Nano-Microchips Inside Vaccines?

Are Populations Being Primed For Nano-Microchips Inside Vaccines?

It's almost surreal, like something out of a sci-fi flick, but nano-microchips invisible to the naked eye are a reality that are already being hosted in wide-range of applications. The question is, how long will it take governments and big pharma to immerse nano-microchips inside of vaccines to tag and surveil global populations?

Nanotechnology deals with structures smaller than one micrometer (less than 1/30th the width of a human hair), and involves developing materials or devices within that size. To put the size of a nanometer in perspective, it is 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair.

More than ten years ago, simple low-cost techniques improved the design and manufacture of nano-microchips. That unlocked a multitude of methodologies for their manufacture in a wide-range of applications including optical, biological, and electronic devices.

The joint use of nanoelectronics, photolithography, and new biomaterials, have enabled the required manufacturing technology towards nanorobots for common medical applications, such as surgical instrumentation, diagnosis and drug delivery.

Japan's Hitachi says it has developed the world's smallest and thinnest microchip, that can be embedded in paper to track down parcels or prove the authenticity of a document. The integrated circuit (IC) chip is as minute as a speck of dust.

Nanoelectrodes implanted in the brain are increasingly being used to manage neurological disorders. Mohammad Reza Abidian, a post-doctoral researcher at the U-M Department of Biomedical Engineering said that polymers in nanotubes "are biocompatible and have both electronic and ionic conductivity." He further stated "therefore, these materials are good candidates for biomedical applications such as neural interfaces, biosensors and drug delivery systems."

Depending on the objectives of such studies, research could theoretically pave the way for smart recording electrodes that can deliver drugs to positively or negatively affect the immune response.

Through nanotechnology, researchers have also been able to create artificial pores able to transmit nanoscale materials through membranes.

A UC biomedical engineering study appearing in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, Sept. 27, 2009, successfully inserted the modified core of a nanomotor, a microscopic biological machine, into a lipid membrane. The resulting channel enabled them to move both single- and double-stranded DNA through the membrane.

Professor Peixuan Guo who led the study said past work with biological channels has been focused on channels large enough to move only single-stranded genetic material.

"Since the genomic DNA of human, animals, plants, fungus and bacteria are double stranded, the development of single pore system that can sequence double-stranded DNA is very important," he says.

Such engineered channels could have applications in nano-sensing, DNA sequencing, drug loading, including innovative techniques to implement DNA packaging mechanisms of viral nanomotors and vaccine delivery.

"The idea that a DNA molecule travels through the nanopore, advancing nucleotide by nucleotide, could lead to the development of a single pore DNA sequencing apparatus, an area of strong national interest," Guo said.

Scientists working at Queen Mary, University of London, have developed micrometer-sized capsules to safely deliver drugs inside living cells. These "micro shuttles" could hypothetically be loaded with a specific microchip controlling the dose of medication to be opened remotely, releasing their contents. Besides monitoring the dosage, the same microchip could be used to surveil the patient in conjunction with various tracking systems.

Scientists in the United Kingdom have recently reported advances towards overcoming key challenges in nanotechnology. They demonstrated how nanoparticles could move quickly in a desired direction without help from outside forces. Their achievement has broad implications, the scientists say, raising the possibility of coaxing cells to move and grow in specific directions.

Doug Dorst, a microbiologist and vaccine critic in South Wales, says these advances have an immense appeal to vaccine makers. "Biotech companies and their researchers have quickly moved most funding initiatives towards nanotechnology to increase the potency of their vaccines," he said. If microorganisms inside of vaccines can be coaxed into targeting or invading specific cells, they could achieve their goal at an accelerated rate over conventional vaccines. "Depending on which side of the vaccine debate you're on, whether pro or con, nanobots inside vaccine preparations could advance their effectiveness exponentially by either dramatically improving or destroying immunity depending on their design," he added.

Dorst claims that present day nanobot technology could just as easily be used to advance biological weapons as they can to advance human health. "For every fear that biotech propaganda proliferates about deadly diseases and how vaccines prevent them, it is one more lie to incrementally convince the masses that vaccines are effective."

The worry for Dorst is that one day vaccines "will do what they've always been intended for...control of the global populace."

Nanoemulsion platforms are already capable of developing vaccines from very diverse materials. Mixtures of soybean oil, alcohol, water and detergents can be emulsified into ultra-small particles smaller than 400 nanometers wide (about 1/200th the width of a human hair). These could be combined with any number of nano-microchips with all or part of disease-causing microbes to trigger the body's immune system.

In 2007 researchers at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) announced in an article in the journal, Nature Biotechnology, that they had developed a “nanoparticle that can deliver vaccines more effectively, with fewer side effects, and at a fraction of the cost of current vaccine technologies.” The article went on to describe the effects of their breakthrough: “At a mere 25 nanometers, these particles are so tiny that once injected, they flow through the skin’s extracellular matrix, making a beeline to the lymph nodes. Within minutes, they’ve reached a concentration of DCs thousands of times greater than in the skin."

