Kennedy's murder, the Watergate scandal, the Iran-Contra affairs, etc.
Ramon Medina worked as the key CIA agent in the Iran-Contra case in 1985-1987. Medina (his real name is Luis Posada Carriles) was born in Cuba in 1928. Before the revolution he worked as chemist at a sugar factory. He was opposed to the regime of the Castro brothers and in February 1961 fled the country to escape detention. He decided to continue his fight...from abroad.
Posada was trained in Fort Benning (US) and soon was hired by the CIA. He is known as a very experienced militant.
In 1964 he led the training of rebels ofe so-called Revolutionary Junta.
In the 1960s he helped the CIA to develop its branches: Alpha 66, Comandos L, Movimiento de 30 Noviembre and others.
In 1967 he was sent to Venezuela to run a department of the DISIP secret police force. He pursued members of leftist parties and guerrilla brigades. An explosion on board a flight from Caracas to Havana, which took the lives of 73 passengers and all the crew, became the climax of his terror activity. Posada was arrested and jailed in Venezuela, where he stayed until 1985. He did not serve the whole term. His patrons in the CIA helped him to escape, gave him a new passport and sent him to Salvador to control the delivery of arms to the 'contras' in Nicaragua.
In 2000 Posada and three of his allies prepared an assassination on Fidel Castro in Panama .
The Cuban leader was taking part in the 10th Ibero-American summit, when his intelligence service told him about the plotted assassination attempt.
Castro disclosed the information during a press conference. The police found enough evidence, including 30 kilograms of explosives, and Posada and his team were arrested.
And again he was released by his US friends. Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in Panama and settled the issue. His argumentation was that Panamian politician Martin Torrijos, who was one of Chavez's supporters, was about to take office as president and that he would certainly demand Posada`s extradition to try him on the Cuban plane blast.
Posada`s name has again attracted attention recently when it was made public that his agents in Central America had plotted an assassination on Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and his Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales but luckily the two presidents were warned beforehand and escaped the danger.
The world media calls Posada “the No.1 terrorist in Western hemisphere” but the US prefers to ignore the obvious facts and accuses Posada only of 'violating migration laws'.
After the failed coup d'etat attempt and an unsuccessful oil sabotage in Venezuela in April 2002 and in early 2003, Miami terrorist organizations thought about recruiting new members. CIA agents who had given themselves away tried to escape, while migrants from Venezuela settled in Miami close to the Cuban community and aimed to solve “the problem with Chavez” by means of force. The US asked the Cuban militants to train their Venezuelan colleagues. Now it is difficult to say exactly how fruitful their joint work is, but still some facts are available already.
In the second half of 2002 the sides, represented by the Cuban Comandos F-4 led by Rodolfo Frometa and the Venezuela Patriotic Union under Luis Garcia Morales, reached an agreement on joint terror activity. Under the deal, the two groups have to share information and carry out joint operations in times which can be described as 'critical' either for Cuba or Venezuela. After being defeated by Chavez supporters, members of the Venezuelan resistance movement do not feel like coming back home 'to put an end to the dictatorship'. They prefer to hire militants from Colombia or Argentine and offer huge sums to lure them in.
The group of Venezuelan militants in Miami already have their 'heroes': several fugitive officers, who had organized attacks on Spanish and Colombian embassies in Caracas in order to demonize Bolivia. Another group of Venezuelan militants were accused of killing Danilo Anderson, a Venezuelan environmental state prosecutor, who investigated the 2002 failed coup d'etat attempt. The organizers of the oil sabotage, which almost put Venezuela on the brink of an ecological catastrophe, also live in Miami as if they had not committed any crimes. Each time Venezuela asks the US to extradite them, Washington gives vague answers or does not reply at all.
Special forces of the countries which in the western media are called 'populist' are aware of the main channels through which terrorists are being transported from Miami to the south. Many of the militants are tasked with long-term missions: to legally settle in a country and wait for the X-day. On their way the terrorists usually stay in some port cities in Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, in the capital of Costa Rica - San Jose - and in the Colombian city of Cucuta, bordered to the east by Venezuela. Recently, Mexican territories have been actively used for such kinds of operations for under President Calderon the country's special forces have practically fallen under US control. The main Carribean states, especially those bordering Venezuela, are also involved in the campaign against 'alien regimes'.
Concerned over the remaining terror threats coming from Miami, the progressive governments of Latin America are trying to get authentic information about the plotted conspiracies. In Havana they did not ever doubt that Washington helped those criminals who organized terror attacks in hotels and restaurants in Cuba or mass poisoning of humans and animals and provocations on marine and air borders.
Agents were planted into the anti-Cuban terror organization to report about the plotted operations beforehand. Gerardo Hernandez, Antonio Guerrero, Ramon Labanino, Fernando Gonzalez, and Rene Gonzalez were among the volunteers. They managed to prevent more than 170 terror attacks. Cuba sent to Washington all data these five agents had collected in the hotbed of terrorists in Miami. But Washington used the information in fighting against those who opposed the idea of terror.
In 1998 the five Cubans were arrested and tried. The whole process turned into an infamous show. The judges were intimidated by the mafia. The process was highly politicized and lacked solid evidence. In spite of this, the detainees were sentenced to prison for crimes they did not commit, like 'espionage' against the Miami-based Southern Command of the U.S Armed forces. It is worth mentioning that some retired generals of the US army attended the hearings of this case (which lasted for seven months) and testified that the five agents had not attempted to get intelligence information.
Now the release of the five agents is a matter of honor for Cuba. In many countries, including the US, people take to the streets to voice their protest over illegal imprisonment of the heroes. Some 300 committees have been operating worldwide where people can express their sympathy with the detained. The UN Human Rights Commission's working group urged the US government to undertake adequate steps to settle the issue, otherwise Washington's 'war on terror' was nothing but a fraud.
Terror organizations in Miami are posing a danger not only to the Latin American countries and its leaders. Everyone who knows the truth about the life in Miami understand that there are no 'accidental' deaths: if a person dares to think and talk differently and defend his views, he is doomed to be killed.
The long list of victims features those who wanted better relations with Havana, who welcomed Bolivarian reforms in Venezuela or supported socialists in Nicaragua and Ecuador. For example, the staff of La Replica magazine were intimidated several times for their dialog with Cuba. Most Americans cannot even imagine what cruelty and extremism are hidden under the mask of luxury and resort entertainment.
It was exactly in Miami where the cream of the CIA, the FBI, the State Department and the Cuban mafia plotted John Kennedy's assassination. The incumbent US President Barack Obama has been more than once criticized by the Miami extremists for not implementing a hard-line policy towards Cuba. So, who could guarantee security to Mr. Obama then?
Well-off people from Latin America are striving to buy houses in Miami and join the clubs which are popular among American 'high society'.
Miami is a kind of Latin American bridgehead in the US territories. There you may see diverse people from countries located to the south of the Rio Grande: retired businessmen, politicians who worked for the State Department (harmfully to the national interests of their countries), popular actors, singers and also drug dealers and other criminals.
In the western media, Miami is rarely mentioned as a stronghold of terror organizations. And it is clear why. There are terrorists whom FBI, CIA and other services have long cooperated with, so the authorities and the partisan media do not view them as a threat to US national security.
The permanent anti-terror campaign launched after the 9/11 attacks in no way disturbs the terrorists in Miami. It seems that US ultra-right circles still believe those hirelings could help them in their fight against "alien" regimes in Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay, Nicaragua and Salvador.
Secret camps for training terrorists in Miami appeared in the very first years of the CIA's existence. Their major goal was to suppress Communist-like regimes in Latin America and the countries of the Caribbean. They successfully worked in Guatemala at the time of Jacobo Arbenz`s rule (1951-1954). In late 1940s there was a wave of attacks on Soviet diplomatic missions in Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Cuba. Soviet diplomats were threatened also in Uruguay and Argentina. Those were the first years of the Cold War, and the demand was quite clear: “Soviets, get away from Latin America!” Thus Moscow had to close half of its embassies in the region.
The 'renaissance' of terror organizations in Miami happened after Fidel Castro`s triumphant guerrilla campaign. Dictator Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba, followed by hundreds of war criminals and police agents involved in bloody repressions. And they were hired into terrorist groups by the CIA to later again be sent to Cuba and serve the US there. Miami militants are responsible for hundreds of killings and assassinations in Havana and other cities. Since Fidel Castro was their major enemy, the CIA used everything - from an exploding cigar to a scuba tank with toxic gas.
The number of terrorists among Cuban immigrants grew so fast that they felt they could interfere in US domestic policies. A prominent American documentarist Michael Moore used to say that each serious incident in the US in the past few decades had Cuban trace: John Kennedy's murder, the Watergate scandal, the Iran-Contra affairs, etc.
Ramon Medina worked as the key CIA agent in the Iran-Contra case in 1985-1987. Medina (his real name is Luis Posada Carriles) was born in Cuba in 1928. Before the revolution he worked as chemist at a sugar factory. He was opposed to the regime of the Castro brothers and in February 1961 fled the country to escape detention. He decided to continue his fight...from abroad.
Posada was trained in Fort Benning (US) and soon was hired by the CIA. He is known as a very experienced militant.
In 1964 he led the training of rebels ofe so-called Revolutionary Junta.
In the 1960s he helped the CIA to develop its branches: Alpha 66, Comandos L, Movimiento de 30 Noviembre and others.
In 1967 he was sent to Venezuela to run a department of the DISIP secret police force. He pursued members of leftist parties and guerrilla brigades. An explosion on board a flight from Caracas to Havana, which took the lives of 73 passengers and all the crew, became the climax of his terror activity. Posada was arrested and jailed in Venezuela, where he stayed until 1985. He did not serve the whole term. His patrons in the CIA helped him to escape, gave him a new passport and sent him to Salvador to control the delivery of arms to the 'contras' in Nicaragua.
In 2000 Posada and three of his allies prepared an assassination on Fidel Castro in Panama .
The Cuban leader was taking part in the 10th Ibero-American summit, when his intelligence service told him about the plotted assassination attempt.
Castro disclosed the information during a press conference. The police found enough evidence, including 30 kilograms of explosives, and Posada and his team were arrested.
And again he was released by his US friends. Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in Panama and settled the issue. His argumentation was that Panamian politician Martin Torrijos, who was one of Chavez's supporters, was about to take office as president and that he would certainly demand Posada`s extradition to try him on the Cuban plane blast.
Posada`s name has again attracted attention recently when it was made public that his agents in Central America had plotted an assassination on Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and his Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales but luckily the two presidents were warned beforehand and escaped the danger.
The world media calls Posada “the No.1 terrorist in Western hemisphere” but the US prefers to ignore the obvious facts and accuses Posada only of 'violating migration laws'.
After the failed coup d'etat attempt and an unsuccessful oil sabotage in Venezuela in April 2002 and in early 2003, Miami terrorist organizations thought about recruiting new members. CIA agents who had given themselves away tried to escape, while migrants from Venezuela settled in Miami close to the Cuban community and aimed to solve “the problem with Chavez” by means of force. The US asked the Cuban militants to train their Venezuelan colleagues. Now it is difficult to say exactly how fruitful their joint work is, but still some facts are available already.
In the second half of 2002 the sides, represented by the Cuban Comandos F-4 led by Rodolfo Frometa and the Venezuela Patriotic Union under Luis Garcia Morales, reached an agreement on joint terror activity. Under the deal, the two groups have to share information and carry out joint operations in times which can be described as 'critical' either for Cuba or Venezuela. After being defeated by Chavez supporters, members of the Venezuelan resistance movement do not feel like coming back home 'to put an end to the dictatorship'. They prefer to hire militants from Colombia or Argentine and offer huge sums to lure them in.
The group of Venezuelan militants in Miami already have their 'heroes': several fugitive officers, who had organized attacks on Spanish and Colombian embassies in Caracas in order to demonize Bolivia. Another group of Venezuelan militants were accused of killing Danilo Anderson, a Venezuelan environmental state prosecutor, who investigated the 2002 failed coup d'etat attempt. The organizers of the oil sabotage, which almost put Venezuela on the brink of an ecological catastrophe, also live in Miami as if they had not committed any crimes. Each time Venezuela asks the US to extradite them, Washington gives vague answers or does not reply at all.
Special forces of the countries which in the western media are called 'populist' are aware of the main channels through which terrorists are being transported from Miami to the south. Many of the militants are tasked with long-term missions: to legally settle in a country and wait for the X-day. On their way the terrorists usually stay in some port cities in Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, in the capital of Costa Rica - San Jose - and in the Colombian city of Cucuta, bordered to the east by Venezuela. Recently, Mexican territories have been actively used for such kinds of operations for under President Calderon the country's special forces have practically fallen under US control. The main Carribean states, especially those bordering Venezuela, are also involved in the campaign against 'alien regimes'.
Concerned over the remaining terror threats coming from Miami, the progressive governments of Latin America are trying to get authentic information about the plotted conspiracies. In Havana they did not ever doubt that Washington helped those criminals who organized terror attacks in hotels and restaurants in Cuba or mass poisoning of humans and animals and provocations on marine and air borders.
Agents were planted into the anti-Cuban terror organization to report about the plotted operations beforehand. Gerardo Hernandez, Antonio Guerrero, Ramon Labanino, Fernando Gonzalez, and Rene Gonzalez were among the volunteers. They managed to prevent more than 170 terror attacks. Cuba sent to Washington all data these five agents had collected in the hotbed of terrorists in Miami. But Washington used the information in fighting against those who opposed the idea of terror.
In 1998 the five Cubans were arrested and tried. The whole process turned into an infamous show. The judges were intimidated by the mafia. The process was highly politicized and lacked solid evidence. In spite of this, the detainees were sentenced to prison for crimes they did not commit, like 'espionage' against the Miami-based Southern Command of the U.S Armed forces. It is worth mentioning that some retired generals of the US army attended the hearings of this case (which lasted for seven months) and testified that the five agents had not attempted to get intelligence information.
Now the release of the five agents is a matter of honor for Cuba. In many countries, including the US, people take to the streets to voice their protest over illegal imprisonment of the heroes. Some 300 committees have been operating worldwide where people can express their sympathy with the detained. The UN Human Rights Commission's working group urged the US government to undertake adequate steps to settle the issue, otherwise Washington's 'war on terror' was nothing but a fraud.
Terror organizations in Miami are posing a danger not only to the Latin American countries and its leaders. Everyone who knows the truth about the life in Miami understand that there are no 'accidental' deaths: if a person dares to think and talk differently and defend his views, he is doomed to be killed.
The long list of victims features those who wanted better relations with Havana, who welcomed Bolivarian reforms in Venezuela or supported socialists in Nicaragua and Ecuador. For example, the staff of La Replica magazine were intimidated several times for their dialog with Cuba. Most Americans cannot even imagine what cruelty and extremism are hidden under the mask of luxury and resort entertainment.
It was exactly in Miami where the cream of the CIA, the FBI, the State Department and the Cuban mafia plotted John Kennedy's assassination. The incumbent US President Barack Obama has been more than once criticized by the Miami extremists for not implementing a hard-line policy towards Cuba. So, who could guarantee security to Mr. Obama then?
Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
June 24, 2009
It’s the 2009 presidential election in Iran and opposition leader Mir-Houssein Mousavi declares victory hours before the polls close, insuring that any result to the contrary will be called into question. Western media goes into overdrive, fighting with each other to see who can offer the most hyperbolic denunciation of the vote and President Ahmadenijad’s apparent victory (BBC wins by publishing bald-faced lies about the supposed popular uprising which it is later forced to retract). On June 13th, 30000 “tweets” begin to flood Twitter with live updates from Iran, most written in English and provided by a handful of newly-registered users with identical profile photos. The Jerusalem Post writes a story about the Iran Twitter phenomenon a few hours after it starts (and who says Mossad isn’t staying up to date with new media?). Now, YouTube is providing a “Breaking News” link at the top of every page linking to the latest footage of the Iranian protests (all shot in high def, no less). Welcome to Destabilization 2.0, the latest version of a program that the western powers have been running for decades in order to overthrow foreign, democratically elected governments that don’t yield to the whims of western governments and multinational corporations.
Ironically, Iran was also the birthplace of the original CIA program for destabilizing a foreign government. Think of it as Destabilization 1.0: It’s 1953 and democratically-elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh is following through on his election promises to nationalize industry for the Iranian people, including the oil industry of Iran which was then controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The CIA is sent into the country to bring an end to Mossadegh’s government. They begin a campaign of terror, staging bombings and attacks on Muslim targets in order to blame them on nationalist, secular Mossadegh. They foster and fund an anti-Mossadegh campaign amongst the radical Islamist elements in the country. Finally, they back the revolution that brings their favoured puppet, the Shah, into power. Within months, their mission had been accomplished: they had removed a democratically elected leader who threatened to build up an independent, secular Persian nation and replaced him with a repressive tyrant whose secret police would brutally suppress all opposition. The campaign was a success and the lead CIA agent wrote an after-action report describing the operation in glowing terms. The pattern was to be repeated time and time again in country after country (in Guatemala in 1954, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in Serbia in the 1990s), but these operations leave the agency open to exposure. What was needed was a different plan, one where the western political and financial interests puppeteering the revolution would be more difficult to implicate in the overthrow.
Enter Destabilization 1.1. This version of the destabilization program is less messy, offering plausible deniability for the western powers who are overthrowing a foreign government. It starts when the IMF moves in to offer a bribe to a tinpot dictator in a third world country. He gets 10% in exchange for taking out an exorbitant loan for an infrastructure project that the country can’t afford. When the country inevitably defaults on the loan payments, the IMF begins to take over, imposing a restructuring program that eventually results in the full scale looting of the country’s resources for western business interests. This program, too, was run in country after country, from Jamaica to Myanmar, from Chile to Zimbabwe. The source code for this program was revealed in 2001, however, when former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz went public about the scam. More detail was added in 2004 by the publication of John Perkin’s Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which revealed the extent to which front companies and complicit corporations aided, abetted and facilitated the economic plundering and overthrow of foreign governments. Although still an effective technique for overthrowing foreign nations, the fact that this particular scam had been exposed meant that the architects of global geopolitics would have to find a new way to get rid of foreign, democratically elected governments.