Russia has recently announced a new manufacturing plant that will strictly produce nano-vaccines. Project plans include development of two vaccines for human flu and bird flu and three biopharmaceuticals for boosting the immune system and increasing the efficiency of antibacterial and antiviral drugs, among other initiatives.

The human body is very resistant to nanoparticles that attempt to invade human cells. Scientists are intensely investigating methods to disrupt human enzymes that may degrade nanoparticles. Experts at the University of Liverpool found a way around this obstacle that could mean more efficient, topical drugs in the future, which could act a whole lot faster than the ones currently in use.

All these nanotechnological advances raise many issues and concerns about the toxicity and environmental impact of nanomaterials, and their potential effects on medicine, global economics, as well as speculation about government surveillance. These concerns have led to a debate among advocacy groups and governments on whether special regulation of nanotechnology is warranted.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a news release last week saying that it had “today outlined a new research strategy to better understand how manufactured nanomaterials may harm human health and the environment.” Interesting as that strategy document is, it was hardly hot off the presses.

Indeed, many companies advertise their use of such billionth-of-a-meter-scale constituents as a measure of a product's state-of-the-art status, implying that ultra-small ingredients are an inherently good thing. They aren’t. Nor does size necessarily make these materials worse than others. At this point it's just maddeningly unpredictable what nano things will do.

Proponents of nanotechnology are very critical of regulatory measures that may impeed its progression. Many of these critics have staunchly dismissed concerns as being fear-hyped conspiracy theories based on science fiction.

In the popular video game series Metal Gear Solid, many characters and soldiers in general, have "nanomachines" in their bloodstream, and are used to block pain, allow members of fire teams/patrols to share sensory information, heal bodily damage, as well as manipulating viruses central to video game's plot line.

Through the use of special effects and computer-generated imagery, several blockbusters starring Keanu Reeves including The Matrix Trilogy and The Day the Earth Stood Still, have dramatized how nanobots could effectively take control of their organic and inorganic targets.

Star Trek episodes and their theatrical releases such as Star Trek: First Contact have also depicted how nanoprobes (nanites) could infect an individual's bloodstream through a pair of tubules.

Regardless of the recurring themes of nanobots in video games, sci-fi shows and movies, nanotechnology is a reality, and nano-microchips are well on their way to being utilized in ways which may be detrimental to human health and freedom on a global scale.

The development of nano-microchips are a major thrust of governments and pharmaceutical industries who want the ultimate power and leverage over global populations for more profit and more control.

In December 2000, Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland, Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, MD stated that it is technically possible for every newborn to be injected with a microchip, which could then function to identify the person for the rest of his or her life. Such plans are secretly being discussed in the U.S. without any public airing of the privacy issues involved.

Today's microchips operate by means of low-frequency radio waves that target them. With the help of satellites, the implanted person can be tracked anywhere on the globe. Such a technique was among a number tested in the Iraq war, according to Dr. Carl Sanders, who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people. (Earlier during the Vietnam War, soldiers were injected with the Rambo chip, designed to increase adrenaline flow into the bloodstream.) The 20-billion-bit/second supercomputers at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) could now "see and hear" what soldiers experience in the battlefield with a remote monitoring system (RMS).

When a 5-micromillimeter microchip (the diameter of a strand of hair is 50 micromillimeters) is placed into optical nerve of the eye, it draws neuroimpulses from the brain that embody the experiences, smells, sights, and voice of the implanted person. Once transferred and stored in a computer, these neuroimpulses can be projected back to the person’s brain via the microchip to be reexperienced. Using a RMS, a land-based computer operator can send electromagnetic messages (encoded as signals) to the nervous system, affecting the target's performance. With RMS, healthy persons can be induced to see hallucinations and to hear voices in their heads.

Every thought, reaction, hearing, and visual observation causes a certain neurological potential, spikes, and patterns in the brain and its electromagnetic fields, which can now be decoded into thoughts, pictures, and voices. Electromagnetic stimulation can therefore change a person's brainwaves and affect muscular activity, causing painful muscular cramps experienced as torture.

The NSA's electronic surveillance system can simultaneously follow and handle millions of people. Each of us has a unique bioelectrical resonance frequency in the brain, just as we have unique fingerprints. With electromagnetic frequency (EMF) brain stimulation fully coded, pulsating electromagnetic signals can be sent to the brain, causing the desired voice and visual effects to be experienced by the target. This is a form of electronic warfare. U.S. astronauts were implanted before they were sent into space so their thoughts could be followed and all their emotions could be registered 24 hours a day.