Destabilization 1.2 involves seemingly disinterested, democracy promoting NGOs with feelgood names like the Open Society Institute, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. They fund, train, support and mobilize opposition movements in countries that have been targeted for destabilization, often during elections and usually organized around an identifiable color. These “color revolutions” sprang up in the past decade and have so far successfully destabilized the governments of the Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, among others. These revolutions bear the imprint of billionaire finance oligarch George Soros. The hidden hand of western powers behind these color revolutions has threatened their effectiveness in recent years, however, with an anti-Soros movement having arisen in Georgia and with the recent Moldovan “grape revolution” having come to naught (much to the chagrin of Soros-funded OSI’s Evgeny Morozov).
Now we arrive at Destabilization 2.0, really not much more than a slight tweak of Destabilization 1.2. The only thing different is that now Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests. Once again, Soros henchman Evgeny Morozov is extolling the virtues of the new Tehran Twitter revolution and the New York Times is writing journalistic hymns to the power of internet new media…when it serves western imperial interests. We are being asked to believe that this latest version of the very (very) old program of U.S. corporate imperialism is the real deal. While there is no doubt that the regime of Ahmadenijad is reprehensible and the feelings of many of the young protestors in Iran are genuine, you will forgive me for quesyioning the motives behind the monolithic media support for the overthrow of Iran’s government and the installation of Mir-Houssein “Butcher of Beirut” Mousavi.
The Corbett Report
June 24, 2009
It’s the 2009 presidential election in Iran and opposition leader Mir-Houssein Mousavi declares victory hours before the polls close, insuring that any result to the contrary will be called into question. Western media goes into overdrive, fighting with each other to see who can offer the most hyperbolic denunciation of the vote and President Ahmadenijad’s apparent victory (BBC wins by publishing bald-faced lies about the supposed popular uprising which it is later forced to retract). On June 13th, 30000 “tweets” begin to flood Twitter with live updates from Iran, most written in English and provided by a handful of newly-registered users with identical profile photos. The Jerusalem Post writes a story about the Iran Twitter phenomenon a few hours after it starts (and who says Mossad isn’t staying up to date with new media?). Now, YouTube is providing a “Breaking News” link at the top of every page linking to the latest footage of the Iranian protests (all shot in high def, no less). Welcome to Destabilization 2.0, the latest version of a program that the western powers have been running for decades in order to overthrow foreign, democratically elected governments that don’t yield to the whims of western governments and multinational corporations.
Ironically, Iran was also the birthplace of the original CIA program for destabilizing a foreign government. Think of it as Destabilization 1.0: It’s 1953 and democratically-elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh is following through on his election promises to nationalize industry for the Iranian people, including the oil industry of Iran which was then controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The CIA is sent into the country to bring an end to Mossadegh’s government. They begin a campaign of terror, staging bombings and attacks on Muslim targets in order to blame them on nationalist, secular Mossadegh. They foster and fund an anti-Mossadegh campaign amongst the radical Islamist elements in the country. Finally, they back the revolution that brings their favoured puppet, the Shah, into power. Within months, their mission had been accomplished: they had removed a democratically elected leader who threatened to build up an independent, secular Persian nation and replaced him with a repressive tyrant whose secret police would brutally suppress all opposition. The campaign was a success and the lead CIA agent wrote an after-action report describing the operation in glowing terms. The pattern was to be repeated time and time again in country after country (in Guatemala in 1954, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in Serbia in the 1990s), but these operations leave the agency open to exposure. What was needed was a different plan, one where the western political and financial interests puppeteering the revolution would be more difficult to implicate in the overthrow.
Enter Destabilization 1.1. This version of the destabilization program is less messy, offering plausible deniability for the western powers who are overthrowing a foreign government. It starts when the IMF moves in to offer a bribe to a tinpot dictator in a third world country. He gets 10% in exchange for taking out an exorbitant loan for an infrastructure project that the country can’t afford. When the country inevitably defaults on the loan payments, the IMF begins to take over, imposing a restructuring program that eventually results in the full scale looting of the country’s resources for western business interests. This program, too, was run in country after country, from Jamaica to Myanmar, from Chile to Zimbabwe. The source code for this program was revealed in 2001, however, when former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz went public about the scam. More detail was added in 2004 by the publication of John Perkin’s Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which revealed the extent to which front companies and complicit corporations aided, abetted and facilitated the economic plundering and overthrow of foreign governments. Although still an effective technique for overthrowing foreign nations, the fact that this particular scam had been exposed meant that the architects of global geopolitics would have to find a new way to get rid of foreign, democratically elected governments.
Destabilization 1.2 involves seemingly disinterested, democracy promoting NGOs with feelgood names like the Open Society Institute, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. They fund, train, support and mobilize opposition movements in countries that have been targeted for destabilization, often during elections and usually organized around an identifiable color. These “color revolutions” sprang up in the past decade and have so far successfully destabilized the governments of the Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, among others. These revolutions bear the imprint of billionaire finance oligarch George Soros. The hidden hand of western powers behind these color revolutions has threatened their effectiveness in recent years, however, with an anti-Soros movement having arisen in Georgia and with the recent Moldovan “grape revolution” having come to naught (much to the chagrin of Soros-funded OSI’s Evgeny Morozov).
Now we arrive at Destabilization 2.0, really not much more than a slight tweak of Destabilization 1.2. The only thing different is that now Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests. Once again, Soros henchman Evgeny Morozov is extolling the virtues of the new Tehran Twitter revolution and the New York Times is writing journalistic hymns to the power of internet new media…when it serves western imperial interests. We are being asked to believe that this latest version of the very (very) old program of U.S. corporate imperialism is the real deal. While there is no doubt that the regime of Ahmadenijad is reprehensible and the feelings of many of the young protestors in Iran are genuine, you will forgive me for quesyioning the motives behind the monolithic media support for the overthrow of Iran’s government and the installation of Mir-Houssein “Butcher of Beirut” Mousavi.
Neo-Cons Are Cheerleading For A Terrorist Who Helped Kill Hundreds Of U.S. Marines
The new “patriotism” - Phony conservatives throw their support behind Butcher of Beirut who directed bloody terror campaign against U.S.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The horrible irony to arise out of the riots and protests in Iran is that many Neo-Cons and phony conservatives, in their unified effort to enthusiastically embrace the Anglo-American establishment’s agenda for regime change, are cheerleading for a brutal thug who directed a terrorist campaign that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines in the 1980’s.
This once again proves that slack-jawed Neo-Con twits, ditto-heads for phony conservative media whores like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have no loyalty whatsoever to America, but only to the corrupt power structure which they like to believe they are a part of.
Apparently, the new form of ‘patriotism’, the new incarnation of ’support the troops’ - is to support someone who helped massacre hundreds of U.S. troops just two decades ago.
We are referring of course to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister of Iran who directed the bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983. Sold by the media and hailed by Neo-Cons as the avatar of Iranian democracy, Mousavi was also “fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack,” reports CQ Politics.
Regarding the Beirut bombings, which killed 220 U.S. Marines, CIA Middle East field officer Bob Baer wrote in TIME Magazine that Mousavi, “Dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah,” who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was “the man largely held responsible for both attacks.”
As Paul Craig Roberts writes, “The American media’s one-sided and propagandistic coverage of the Iranian election has made an American hero out of the defeated candidate, Mousavi.”
This charade has been vigorously amplified by phony right-wingers. As Raw Story notes, Neo-Cons have sided with the opposition against the boogeyman Ahmedinajed, to the point of grunting with delight at scenes broadcast by Fox News of police being beaten to a pulp by rioters. This makes for an odd contrast to their usual sentiment, towards anti-war protesters in the U.S. for example, for whom their newly found concern about police brutality towards demonstrators goes out of the window.
Similar feigned concern for demonstrators is being played out by TV talking heads across the networks. Take this former CIA agent for example, who informs Wolf Blitzer of his worries about how the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are treating protesters, warning that dissidents will be “disappeared”.
Oh the irony! For it was the CIA that trained the brutal Savak security force, copying techniques used by the Nazis to train the Gestapo, following the CIA’s overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddeq government in 1953. Savak engaged in the systematic torture, disappearance, and execution of thousands of the new puppet regime’s opponents before the 1979 revolution, all with the blessing of the United States government.
Neo-Cons and establishment media figures have also seized upon the tragic death of “Neda” as another reason why regime change is needed, aghast at shocking scenes of an innocent women dying. This new found emotion at the sight of Middle Easterners bleeding to death on the streets was strangely absent during “shock and awe” and the eight year combined occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, during which hundreds of thousands have died in similar circumstances.
In a Free Republic thread about possible CIA involvement in Iran - which is a proven fact and not even up for debate - “Freepers” express their desire to see a little more meddling by way of CIA support for the opposition and the demonstrators - presumably by way of more money for Al-Qaeda offshoot terrorist groups like Jundullah and Mujahedeen-e Khalq to carry out more bombings and kill more people as part of the CIA’s now public destabilization program in Iran.
Of course, the talking heads, the establishment media whores, and the Neo-Con morons don’t really give a shit about the protesters or the opposition in Iran and indeed probably want them to be beaten and suppressed so that their real cause can be advanced - the demonization of the current Iranian government in the eyes of the world and a greasing of the skids for military invasion on behalf of the U.S., Britain and Israel.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The horrible irony to arise out of the riots and protests in Iran is that many Neo-Cons and phony conservatives, in their unified effort to enthusiastically embrace the Anglo-American establishment’s agenda for regime change, are cheerleading for a brutal thug who directed a terrorist campaign that killed hundreds of U.S. Marines in the 1980’s.
This once again proves that slack-jawed Neo-Con twits, ditto-heads for phony conservative media whores like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have no loyalty whatsoever to America, but only to the corrupt power structure which they like to believe they are a part of.
Apparently, the new form of ‘patriotism’, the new incarnation of ’support the troops’ - is to support someone who helped massacre hundreds of U.S. troops just two decades ago.
We are referring of course to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister of Iran who directed the bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983. Sold by the media and hailed by Neo-Cons as the avatar of Iranian democracy, Mousavi was also “fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack,” reports CQ Politics.
Regarding the Beirut bombings, which killed 220 U.S. Marines, CIA Middle East field officer Bob Baer wrote in TIME Magazine that Mousavi, “Dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah,” who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was “the man largely held responsible for both attacks.”
As Paul Craig Roberts writes, “The American media’s one-sided and propagandistic coverage of the Iranian election has made an American hero out of the defeated candidate, Mousavi.”
This charade has been vigorously amplified by phony right-wingers. As Raw Story notes, Neo-Cons have sided with the opposition against the boogeyman Ahmedinajed, to the point of grunting with delight at scenes broadcast by Fox News of police being beaten to a pulp by rioters. This makes for an odd contrast to their usual sentiment, towards anti-war protesters in the U.S. for example, for whom their newly found concern about police brutality towards demonstrators goes out of the window.
Similar feigned concern for demonstrators is being played out by TV talking heads across the networks. Take this former CIA agent for example, who informs Wolf Blitzer of his worries about how the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are treating protesters, warning that dissidents will be “disappeared”.
Oh the irony! For it was the CIA that trained the brutal Savak security force, copying techniques used by the Nazis to train the Gestapo, following the CIA’s overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddeq government in 1953. Savak engaged in the systematic torture, disappearance, and execution of thousands of the new puppet regime’s opponents before the 1979 revolution, all with the blessing of the United States government.
Neo-Cons and establishment media figures have also seized upon the tragic death of “Neda” as another reason why regime change is needed, aghast at shocking scenes of an innocent women dying. This new found emotion at the sight of Middle Easterners bleeding to death on the streets was strangely absent during “shock and awe” and the eight year combined occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, during which hundreds of thousands have died in similar circumstances.
In a Free Republic thread about possible CIA involvement in Iran - which is a proven fact and not even up for debate - “Freepers” express their desire to see a little more meddling by way of CIA support for the opposition and the demonstrators - presumably by way of more money for Al-Qaeda offshoot terrorist groups like Jundullah and Mujahedeen-e Khalq to carry out more bombings and kill more people as part of the CIA’s now public destabilization program in Iran.
Of course, the talking heads, the establishment media whores, and the Neo-Con morons don’t really give a shit about the protesters or the opposition in Iran and indeed probably want them to be beaten and suppressed so that their real cause can be advanced - the demonization of the current Iranian government in the eyes of the world and a greasing of the skids for military invasion on behalf of the U.S., Britain and Israel.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Whistleblower Who Linked “Taliban” Leader To US Intelligence Is Assassinated
analysts claim enemy of slain tribal leader is protected, funded by CIA
A whistleblower who defected from the Pakistani Taliban has been assassinated just days after he claimed that the group was working with US intelligence to destabilize the country.
Qari Zainuddin, a tribal leader of the South Waziristan region in Pakistan was shot dead on Tuesday by a gunman said to be loyal to Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.
Analysts said that Mr Zainuddin’s murder was a serious blow to the military campaign against the militants, as support of his faction was considered crucial, reports the London Times. “[It] is a warning to other pro government tribal commanders,” said Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier who had served as top official in the tribal region.
Zainuddin had rejected Mehsud’s Taliban tribe, and shifted his allegiance to the Pakistani government, following a string of suicide bombings targeting mosques and civilians.
The Pakistani government also claims that Mehsud was responsible for the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto.
One of Qari Zainuddin’s aides, who was also injured in the attack that killed the tribal leader, told the media that a lone gunman was able to enter Zainuddin’s office and open fire, before escaping uninjured.
“It was definitely Baitullah’s man who infiltrated our ranks, and he has done his job,” Baz Mohammad told the Associated Press news agency.
Zainuddin had recently hit out at Mehsud in an interview with the AP.
“Whatever Baitullah Mehsud and his associates are doing in the name of Islam is not a jihad, and in fact it is rioting and terrorism,” Zainuddin said.
Though the BBC and other mainstream sources highlighted this interview with Zainuddin, they neglected to cover the fact that Zainuddin also reportedly denounced Mehsud as “an American agent”.
Both Iranian and Pakistani media independently covered his remarks, adding that Zainuddin also described Baitullah Mehsud as having strong links with both Indian and Israeli intelligence.
In an interview with local media the defector said that Mehsud had established strong links with Israeli intelligence services, which were destabilizing the nuclear armed country, reports the Iranian news service Press TV.
“These people (Mehsud and his men) are working against Islam.” the report quotes Zainuddin as having said.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s largest daily newspaper, The News, carried a report last Sunday that highlighted the remarks:
“In interviews to various media organisations on Thursday, Qari Zainuddin and his deputy Haji Turkistan had alleged that Baitullah was an American and Indian agent, he had killed Benazir Bhutto and that the real Jihad was going on in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.” the report stated.
“Many diplomats contacted Foreign Office and Interior Ministry officials as well as media persons, seeking answers to their questions. Some Western diplomats were particularly confused over the claim that Baitullah was an American agent and that he had killed Benazir Bhutto. These diplomats were asking a question that if Baitullah was involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, does that mean that the American authorities were also involved in the conspiracy.” the report continued.
Of course, whether you put faith in the Iranian and Pakistani media on these reports, is another question, however, there have been suspicions for some time amongst some Pakistanis that Baitullah Mehsud is on the CIA payroll and is being protected by the intelligence apparatus.
According to retired brigadier and former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Shaukat Qadir, the Pakistani military has requested US help to kill Baitullah Mehsud on several occasions and provided the US with accurate information of his location. Despite this, he claims, Mehsud was never targeted.
Other analysts hold suspicions that Indian and US intelligence are funneling weapons, financial aid and even fighters to the Pakistani Taliban.
The history of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as we have previously reported, is replete with connections to western controlled intelligence agencies.
These facts were also recently highlighted by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, who admitted that the CIA and his country’s ISI together created the Taliban.
The Taliban’s spread into Pakistan has also been connected to intelligence driven plots to Balkanize the middle East.
A whistleblower who defected from the Pakistani Taliban has been assassinated just days after he claimed that the group was working with US intelligence to destabilize the country.
Qari Zainuddin, a tribal leader of the South Waziristan region in Pakistan was shot dead on Tuesday by a gunman said to be loyal to Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.
Analysts said that Mr Zainuddin’s murder was a serious blow to the military campaign against the militants, as support of his faction was considered crucial, reports the London Times. “[It] is a warning to other pro government tribal commanders,” said Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier who had served as top official in the tribal region.
Zainuddin had rejected Mehsud’s Taliban tribe, and shifted his allegiance to the Pakistani government, following a string of suicide bombings targeting mosques and civilians.
The Pakistani government also claims that Mehsud was responsible for the 2007 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto.
One of Qari Zainuddin’s aides, who was also injured in the attack that killed the tribal leader, told the media that a lone gunman was able to enter Zainuddin’s office and open fire, before escaping uninjured.
“It was definitely Baitullah’s man who infiltrated our ranks, and he has done his job,” Baz Mohammad told the Associated Press news agency.
Zainuddin had recently hit out at Mehsud in an interview with the AP.
“Whatever Baitullah Mehsud and his associates are doing in the name of Islam is not a jihad, and in fact it is rioting and terrorism,” Zainuddin said.
Though the BBC and other mainstream sources highlighted this interview with Zainuddin, they neglected to cover the fact that Zainuddin also reportedly denounced Mehsud as “an American agent”.
Both Iranian and Pakistani media independently covered his remarks, adding that Zainuddin also described Baitullah Mehsud as having strong links with both Indian and Israeli intelligence.
In an interview with local media the defector said that Mehsud had established strong links with Israeli intelligence services, which were destabilizing the nuclear armed country, reports the Iranian news service Press TV.