The mass media has not reported that an implanted person's privacy vanishes for the rest of his or her life. S/he can be manipulated in many ways. Using different frequencies, the secret controller of this equipment can even change a person's emotional life. S/he can be made aggressive or lethargic. Sexuality can be artificially influenced. Thought signals and subconscious thinking can be read, dreams affected and even induced, all without the knowledge or consent of the implanted person.

This secret technology has been used by military forces in certain NATO countries since the 1980s without civilian and academic populations having heard anything about it. Thus, little information about such invasive mind-control systems is available in professional and academic journals.

The NSA's Signals Intelligence group can remotely monitor information from human brains by decoding the evoked potentials (3.50HZ, 5 milliwatt) emitted by the brain. Prisoner experimentees in both Gothenburg, Sweden and Vienna, Austria have been found to have evident brain lesions. Diminished blood circulation and lack of oxygen in the right temporal frontal lobes result where brain implants are usually operative. A Finnish experimentee experienced brain atrophy and intermittent attacks of unconsciousness due to lack of oxygen.

Targeting people’s brain functions with electromagnetic fields and beams (from helicopters and airplanes, satellites, from parked vans, neighboring houses, telephone poles, electrical appliances, mobile phones, TV, radio, etc.) is part of the radiation problem that should be addressed by democratically elected governments. However, there is currently no interest by any national government to seriously address this issue.

The timeline for integrating nano-microchips inside of vaccines is speculative. It could be just a few years, months or perhaps it is here and we already unaware of their integration within pharmaceuticals. Regardless, due to the many military and political advantages, their implementation is inevitable.

However fraudulent, it was an imperative for world powers and pharmaceutical cartels to promote the effectiveness of vaccinations and enact national pandemic preparedness policies which mandate vaccinations.

In 2005 the World Health Organization (WHO) developed international health regulations that would bind all 194 member countries to pandemic emergency guidelines which could enforce such a mandate. Without these procedures of public health (and propagandized vaccine campaigns) in place, there would be little or no voluntary cooperation from the public to roll up their sleeves and accept the inoculations. Public participation is an essential tool that will soon allow big pharma to inject the most effective surveillence tool ever designed into billions of people.

Although nanotechnology manufacturing is currently available on a global scale, before biotech companies are able to initiate mass production and testing of nano-microchips inside of vaccines, they will likely sell the idea to the public. Through various "health enhancement scenarios" they will encourage participation and publicly announce regulatory approval from the same policies and regulatory agencies they helped create.

By mid-summer of 2009, the WHO and the Center of Disease Control (CDC) effectively hyped a false flu pandemic and convinced the world to submit to H1N1 vaccines. Additional doses of propaganda and possibly a biological event, may equally convince populations to knowingly accept microchips inside of vaccines under the guise of a "greater good" for humanity.

When our brain functions are already connected to supercomputers by means of radio implants and microchips, it will be too late for protest. This threat can be defeated only by educating the public, using available literature on biotelemetry, nanorobotics and information exchanged at international congresses.

The time to act is now!

Nanotechnology Takes Off


Brain Chipping: Injectible Micro-Chips


One Mainframe To Rule Them All (Part 1)


One Mainframe To Rule Them All (Part 2)



Source and more:
http://preventdisease.com/news/09/100509_injectable_nano_microchips.shtml

Germany and NATO’s Nuclear Dilemma

'The next war ... may well bury Western civilization forever.' – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

From the lying President's speech on 5 April 2009:

"The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War... I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation."

By Hans M. Kristensen, FAS

The new German government has announced that it wants to enter talks with its NATO allies about the withdrawal of the remaining U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany.

The announcement coincides with the Obama administration’s ongoing Nuclear Posture Review, which is spending an unprecedented amount of time pondering the “international aspects” of to what extent nuclear weapons help assure allies of their security.

Germany and many other NATO countries apparently don’t want to be protected by U.S. forward-deployed tactical nuclear weapons, which they see as a relic of the Cold War that locks NATO in the past and prevents it’s transition to the future.

Current Deployment

The U.S. Air Force currently deploys approximately 200 B61 nuclear bombs at six bases in five NATO countries (see Table 1). The weapons are the last remnant of a vast force of more than 7,000 tactical nuclear weapons that used to clutter bases in Europe during the Cold War as a defense against the Soviet threat and the Warsaw Pact’s large conventional forces.

Click to enlarge

The bombs are scattered among 87 individual aircraft shelters where they are stored in underground vaults. Although well protected, this widespread deployment contrasts normal U.S. nuclear weapons security procedures that favor consolidation at as few locations as possible.

An Air Force investigation concluded in 2008 that “most” sites in Europe did not meet U.S. security requirements. NATO officials publicly dismissed the conclusion, and a visit by a team from the U.S. government apparently found issues but nothing alarming.

Consolidation Versus Withdrawal

Rumors have circulated for several years about plans to consolidate the remaining weapons from the current six bases to one or two bases. The plans would either terminate the Cold War arrangement of non-nuclear NATO countries being assigned strike missions with U.S. nuclear weapons, or move the weapons to U.S. bases with the promise that they could be returned if necessary.

Consolidation has occurred frequently since the end of the Cold War: withdrawal from Turkish national bases Akinci and Balikesir in 1995; withdrawal from German national bases Memmingen and Norvenich in 1996; withdrawal from Greek national base Araxos in 2001; withdrawal from Ramstein in Germany in 2005 ; withdrawal from Lakenheath in England in 2006. Another round of consolidation would just be another slow step toward the inevitable: withdrawal from Europe.

Consolidation of the remaining nuclear bombs to the two U.S. southern bases at Aviano in Italy and Incirlik in Turkey would be problematic for two reasons. First, Turkey does not allow the U.S. Air Force to deploy the fighter-bombers to Incirlik that are needed to deliver the bombs if necessary, and has several times restricted U.S. deployments through Turkey into Iraq. Given that history, and apparent doubts about Turkey’s future direction, is nuclear deployment in Turkey a credible posture? Second, absent a fighter wing deployment to Incirlik, Aviano carries the overwhelming burden of conventional air operations on the southern flank of NATO, operations that are already burdened by the nuclear addendum and would further be so by a decision to consolidate the nuclear mission at the base.

An End to NATO Nuclear Strike Mission

The German policy to seek withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Büchel Air Base essentially means – if implemented – the unraveling of the NATO nuclear strike mission, whereby non-nuclear NATO countries equip and train their air forces to deliver U.S. nuclear weapons. Germany shares this mission with Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands, while Greece and Turkey opted out in 2001.

German personnel attach a U.S. B61 nuclear bomb shape to a German Tornado fighter-bomber under supervision of U.S. personnel. As a signatory to the NPT Germany has pledged not to receive nuclear weapons, yet, as this picture illustrates, is preparing its military to do so anyway. Image: German Ministry of Defense/Der Spiegel

The mission is highly controversial because these countries as signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have all pledged not to receive nuclear weapons: “undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.” Yet that’s precisely what the NATO strike mission entails: peacetime preparations for direct transfer of nuclear weapons and control over such weapons in times of war.

The mission is clearly inconsistent with if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the NPT. The arrangement was tolerated during the Cold War but is incompatible with nonproliferation policy is the 21st century.

Real-World Security Commitments

Germany is one of the “30-plus” allies and friends that some have argued recently need to be protected by nuclear weapons to prevent them from developing their own nuclear weapons. It has even been suggested that extended deterrence necessitates equipping the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with nuclear capability.

Yet high-level officials in both the White House and the Pentagon have already concluded that the United States no longer needs to deploy nuclear bombs in Europe to meet its security obligations to NATO. Those security obligations today have very little to do with nuclear weapons and extended deterrence is predominantly served by non-nuclear means. The limited role nuclear weapons still serve can adequately be fulfilled by long-range weapon systems just as they have been in the Pacific for 17 years. Whether the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review will reflect those views will be seen in February 2010 when the review is completed.

The U.S. nuclear bombs were deployed
in Europe to defend NATO against a
conventional attack from the Warsaw Pact,
a threat that has long-since disappeared.

Regardless, Germany apparently does not want to be protected by U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe. Neither does Belgium, where the parliament unanimously has requested nuclear bombs be withdrawn. Dutch officials privately say that they see no need for the deployment either. In fact, in all of the countries where nuclear weapons are deployed, an overwhelming majority of the public favors withdrawal. Turkey – one of the countries said by some to oppose withdrawal – has the highest public support for withdrawal of any of the countries that currently store nuclear weapons. In the long run this is a serious challenges for NATO; that its nuclear posture is so clearly out of sync with public opinion.

The biggest challenge seems to be to convince Poland and Turkey that withdrawal will not undermine the U.S. security commitment. Poland is worried about Russia; Turkey about Iran. But tactical nuclear weapons were the Cold War way of addressing such concerns. What’s needed now is focused diplomacy, stewardship, and reaffirmation of non-nuclear arrangements to convince these countries that the nuclear bombs that were deployed in Europe to defend NATO against a conventional attack from the Warsaw Pact can now finally be withdrawn.

The previous two German governments also favored withdrawal but did little to push the issue. Whether the new government will be any different will be put to the test during NATO’s ongoing revision of its Strategic Concept scheduled for completion in 2010.

*****

During an interview with Ekho Moskvy Radio last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked if “the American [nuclear] doctrine incorporate[s] preemptive nuclear strikes against an aggressor?”

The Secretary’s answer was: “No, no.”

Problem is politicians are the greatest liars:



'U.S. empire will fall by 2020' hopefully much earlier

US Workers Starved Into Service
It was only a matter of time before the nation’s skyrocketing unemployment translated into new recruits for the most powerful military force in the world.