“These people (Mehsud and his men) are working against Islam.” the report quotes Zainuddin as having said.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s largest daily newspaper, The News, carried a report last Sunday that highlighted the remarks:
“In interviews to various media organisations on Thursday, Qari Zainuddin and his deputy Haji Turkistan had alleged that Baitullah was an American and Indian agent, he had killed Benazir Bhutto and that the real Jihad was going on in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan.” the report stated.
“Many diplomats contacted Foreign Office and Interior Ministry officials as well as media persons, seeking answers to their questions. Some Western diplomats were particularly confused over the claim that Baitullah was an American agent and that he had killed Benazir Bhutto. These diplomats were asking a question that if Baitullah was involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, does that mean that the American authorities were also involved in the conspiracy.” the report continued.
Of course, whether you put faith in the Iranian and Pakistani media on these reports, is another question, however, there have been suspicions for some time amongst some Pakistanis that Baitullah Mehsud is on the CIA payroll and is being protected by the intelligence apparatus.
According to retired brigadier and former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Shaukat Qadir, the Pakistani military has requested US help to kill Baitullah Mehsud on several occasions and provided the US with accurate information of his location. Despite this, he claims, Mehsud was never targeted.
Other analysts hold suspicions that Indian and US intelligence are funneling weapons, financial aid and even fighters to the Pakistani Taliban.
The history of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as we have previously reported, is replete with connections to western controlled intelligence agencies.
These facts were also recently highlighted by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, who admitted that the CIA and his country’s ISI together created the Taliban.
The Taliban’s spread into Pakistan has also been connected to intelligence driven plots to Balkanize the middle East.
9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public
Voltaire Net
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes: “What I saw at certain moments and in certain places … is very disturbing!” He never handed them over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote « El Perseguido » (the persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by Voltairenet.
Introduction
Kurt Sonnenfeld graduated from the University of Colorado (USA) with studies in International Affairs and Economics, as well as in Literature and Philosophy. He worked for the United States government as official videographer and served as Director of Broadcast Operations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s National Emergency Response Team. Additionally, Kurt Sonnenfeld was contracted by several other governmental agencies and programs for classified and “sensitive” operations at military and scientific installations throughout the United States.
On September 11, 2001, the area known as “Ground Zero” was sealed from the public eye. Sonnenfeld, however, was given unrestricted access enabling him to document for the investigation (that never took place) and provide some “sanitized” pool video to virtually every news network in the world. The tapes that reveal some of the anomalies which he discovered at Ground Zero are still in his possession.
Accused of a crime that did not occur in a manifest frame-up scenario, Kurt Sonnenfeld has been persecuted across continents. After several years of fear, injustice and isolation, he has decided to take a public stand against the Government’s official story and is prepared to submit his material to the close scrutiny of reliable experts.
Voltaire Network: Your autobiographical book titled “El Perseguido” (the persecuted) was recently published in Argentina where you live in exile since 2003. Tell us who is persecuting you.
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Although it is autobiographical, it is not my life story. Rather it is a history of the extraordinary events that have happened to me and my family at the hands of U.S. authorities over the course of more than seven years, spanning two hemispheres, after my tour of duty at Ground Zero and becoming an inconvenient witness.
Voltaire Network: You explained that your request for refugee status within the terms of the Geneva 1951 Convention is still being considered by the Argentinean Senate, while in 2005 you were granted political asylum, albeit, on a provisional basis. That probably makes you the first U.S. citizen in that situation! And no doubt the first U.S. Government official with direct exposure to the events surrounding September 11, 2001 who has “blown the whistle”. Is this what drove you into exile?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave (or stay away from) his or her country for reasons of persecution. It’s undeniable that many people have been persecuted unfairly as a result of the quasi-fascist laws and policies brought about by the shock of September 11, 2001, and they deserve refugee status. But the fact is, requesting refugee status is a risky and dangerous step to take. America is the world’s only remaining “superpower”, and dissent has been effectively repressed. Any person who requests refugee status on political grounds is by nature making an extreme statement of dissent. And if your request is denied, what do you do? Once you make the request, there can be no going back.
Personally, I wasn’t forced to leave the United States, and I certainly did not “flee”. At the time I was still fairly oblivious to what was actually brewing against me. I hadn’t connected the dots yet; so that when I left in early 2003 I had every intention of returning. I came to Argentina for a short respite; to try to recuperate after all that had happened to me. I travelled here freely, with my own passport, using my own credit cards. But because of an incredible series of events, I have since been forced into exile, and I haven’t been back.
Voltaire Network: What type of events are you referring to?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I’ve suffered false accusations for “crimes” that demonstrably did not happen, abusive imprisonment and torture as a result of those accusations, as well as outrageous calumnies against my reputation, death threats, kidnap attempts and several other violations of civil and human rights as denounced by numerous international accords. My return to the United States would not only be a continuation of those violations, but would be aggregated by the separation - perhaps permanent - from my wife and three-year old twin daughters, the only thing remaining that I have to live for. And then, after the impossibility of receiving a fair trial for a crime that did not happen, I could be subject to the death penalty.
Voltaire Network: In 2005, the U.S. Government lodged a request to have you extradited, which was turned down by a Federal Judge. Then, in 2007, the Argentinean Supreme Court – in a show of integrity and independence - turned down the U.S. appeal, but your Government persisted. Can you shed some light on the situation ?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In 2008, the US government appealed again, this time with absolutely no legal foundation, to the Supreme Court, which will surely uphold the two already unassailable rulings made by the Federal Judge.
In one of those rulings, it was also noted that there were too many “sombras”, or shadows, surrounding my case. There were many, many obvious fabrications in the extradition order sent here by US authorities, and, thankfully, we were able prove that. The fact that there were so many fabrications has actually served to support my request for asylum. We were also able to show that we had been subject to a prolonged campaign of harassment and intimidation from US intelligence services. As a result, since my family has been assigned round-the-clock police protection. As one senator has noted about my case: “It is their behavior that belies their true motivations”.
Voltaire Network: They want you pretty badly for a “crime that did not happen”! How do you account for such doggedness? As a FEMA official, you must have been trusted by your government. At what point did the situation capsize?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In hindsight, I realize now that the situation had capsized some time before I actually became aware that it had capsized. Initially, the false accusation against me was completely irrational, and I was totally destroyed by it. It is incredibly difficult to have suffered the loss of someone you love to suicide, but to then be accused of it is too much to bear. The case was dismissed based on a mountain of evidence that overwhelmingly absolved me (Nancy, my wife, had left behind a suicide note and a journal of suicidal writings ; she had a family history of suicide ; etc.). The prosecution was 100% sure of my innocence before requesting the dismissal of charge.
But the sustained incarceration even AFTER it was indicated that I was to be freed was what proved to me that something was happening under the surface. I was held in jail for FOUR MONTHS after my lawyers were informed that the case was to be dismissed and was finally released in June 2002. During that time, an amazing series of strange events began to occur. While still being held, I had a telephone conversation with FEMA officials in an effort to resolve the issue, but I realized that I was considered “compromised”. I was told it had been agreed that “the agency had to be protected”, especially in light of the upheaval that was threatening with the implementation of the “ Patriot Act” and the expected usurpation that would come with the new Department of Homeland Security. After all the dangers I had risked, all hardship and difficulties I had endured for them for almost 10 years, I felt betrayed. It left a void in my soul.
Because of their abandonment, I told them I didn’t have the tapes, that I gave them to “some bureaucrat” in New York, and that they would have to wait until I was released to retrieve any other documents in my possession. Soon after that conversation, my house was “seized”, the locks were changed, and men were observed by neighbors entering my house, though there is no record in the court of their entry, as would be required. When I was finally released, I discovered that my office had been ransacked, my computer was missing, and that my tape library in my basement had been dug through and several were missing. Men were constantly parked on the street near my house, my security system was “hacked” more than once, outdoor security lights were unscrewed, etc., to the point that I went to stay with some friends at their condo in the mountains, which was then ALSO broken into.
Anyone who looks for the truth recognizes that there has been an amazing series of irregularities in this case and that an appalling injustice is being carried out on me and my loved ones. This intense campaign to return me to American soil is a false pretext for other darker motives.
Voltaire Network: You have suggested that you observed things at Ground Zero that did not tally with the official account. Did you do or say anything to arouse suspicion in this respect?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In that same telephone call I said that I would “go public”, not only with my suspicions about the events surrounding September 11, 2001, but about several contracts I had worked on in the past.
Voltaire Network: What are your suspicions based on?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: There were many things, in hindsight, that were disturbing at Ground Zero. It was odd to me that I was dispatched to go to New York even before the second plane hit the South Tower, while the media was still reporting only that a “small plane” had collided with the North Tower — far too small of a catastrophe at that point to involve FEMA . FEMA was mobilized within minutes, whereas it took ten days for it to deploy to New Orleans to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even with abundant advance warning! It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the “evidence” within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed. And then it was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks!
We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!