Special Report: BIN LADEN AND 9/11: THE EVIDENCE

by David Ray Griffin for Veterans Today

Osama bin Laden as Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks: Is This Belief Based on Evidence?

The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an “article of faith” points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea.

On the other hand, as I pointed out at length in two of my books – 9/11 Contradictions1 and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,2 no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it.

Colin Powell’s Withdrawn Promise Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said that he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.”3

Powell reversed himself, however, at a press conference with President Bush in the White House Rose Garden the next morning, saying that, although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden's responsibility, "most of it is classified."4 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a "lack of solid information."5

This was the week that Bush, after demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden, refused their request for evidence that bin Laden had been behind the attacks.6 A senior Taliban official, after the US attack on Afghanistan had begun, said: "We have asked for proof of Osama's involvement, but they have refused. Why?"7 Hersh's answer was that they had no proof.

Tony Blair's Weak Document

The task of providing such proof was taken up by Bush's chief ally in the "war on terror," British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On October 4, 2001, Blair made public a document entitled: "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States." Listing "clear conclusions reached by the government," it stated: "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001." Blair's report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law."8 Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war.

The weakness in Blair's report, in any event, was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial."9

The FBI's Surprising Statement

What does our own FBI say? Here is a surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media: The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on "Usama bin Laden" does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which he is wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI's chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."11

After this story started flying around the Internet and was even covered by a TV station in Louisiana,12 Dan Eggen tried to downplay its significance in an August 2006 Washington Post article entitled "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?"13 Complaining about "conspiracy theorists" who claimed that "the lack of a Sept. 11 reference [on the FBI's "Most Wanted" webpage for bin Laden] suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain," Eggen quoted the explanation offered by a former US attorney, who said that the FBI could not appropriately "put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed."

But that explanation, while true, simply pushes the issue back a step to this question: Why have such charges not been filed? Rex Tomb's fuller statement, which Eggen failed to mention, had answered this question the previous June, saying:

The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.14

Copy of FBI’s Most Wanted Page for Osama Bin Laden

Click on image to go there





















The 9/11 Commission

What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden's guilt. But the Commission's co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission."15 (I discussed this book at length in Chapter 2 of my 2007 book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.16)

As the endnotes for The 9/11 Commission Report reveal, whenever the Commission referred to evidence of bin Ladin's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the Commission was always referring to CIA-provided information, which had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, generally called simply "KSM," who has been called the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote:

Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta - whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group - met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.17

The note for each of these statements says: "interrogation of KSM."18

Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."19 Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, Commission members were not even permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or to talk to the interrogators.20 Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained: "We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?"21

An NBC "deep background" report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. "At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report," NBC pointed out, "have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.'" NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect."22

Ex-CIA agent Bob Baer tells Hardball's Chris Matthews that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, waterboarded 183 times in one month, is now "almost brain dead"



The "Bin Laden Confession Tapes"

As we have seen, neither the 9/11 Commission, the Bush-Cheney White House, the FBI, the British government, nor the 9/11 Commission provided good evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Many people, however, have assumed that the question of his responsibility was settled by the existence of videotapes and audiotapes in which he himself confessed to the attacks. There are, however, good reasons to believe that these so-called confession tapes are fakes. I will illustrate this point in terms of the two best-known videotapes of this nature.

The "Jalalabad Video" Released December 13, 2001: The first and most famous of the "Osama bin Laden confession video tapes" was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. It had purportedly been made on November 9, 2001, after which it was allegedly found by US forces in a private home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In this video, an Osama bin Laden figure is seen talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting sheikh. During the course of the conversation, the bin Laden figure boasts about the success of the attacks, saying that he had planned them.23 Both US and British officials claimed that this tape left no doubt about bin Laden's guilt.24

Stories in both the Canadian and British media, however, raised questions about the tape's authenticity. These stories, besides pointing out the existence of the technical ability to create fake video tapes, also mentioned the suspicion of some people that the bin Laden figure was not Osama bin Laden himself.

A BBC News report said: "Washington calls it the ‘smoking gun' that puts Bin Laden's guilt beyond doubt, but many in the Arab world believe the home video of the al-Qaeda chief is a fake."25 This report was, in fact, entitled, "Could the Bin Laden Video Be a Fake?"

This question was also raised in Canada by CBC News, which pointed out that some people had "suggested the Americans hired someone to pretend to be the exiled Saudi."26

This question was raised even more insistently in a Guardian story with the title, "US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape." Reporting "growing doubt in the Muslim world about the authenticity of the film," writer Steven Morris said:

The White House yesterday came under pressure to give more details of the video which purports to show Osama bin Laden admitting his part in the September 11 attacks.27

Morris, pointing out that the White House had provided no details about how the Pentagon came to be in possession of the tape, added:

According to US officials the tape was found in a house in Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan, and handed to the Pentagon by an unnamed person or group. . . . But for many the explanation is too convenient. Some opponents of the war theorise that the Bin Laden in the film was a look-alike.

Morris then quoted one such opponent in Pakistan, who said: "This videotape is not authentic. The Americans made it up after failing to get any evidence against Osama."

Morris also cited Bob Crabtree, the editor of Computer Video magazine, who explained that it was impossible to determine whether the video was authentic without more details of its source, adding: "The US seems simply to have asked the world to trust them that it is genuine."28

This skepticism about the authenticity of this "Jalalabad video" was based on sound reasons. For one thing, this video's bin Laden figure appeared too heavy and healthy, compared with the bin Laden who made the last of the undoubtedly authentic bin Laden videos, which was made sometime in 2001 between November 16 (on which occurred an event mentioned on the tape) and December 27 (the date on which the tape was released). In this post-November 16 video, bin Laden's beard was white, he had a "gaunt, frail appearance," and his "left arm hung limply by his side while he gesticulated with his right."29 This immobile left arm, Dr. Sanjay Gupta observed on CNN, suggested that bin Laden had suffered a stroke, adding that this plus a "frosting of the appearance" suggested that bin Laden was in the final stages of kidney failure.30

But in the "Jalalabad video," which was reportedly made at about the same time (being dated November 9 and released December 13), the bin Laden figure was heavier and also darker, in both skin and beard color; his nose had a different shape;31 and his hands were shorter and heavier than those of Osama bin Laden as seen in undoubtedly authentic videos.32

Still another problem is that, whereas bin Laden was left-handed, the man in the "Jalalabad video" wrote with his right hand. Although it might be thought that this was because his left arm was immobile, the bin Laden figure in this video was easily able to lift his left arm above his head.33

If this video was made on November 9, as claimed, then it would have been made at most only a few weeks before the post-November 16 video. It is very hard to believe that the heavy, dark-skinned, healthy-looking man with a dark beard could have, within two or three weeks, turned into the pale, gaunt, white-bearded, man seen in the post-November 16 video.

If one accepts the Jalalabad video as authentic, one not only has to accept these radical changes in bin Laden's physical appearance; one must also accept a complete change in his statements about 9/11. In the previous weeks, he had repeatedly - on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 - stated that he had had nothing to do with the attacks.34 In the September 28 statement, he had even declared:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. . . . [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.35

Is it likely that he would have made such statements if he himself had authorized the attacks and thereby the killing of innocents?

Whatever be one's opinion about that, the bin Laden figure in the "Jalalabad video" made other statements that Osama bin Laden himself would surely not have made. For example, he said:

[W]e calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. . . . [D]ue to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.36

But in light of the real bin Laden's "experience in the field" as a building contractor, he would have known that high-rise buildings are framed with steel, not iron. Even more important, he would have known that the buildings' support columns - whether made of steel or iron - would not have been melted by the "fire from the gas in the plane." Why? Because he would have known, on the one hand, that a building fire, even if fed by jet-fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not, even under the most ideal conditions, have risen above 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius). And he would have known, on the other hand, that iron and steel do not begin to melt until they are heated to a temperature far higher than that: to almost 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,540 degrees Celsius). The real bin Laden, therefore, would not have expected any iron or steel to melt.

A final reason to consider the "Jalalabad video" a fake is that bin Laden experts have declared it to such. When Dr. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke University history professor widely considered the country's leading academic bin Laden expert,37 was asked what he thought about this video, he said, bluntly: "It's bogus." Some friends of his in the US Department of Homeland Security assigned to work "on the 24/7 bin Laden clock," he added, "also know it's bogus."38

General Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), suggested that the man in the video was an "Osama bin Laden lookalike."39

Former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla, after saying "[t]he guy just does not look like Osama," added: "The fact that the video had been made for no self-evident purpose except perhaps to be found by the Americans should have raised suspicion."40

A fourth expert opinion has been issued implicitly, it would seem, by the Department of Justice and its FBI. If they considered this "confession video" authentic, would they not consider it "hard evidence" of bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11? They say, however, that they have no such evidence, so they must not consider this video authentic.

The "October Surprise Video of 2004: The other most famous of the "bin Laden confession tapes" is the video tape that was released on October 29, 2004, just before the presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, leading to its being called "the October Surprise video." In this one, for the first time, a bin Laden figure directly addressed the American people. The Associated Press, focusing on the most important aspect of the speaker's message, entitled its story: "Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks."41 However, although the AP accepted the authenticity of the tape, there are serious reasons to doubt it.

A reason to be at least suspicious is the very fact that it appeared just four days before the presidential election and seemed designed to help Bush's reelection - an assessment that was made even by CIA analysts.42 The video, moreover, evidently did help: Bush's lead over Kerry in national polls increased right after it appeared,43 and both Bush and Kerry said that this tape was significantly responsible for Bush's victory.44 Given the fact that this video would quite predictably help Bush win reelection, it would seem to have been issued by his friends, not his enemies.