What happened with Building 7 is incredibly suspicious. I have video that shows how curiously small the rubble pile was, and how the buildings to either side were untouched by Building Seven when it collapsed. It had not been hit by an airplane; it had suffered only minor injuries when the Twin Towers collapsed, and there were only small fires on a couple of floors. There’s no way that building could have imploded the way it did without controlled demolition. Yet the collapse of Building 7 was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media and suspiciously ignored by the 911 Commission.
Voltaire Network: Reportedly, the underground levels of WTC7 contained sensitive and undoubtedly compromising archival material. Did you come across any of it?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: The Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Emergency Management’s “Crisis Center” occupied huge amounts of space there, spanning several floors of the building. Other federal agencies had offices there as well. After September 11, it was discovered that concealed within Building Seven was the largest clandestine domestic station of the Central Intelligence Agency outside of Washington DC, a base of operations from which to spy on diplomats of the United Nations and to conduct counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions.
There was no underground parking level at Seven World Trade Center. And there was no underground vault. Instead, the federal agencies at Building Seven stored their vehicles, documents and evidence in the building of their associates across the street. Beneath the plaza level of US Customs House ( Building 6) was a large underground garage, separated off from the rest of the complex’s underground area and guarded under tight security. This was where the various government services parked their bomb-proofed cars and armored limousines, counterfeit taxi cabs and telephone company trucks used for undercover surveillance and covert operations, specialized vans and other vehicles. Also within that secured parking area was access to the sub-level vault of Building 6.
When the North Tower fell, the US Customs House ( Building 6) was crushed and totally incinerated. Much of the underground levels beneath it were also destroyed. But there were voids. And it was into one of those voids, recently uncovered, that I descended with a special Task Force to investigate. It was there we found the security antechamber to the vault, badly damaged. At the far end of the security office was the wide steel door to the vault, a combination code keypad in the cinderblock wall beside it. But the wall was cracked and partially crumbled, and the door was sprung partially open. So we checked inside with our flashlights. Except for several rows of empty shelves, there was nothing in the vault but dust and debris. It had been emptied. Why was it empty? And when could it have been emptied?
Voltaire Network: Is this what set alarm bells ringing for you?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Yes, but not immediately. With so much chaos, it was difficult to think. It was only after digesting everything that the “alarm bells” went off.
Building Six was evacuated within twelve minutes after the first airplane struck the North Tower. The streets were immediately clogged with fire trucks, police cars and blocked traffic, and the vault was large enough, 15 meters by 15 meters by my estimate, to necessitate at least a big truck to carry out its contents. And after the towers fell and destroyed most of the parking level, a mission to recover the contents of the vault would have been impossible. The vault had to have been emptied before the attack.
I’ve described all of this extensively in my book, and it’s apparent that things of importance were taken out of harm’s way before the attacks. For example, the CIA didn’t seem too concerned about their losses. After the existence of their clandestine office in Building Seven was discovered, an agency spokesman told the newspapers that a special team had been dispatched to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports, though there were millions, if not billions of pages floating in the streets. Nevertheless, the spokesman was confident. “There shouldn’t be too much paper around,” he said.
And Customs at first claimed that everything was destroyed. That the heat was so intense that everything in the evidence safe had been baked to ash. But some months later, they announced that they had broken up a huge Colombian narco-trafficking and money-laundering ring after miraculously recovering crucial evidence from the safe, including surveillance photos and heat-sensitive cassette tapes of monitored calls. And when they moved in to their new building at 1 Penn Plaza in Manhattan, they proudly hung on the lobby wall their Commissioner’s Citation Plaque and their big round US Customs Service ensign, also miraculously recovered, in pristine condition, from their crushed and cremated former office building at the World Trade Center.
Voltaire Network: You weren’t alone on the Ground Zero assignment. Did the others notice the same anomalies? Do you know whether they have they also been harassed?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually there were a few people on two different excursions that I know about. Some of us even discussed it afterwards. They know who they are and I hope that they will come forward, but I’m sure they have strong apprehensions as to what will happen to them if they do. I will leave it to them to decide, but there is strength in numbers.
Voltaire Network: With the publication of your book, you have become a “whistleblower” – yet another step on which there is no going back! There must be many people with inside knowledge about what really happened or did not happen on that fateful day. Yet, hardly any have stepped up to the plate and certainly no one who was directly involved in an official capacity. This is what makes your case so compelling. Judging from your ordeal, it is not difficult to imagine what is holding such people back.
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually, there are several other very smart and credible people blowing whistles, too. And they are being discredited and ignored. Some are being harassed and persecuted, as I am.
People are gripped by fear. Everybody knows that if you question US authority you will have problems in some way or another. At minimum you will be discredited and dehumanized. Most likely you’ll find yourself indicted for something completely unrelated, like tax evasion — or something even worse, as in my case. Look at what happened to Secret Service whistle-blower Abraham Bolden, for example, or to chess master Bobby Fischer after he showed his disdain for the US. There are countless other examples. In the past I asked friends and associates to speak out for me to counter all the lies being planted in the media, and all of them were terrified as to the ramifications to themselves and their families.
Voltaire Network: To what degree would your discoveries at Ground Zero expose the government’s involvement in those events? Are you familiar with the investigations that have been carried out by numerous scientists and qualified professionals which not only corroborate your own findings but, in some instances, far exceed them? Do you regard such people as “conspiracy nuts”?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: At the highest levels in Washington, DC, someone knew what was going to happen. They wanted a war so badly that they at least let it happen and most likely even helped it happen.
Sometimes it seems to me that the “nuts” are those who hold to what they’ve been told with an almost religious fervor despite all of the evidence to the contrary — the ones who won’t even consider that there was a conspiracy. There are so many anomalies to the “official” investigation that you can’t blame it on oversight or incompetence. I am familiar with the scientists and qualified professionals to whom you refer, and their findings are convincing, credible, and presented according to scientific protocol — in stark contrast to the findings of the “official” investigation. In addition, numerous intelligence agents and government officials have now come forward with their very informed opinions that the 911 Commission was a farce at best or a cover-up at worst. My experience at Ground Zero is but one more piece of the puzzle.
Voltaire Network: Those events are nearly 8 years behind us. Do you consider that uncovering the truth about 9/11 continues to be an important objective? Why?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: It is of absolute importance. And it will be equally as important in 10 years, or even 50 years if the truth still has not been exposed. It is an important objective because, at this point in history, many people are too credulous to whatever “authority” tells them and too willing to follow. People in a state of shock seek guidance. People who are afraid are manipulable. And being able to manipulate the masses results in unimaginable benefits to a lot of very rich and very powerful people. War is incredibly expensive, but the money has to go somewhere. War is very profitable for the very few. And somehow their sons always end up in Washington DC, making the decisions and writing the budgets, while the sons of the poor and the poorly-connected always end up on the enemy lines, taking their orders and fighting their battles. The enormous black-budget of the US Department of Defense represents an unlimited money machine for the military-industrial complex, figuring in the multi-trillions of dollars, and it will continue to be so until the masses wake up, recuperate their skepticism and demand accountability. Wars (and false pretexts for war) will not cease until the people realize the true motive of war and stop believing “official” explanations.
Voltaire Network: What is referred to as the 9/11 Truth Movement, has been asking for a new, independent investigation into those events. Do you think that the Obama Administration holds out some hope in this respect?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I really hope so, but I’m skeptical. Why would the leadership of any established government willingly undertake any action that would result in a serious compromise to their authority? They will prefer to maintain the status quo and leave the things the way they are. The conductor of the train has been changed, but has the train changed its course? I doubt it. The push has to come from the public, not only domestically, but internationally, like your group is doing.
Voltaire Network: A number of human rights and activist groups are supporting your plight, not least Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. How have the Argentinean people in general responded to your situation?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: With an incredible outpouring of support. The military dictatorship is still fresh in the collective memory of most of the people here, along with the knowledge that the dictatorship (along with the other South American dictatorships at the time) was backed by the CIA, directed at the time by George Bush Senior. They remember well the torture centers, the secret prisons, the thousands of people “disappeared” for their opinions, the living in daily fear. They know that the United States today will do the same thing if they consider it beneficial, that they will invade a country to achieve their political and economic interests and then manipulate the media with fabricated “causus belli” to justify their conquests.
My family and I are honored to have Adolfo Pérez Esquiveland his advisors at Servicio de Paz y Justicia (SERPAJ) among our dearest friends. We have worked together on many causes, including the rights of refugees, the rights of women, for children without families and children with HIV/AIDS. We are also honored to have the support of the Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo; Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Línea Fundadora; Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS); Asamblea Permanente de Derechos Humanos (APDH); Familiares de Detenidos y Desaparecidos por Razones Políticas; Asociación de Mujeres, Migrantes y Refugiados Argentina (AMUMRA); Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Honorable Cámara de Diputados de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; Secretaría de Derechos Humanos de la Nación; and the Programa Nacional Anti-Impunidad. On an international level, Amicus Curiae have been presented in our favor by REPRIEVE of Great Britain, along with the collaboration of NIZKOR of Spain and Belgium. In addition, my wife, Paula, and I have been received in the Congress by La Comisión de Derechos Humanos y Garantías de la Honorable Cámara de Diputados de La Nación.
Voltaire Network: As we said, deciding to write this book and to go public was a huge step. What pushed you to do it?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: To save my family. And to let the world know that things are not what they seem.
Voltaire Network: Last but not least: what will you do with your tapes?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I am convinced that my tapes reveal many more anomalies than I am capable of recognizing given my limited qualifications. I will therefore cooperate in any way that I can with serious and reliable experts in a common endeavour to expose the truth.
Voltaire Network: Thank you very much !
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes: “What I saw at certain moments and in certain places … is very disturbing!” He never handed them over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote « El Perseguido » (the persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by Voltairenet.
Introduction
Kurt Sonnenfeld graduated from the University of Colorado (USA) with studies in International Affairs and Economics, as well as in Literature and Philosophy. He worked for the United States government as official videographer and served as Director of Broadcast Operations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s National Emergency Response Team. Additionally, Kurt Sonnenfeld was contracted by several other governmental agencies and programs for classified and “sensitive” operations at military and scientific installations throughout the United States.
On September 11, 2001, the area known as “Ground Zero” was sealed from the public eye. Sonnenfeld, however, was given unrestricted access enabling him to document for the investigation (that never took place) and provide some “sanitized” pool video to virtually every news network in the world. The tapes that reveal some of the anomalies which he discovered at Ground Zero are still in his possession.
Accused of a crime that did not occur in a manifest frame-up scenario, Kurt Sonnenfeld has been persecuted across continents. After several years of fear, injustice and isolation, he has decided to take a public stand against the Government’s official story and is prepared to submit his material to the close scrutiny of reliable experts.
Voltaire Network: Your autobiographical book titled “El Perseguido” (the persecuted) was recently published in Argentina where you live in exile since 2003. Tell us who is persecuting you.
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Although it is autobiographical, it is not my life story. Rather it is a history of the extraordinary events that have happened to me and my family at the hands of U.S. authorities over the course of more than seven years, spanning two hemispheres, after my tour of duty at Ground Zero and becoming an inconvenient witness.
Voltaire Network: You explained that your request for refugee status within the terms of the Geneva 1951 Convention is still being considered by the Argentinean Senate, while in 2005 you were granted political asylum, albeit, on a provisional basis. That probably makes you the first U.S. citizen in that situation! And no doubt the first U.S. Government official with direct exposure to the events surrounding September 11, 2001 who has “blown the whistle”. Is this what drove you into exile?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: A refugee is a person who has been forced to leave (or stay away from) his or her country for reasons of persecution. It’s undeniable that many people have been persecuted unfairly as a result of the quasi-fascist laws and policies brought about by the shock of September 11, 2001, and they deserve refugee status. But the fact is, requesting refugee status is a risky and dangerous step to take. America is the world’s only remaining “superpower”, and dissent has been effectively repressed. Any person who requests refugee status on political grounds is by nature making an extreme statement of dissent. And if your request is denied, what do you do? Once you make the request, there can be no going back.
Personally, I wasn’t forced to leave the United States, and I certainly did not “flee”. At the time I was still fairly oblivious to what was actually brewing against me. I hadn’t connected the dots yet; so that when I left in early 2003 I had every intention of returning. I came to Argentina for a short respite; to try to recuperate after all that had happened to me. I travelled here freely, with my own passport, using my own credit cards. But because of an incredible series of events, I have since been forced into exile, and I haven’t been back.
Voltaire Network: What type of events are you referring to?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I’ve suffered false accusations for “crimes” that demonstrably did not happen, abusive imprisonment and torture as a result of those accusations, as well as outrageous calumnies against my reputation, death threats, kidnap attempts and several other violations of civil and human rights as denounced by numerous international accords. My return to the United States would not only be a continuation of those violations, but would be aggregated by the separation - perhaps permanent - from my wife and three-year old twin daughters, the only thing remaining that I have to live for. And then, after the impossibility of receiving a fair trial for a crime that did not happen, I could be subject to the death penalty.
Voltaire Network: In 2005, the U.S. Government lodged a request to have you extradited, which was turned down by a Federal Judge. Then, in 2007, the Argentinean Supreme Court – in a show of integrity and independence - turned down the U.S. appeal, but your Government persisted. Can you shed some light on the situation ?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In 2008, the US government appealed again, this time with absolutely no legal foundation, to the Supreme Court, which will surely uphold the two already unassailable rulings made by the Federal Judge.
In one of those rulings, it was also noted that there were too many “sombras”, or shadows, surrounding my case. There were many, many obvious fabrications in the extradition order sent here by US authorities, and, thankfully, we were able prove that. The fact that there were so many fabrications has actually served to support my request for asylum. We were also able to show that we had been subject to a prolonged campaign of harassment and intimidation from US intelligence services. As a result, since my family has been assigned round-the-clock police protection. As one senator has noted about my case: “It is their behavior that belies their true motivations”.
Voltaire Network: They want you pretty badly for a “crime that did not happen”! How do you account for such doggedness? As a FEMA official, you must have been trusted by your government. At what point did the situation capsize?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In hindsight, I realize now that the situation had capsized some time before I actually became aware that it had capsized. Initially, the false accusation against me was completely irrational, and I was totally destroyed by it. It is incredibly difficult to have suffered the loss of someone you love to suicide, but to then be accused of it is too much to bear. The case was dismissed based on a mountain of evidence that overwhelmingly absolved me (Nancy, my wife, had left behind a suicide note and a journal of suicidal writings ; she had a family history of suicide ; etc.). The prosecution was 100% sure of my innocence before requesting the dismissal of charge.
But the sustained incarceration even AFTER it was indicated that I was to be freed was what proved to me that something was happening under the surface. I was held in jail for FOUR MONTHS after my lawyers were informed that the case was to be dismissed and was finally released in June 2002. During that time, an amazing series of strange events began to occur. While still being held, I had a telephone conversation with FEMA officials in an effort to resolve the issue, but I realized that I was considered “compromised”. I was told it had been agreed that “the agency had to be protected”, especially in light of the upheaval that was threatening with the implementation of the “ Patriot Act” and the expected usurpation that would come with the new Department of Homeland Security. After all the dangers I had risked, all hardship and difficulties I had endured for them for almost 10 years, I felt betrayed. It left a void in my soul.
Because of their abandonment, I told them I didn’t have the tapes, that I gave them to “some bureaucrat” in New York, and that they would have to wait until I was released to retrieve any other documents in my possession. Soon after that conversation, my house was “seized”, the locks were changed, and men were observed by neighbors entering my house, though there is no record in the court of their entry, as would be required. When I was finally released, I discovered that my office had been ransacked, my computer was missing, and that my tape library in my basement had been dug through and several were missing. Men were constantly parked on the street near my house, my security system was “hacked” more than once, outdoor security lights were unscrewed, etc., to the point that I went to stay with some friends at their condo in the mountains, which was then ALSO broken into.
Anyone who looks for the truth recognizes that there has been an amazing series of irregularities in this case and that an appalling injustice is being carried out on me and my loved ones. This intense campaign to return me to American soil is a false pretext for other darker motives.
Voltaire Network: You have suggested that you observed things at Ground Zero that did not tally with the official account. Did you do or say anything to arouse suspicion in this respect?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In that same telephone call I said that I would “go public”, not only with my suspicions about the events surrounding September 11, 2001, but about several contracts I had worked on in the past.
Voltaire Network: What are your suspicions based on?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: There were many things, in hindsight, that were disturbing at Ground Zero. It was odd to me that I was dispatched to go to New York even before the second plane hit the South Tower, while the media was still reporting only that a “small plane” had collided with the North Tower — far too small of a catastrophe at that point to involve FEMA . FEMA was mobilized within minutes, whereas it took ten days for it to deploy to New Orleans to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even with abundant advance warning! It was odd to me that all cameras were so fiercely prohibited within the secured perimeter of Ground Zero, that the entire area was declared a crime scene and yet the “evidence” within that crime scene was so rapidly removed and destroyed. And then it was very odd to me when I learned that FEMA and several other federal agencies had already moved into position at their command center at Pier 92 on September 10th, one day before the attacks!
We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust. And I definitely harbor some doubts about the authenticity of the “jet” turbine, far too small to have come from one of the Boeings!
What happened with Building 7 is incredibly suspicious. I have video that shows how curiously small the rubble pile was, and how the buildings to either side were untouched by Building Seven when it collapsed. It had not been hit by an airplane; it had suffered only minor injuries when the Twin Towers collapsed, and there were only small fires on a couple of floors. There’s no way that building could have imploded the way it did without controlled demolition. Yet the collapse of Building 7 was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media and suspiciously ignored by the 911 Commission.
Voltaire Network: Reportedly, the underground levels of WTC7 contained sensitive and undoubtedly compromising archival material. Did you come across any of it?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: The Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Emergency Management’s “Crisis Center” occupied huge amounts of space there, spanning several floors of the building. Other federal agencies had offices there as well. After September 11, it was discovered that concealed within Building Seven was the largest clandestine domestic station of the Central Intelligence Agency outside of Washington DC, a base of operations from which to spy on diplomats of the United Nations and to conduct counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions.