There are also substantive reasons to doubt this tape's authenticity, one of which is the speaker's language. The clearly authentic bin Laden messages were filled with religious language. A bin Laden video released October 7, 2001, for example, began thus:

Praise be to God and we beseech Him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge with the Lord of our bad and evildoing. He whom God guides is rightly guided . . . . I witness that there is no God but God and Mohammed is His slave and Prophet.45

Even though this talk as a whole had only 725 words, bin Laden referred to God (Allah) 20 times and to the prophet Mohammed 3 times. Likewise, his message of November 3, 2001, which contained 2,333 words, referred to God 35 times and to the prophet Mohammed 8 times.46 By contrast, the 2004 October Surprise video, which had almost the same number of words as the November 3 video, referred to God only 12 times. The only "Mohammad" mentioned, moreover, was Mohamed Atta.

Another substantive difference involved the type of causal analysis provided. Bin Laden's clearly authentic messages had portrayed historical events as occurring only because they were caused, or at least allowed, by God. In his message of October 7, 2001, for example, he said: "God Almighty hit the United States. . . . He destroyed its greatest buildings." Human agents were involved, to be sure, but they were successful only because "Almighty God . . . allowed them to destroy the United States."47 In his message of November 3, likewise, bin Laden said that, if people are helped or harmed, it is always by "something that God has already preordained for [them]."48

The message on the 2004 confession video, however, reflected a worldview in which events can be understood through a causal analysis based on secular rationalism. "One of the most important things rational people do when calamities occur," the lecturer asserted, "is to look for their causes so as to avoid them." He himself, in analyzing "the [Iraq] war, its causes and consequences," provided a causal analysis involving purely human actors: Bush, al-Qaeda, and the American people. Far from suggesting that everything is finally in the hands of God, he said to the American people: "Your security is in your own hands" - a statement that a devout Wahabi Muslim such as Osama bin Laden would surely have considered blasphemous.

Still another reason to doubt the authenticity of this 2004 video is that, although the speaker was addressing the American public, he spoke Arabic rather than English. This is strange, because Osama bin Laden was reportedly fluent in English, which he had started studying when he was 11 years old.49 A British journalist reported that, when he and bin Laden met in 1989, they conversed in English for 45 minutes.50 General Hamid Gul, speaking to United Press International in 2001, said: "I know bin Laden and his associates. They are graduates of the best universities and . . . speak impeccable English.51 If bin Laden spoke impeccable English, would he not have used it when speaking directly to the American people?52

Accordingly, this video does not, any more than the "Jalalabad video," provide evidence that Osama bin Laden himself confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks.

Conclusion

I showed in a previous essay that, according to the best evidence presently available, Osama bin Laden has been dead for many years.53 In the present essay, I have shown that there is not even any good evidence for the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Accordingly, insofar as the justification for the continuation of the AfPak war is based on the fact that bin Laden in the region both before and after the 9/11 attacks, that justification would seem to be doubly baseless.

David Ray Griffin is the author of 36 books, nine of which are about 9/11. His most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Olive Branch, 2009). In 2008, he put out two books: The New Pearl Harbor: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (which was named a "Pick of the Week" by Publishers Weekly) and Osama bin Laden: Dead Or Alive? (which has generated considerable media coverage in England).