There was no underground parking level at Seven World Trade Center. And there was no underground vault. Instead, the federal agencies at Building Seven stored their vehicles, documents and evidence in the building of their associates across the street. Beneath the plaza level of US Customs House ( Building 6) was a large underground garage, separated off from the rest of the complex’s underground area and guarded under tight security. This was where the various government services parked their bomb-proofed cars and armored limousines, counterfeit taxi cabs and telephone company trucks used for undercover surveillance and covert operations, specialized vans and other vehicles. Also within that secured parking area was access to the sub-level vault of Building 6.
When the North Tower fell, the US Customs House ( Building 6) was crushed and totally incinerated. Much of the underground levels beneath it were also destroyed. But there were voids. And it was into one of those voids, recently uncovered, that I descended with a special Task Force to investigate. It was there we found the security antechamber to the vault, badly damaged. At the far end of the security office was the wide steel door to the vault, a combination code keypad in the cinderblock wall beside it. But the wall was cracked and partially crumbled, and the door was sprung partially open. So we checked inside with our flashlights. Except for several rows of empty shelves, there was nothing in the vault but dust and debris. It had been emptied. Why was it empty? And when could it have been emptied?
Voltaire Network: Is this what set alarm bells ringing for you?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Yes, but not immediately. With so much chaos, it was difficult to think. It was only after digesting everything that the “alarm bells” went off.
Building Six was evacuated within twelve minutes after the first airplane struck the North Tower. The streets were immediately clogged with fire trucks, police cars and blocked traffic, and the vault was large enough, 15 meters by 15 meters by my estimate, to necessitate at least a big truck to carry out its contents. And after the towers fell and destroyed most of the parking level, a mission to recover the contents of the vault would have been impossible. The vault had to have been emptied before the attack.
I’ve described all of this extensively in my book, and it’s apparent that things of importance were taken out of harm’s way before the attacks. For example, the CIA didn’t seem too concerned about their losses. After the existence of their clandestine office in Building Seven was discovered, an agency spokesman told the newspapers that a special team had been dispatched to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports, though there were millions, if not billions of pages floating in the streets. Nevertheless, the spokesman was confident. “There shouldn’t be too much paper around,” he said.
And Customs at first claimed that everything was destroyed. That the heat was so intense that everything in the evidence safe had been baked to ash. But some months later, they announced that they had broken up a huge Colombian narco-trafficking and money-laundering ring after miraculously recovering crucial evidence from the safe, including surveillance photos and heat-sensitive cassette tapes of monitored calls. And when they moved in to their new building at 1 Penn Plaza in Manhattan, they proudly hung on the lobby wall their Commissioner’s Citation Plaque and their big round US Customs Service ensign, also miraculously recovered, in pristine condition, from their crushed and cremated former office building at the World Trade Center.
Voltaire Network: You weren’t alone on the Ground Zero assignment. Did the others notice the same anomalies? Do you know whether they have they also been harassed?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually there were a few people on two different excursions that I know about. Some of us even discussed it afterwards. They know who they are and I hope that they will come forward, but I’m sure they have strong apprehensions as to what will happen to them if they do. I will leave it to them to decide, but there is strength in numbers.
Voltaire Network: With the publication of your book, you have become a “whistleblower” – yet another step on which there is no going back! There must be many people with inside knowledge about what really happened or did not happen on that fateful day. Yet, hardly any have stepped up to the plate and certainly no one who was directly involved in an official capacity. This is what makes your case so compelling. Judging from your ordeal, it is not difficult to imagine what is holding such people back.
Kurt Sonnenfeld: Actually, there are several other very smart and credible people blowing whistles, too. And they are being discredited and ignored. Some are being harassed and persecuted, as I am.
People are gripped by fear. Everybody knows that if you question US authority you will have problems in some way or another. At minimum you will be discredited and dehumanized. Most likely you’ll find yourself indicted for something completely unrelated, like tax evasion — or something even worse, as in my case. Look at what happened to Secret Service whistle-blower Abraham Bolden, for example, or to chess master Bobby Fischer after he showed his disdain for the US. There are countless other examples. In the past I asked friends and associates to speak out for me to counter all the lies being planted in the media, and all of them were terrified as to the ramifications to themselves and their families.
Voltaire Network: To what degree would your discoveries at Ground Zero expose the government’s involvement in those events? Are you familiar with the investigations that have been carried out by numerous scientists and qualified professionals which not only corroborate your own findings but, in some instances, far exceed them? Do you regard such people as “conspiracy nuts”?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: At the highest levels in Washington, DC, someone knew what was going to happen. They wanted a war so badly that they at least let it happen and most likely even helped it happen.
Sometimes it seems to me that the “nuts” are those who hold to what they’ve been told with an almost religious fervor despite all of the evidence to the contrary — the ones who won’t even consider that there was a conspiracy. There are so many anomalies to the “official” investigation that you can’t blame it on oversight or incompetence. I am familiar with the scientists and qualified professionals to whom you refer, and their findings are convincing, credible, and presented according to scientific protocol — in stark contrast to the findings of the “official” investigation. In addition, numerous intelligence agents and government officials have now come forward with their very informed opinions that the 911 Commission was a farce at best or a cover-up at worst. My experience at Ground Zero is but one more piece of the puzzle.
Voltaire Network: Those events are nearly 8 years behind us. Do you consider that uncovering the truth about 9/11 continues to be an important objective? Why?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: It is of absolute importance. And it will be equally as important in 10 years, or even 50 years if the truth still has not been exposed. It is an important objective because, at this point in history, many people are too credulous to whatever “authority” tells them and too willing to follow. People in a state of shock seek guidance. People who are afraid are manipulable. And being able to manipulate the masses results in unimaginable benefits to a lot of very rich and very powerful people. War is incredibly expensive, but the money has to go somewhere. War is very profitable for the very few. And somehow their sons always end up in Washington DC, making the decisions and writing the budgets, while the sons of the poor and the poorly-connected always end up on the enemy lines, taking their orders and fighting their battles. The enormous black-budget of the US Department of Defense represents an unlimited money machine for the military-industrial complex, figuring in the multi-trillions of dollars, and it will continue to be so until the masses wake up, recuperate their skepticism and demand accountability. Wars (and false pretexts for war) will not cease until the people realize the true motive of war and stop believing “official” explanations.
Voltaire Network: What is referred to as the 9/11 Truth Movement, has been asking for a new, independent investigation into those events. Do you think that the Obama Administration holds out some hope in this respect?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I really hope so, but I’m skeptical. Why would the leadership of any established government willingly undertake any action that would result in a serious compromise to their authority? They will prefer to maintain the status quo and leave the things the way they are. The conductor of the train has been changed, but has the train changed its course? I doubt it. The push has to come from the public, not only domestically, but internationally, like your group is doing.
Voltaire Network: A number of human rights and activist groups are supporting your plight, not least Peace Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. How have the Argentinean people in general responded to your situation?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: With an incredible outpouring of support. The military dictatorship is still fresh in the collective memory of most of the people here, along with the knowledge that the dictatorship (along with the other South American dictatorships at the time) was backed by the CIA, directed at the time by George Bush Senior. They remember well the torture centers, the secret prisons, the thousands of people “disappeared” for their opinions, the living in daily fear. They know that the United States today will do the same thing if they consider it beneficial, that they will invade a country to achieve their political and economic interests and then manipulate the media with fabricated “causus belli” to justify their conquests.
My family and I are honored to have Adolfo Pérez Esquiveland his advisors at Servicio de Paz y Justicia (SERPAJ) among our dearest friends. We have worked together on many causes, including the rights of refugees, the rights of women, for children without families and children with HIV/AIDS. We are also honored to have the support of the Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo; Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Línea Fundadora; Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS); Asamblea Permanente de Derechos Humanos (APDH); Familiares de Detenidos y Desaparecidos por Razones Políticas; Asociación de Mujeres, Migrantes y Refugiados Argentina (AMUMRA); Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Honorable Cámara de Diputados de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; Secretaría de Derechos Humanos de la Nación; and the Programa Nacional Anti-Impunidad. On an international level, Amicus Curiae have been presented in our favor by REPRIEVE of Great Britain, along with the collaboration of NIZKOR of Spain and Belgium. In addition, my wife, Paula, and I have been received in the Congress by La Comisión de Derechos Humanos y Garantías de la Honorable Cámara de Diputados de La Nación.
Voltaire Network: As we said, deciding to write this book and to go public was a huge step. What pushed you to do it?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: To save my family. And to let the world know that things are not what they seem.
Voltaire Network: Last but not least: what will you do with your tapes?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: I am convinced that my tapes reveal many more anomalies than I am capable of recognizing given my limited qualifications. I will therefore cooperate in any way that I can with serious and reliable experts in a common endeavour to expose the truth.
Voltaire Network: Thank you very much !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)