Notes

1. 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), Chap. 18, "Does the Government Have Hard Evidence of Bin Laden's Responsibility?"
2. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited : 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008). This book was named Publishers Weekly's "Pick of the Week" on November 24, 2008 (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159).
3. "Meet the Press," NBC, September 23, 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext092301.html).
4. "Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order," White House, September 24, 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-4.html).
5. Seymour M. Hersh, "What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of American Intelligence," New Yorker, October 1, 2001 (http://cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Hersch_OCT_01.htm).
6. "White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,'" CNN, September 21, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban).
7. Kathy Gannon, "Taliban Willing to Talk, But Wants U.S. Respect," Associated Press, November 1, 2001 (http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2001nn/0111nn/011101nn.htm#300).
8. Office of the Prime Minister, "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States," BBC News, October 4, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm).
9. "The Investigation and the Evidence," BBC News, October 5, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm).
10. Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Most Wanted Terrorists: Usama bin Laden" (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm).
11. Ed Haas, "FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'" Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006 (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html).
12. "Bin Laden's FBI Poster Omits Any 9/11 Connection," KSLA 12 in Shreveport, Louisiana
    (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6443576002087829136).
13. "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?" Washington Post, August 28, 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html)
14. Haas, "FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.'"
15. Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006).
16. David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, revised and updated edition (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007). This book won a bronze medal in the 2008 Independent Publishers Book Awards.
17. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, authorized edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 149, 155, 166; henceforth 9/11CR.
18. See 9/11CR Ch. 5, notes 16, 41, and 92.
19. Kean and Hamilton, Without Precedent, 118.
20. Ibid., 122-24.
21. Ibid., 119. I have discussed this issue at greater length in Ch. 8, "9/11 Commission Falsehoods about Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Pakistanis, and Saudis," of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.
22. Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco, "The 9/11 Commission Controversy," Deep Background: NBC News Investigations, January 30, 2008 http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx).
23. "U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden," Department of Defense, December 13, 2001 (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3184); "Pentagon Releases Bin Laden Videotape: U.S. Officials Say Tape Links Him to Sept. 11 Attacks," National Public Radio, December 13, 2001 http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html). The entire video can be viewed at this NPR Web page.
24. See my book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009), 23-26.
25. "Could the Bin Laden Video Be a Fake?" BBC News, December 14, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1711288.stm).
26. "'Feeble' to Claim Bin Laden Tape Fake: Bush," CBC, December 14, 2001 (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/14/bush_osama011214.html).
27. Steven Morris, "US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape," Guardian, December 15, 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/15/september11.afghanistan).
28. Ibid.
29. Toby Harnden, "US Casts Doubt on Bin Laden's Latest Message," Telegraph, December 27, 2001
30. "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden Would Need Help if on Dialysis," CNN, January 21, 2002
    (http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/21/gupta.otsc/index.html). For the tape, see ""Osama Bin Laden Tape Dezember [sic] 2001" (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/3760193/Osama_Bin_Laden_Tape_Dezember_2001).
31. For a nose comparison, see "Osama bin Laden Gets a Nose Job" (http://www.awitness.org/news/december_2001/osama_nose_job.html),
    or "Bruce Lawrence," Radio Du Jour (http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce).
32. Compare his hands with bin Laden's hand as shown in the post-November 16 video (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1729882.stm).
33. This can be seen in a portion of the Jalalabad video placed on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FVeqCX6z8).
34. For documentation and discussion, see Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? 27-29.
35. "Interview with Usama bin Laden," Ummat (Karachi), September 28, 2001
    http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm).
    Bin Laden's statement about innocents repeated what he had said in an interview with John Miller of ABC News in 1998: "Our religion forbids us from killing innocent people such as women and children"
36. "Transcript of Usama bin Laden Video Tape," Department of Defense, December 13, 2001 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf).
37. Bruce Lawrence is the editor of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden (London and New York: Verso, 2005).
38. Lawrence made these statements on February 16, 2007, during a radio interview conducted by Kevin Barrett of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. It can be heard at Radio Du Jour (http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce).
39. BBC News, "Tape ‘Proves Bin Laden's Guilt,'" December 14, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1708091.stm).
40. Angelo M. Codevilla, "Osama bin Elvis," American Spectator, March 2009 (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bin-elvis/print).
41. Maggie Michael, "Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks," Associated Press, October 29, 2004 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20041029-1423-binladentape.html).
42. Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 336.
43. Philip Sherwell, "Bush Takes a Six-Point Lead After New Bin Laden Tape," Telegraph, November 1, 2004 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1475515/Bush-takes-a-six-point-lead-after-new-bin-Laden-tape.html).
44. "Kerry Blames Defeat on Bin Laden," BBC News, January 31, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4222647.stm); "Bush Says Bin Laden Tape Aided Re-Election: Report," Reuters, February 28, 2006 http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/408991/bush_says_bin_laden_tape_aided_reelection_report/).
45. "Bin Laden's Warning: Full Text," BBC News, October 7, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1585636.stm).
46. "BBC Transcript Of Osama Bin Laden Statement," November 7, 2001 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0111/S00049.htm).
47. "Bin Laden's Warning: Full Text."
48. "BBC Transcript Of Osama Bin Laden Statement."
49. See "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden," CNN, August 23, 2006 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/23/cp.01.html), and Steve Coll, "Young Osama," New Yorker, December 12, 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/12/051212fa_fact).
50. "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden."
51. "Arnaud de Borchgrave Interviews Hameed Gul, Former Chief of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence," UPI, September 26, 2001 (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/594-499.aspx; also available at(http://www.robert-fisk.com/hamid_gul_interview_sept26_2001.htm).
52. I have given a more thorough analysis of the problems in these two "confession videos" in my book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books, 2009).
53. "Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" Veterans Today, October 22, 2009 (http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9079).

Osama Bin Laden "repeatedly - on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 (2001) - stated that he had had nothing to do with the attacks. In the September 28 statement, he had even declared: "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. . . . [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

Israel and US want Pakistan's nuclear weapons

US Embassy Personnel Caught Spying On Pakistani Nukes



By Ameen Izzadeen

Israel and the neocons in the US want to see an end to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Four American citizens were caught red-handed by Capital Police early Tuesday for photographing sensitive buildings. All four were dressed in traditional Afghan outfits and were found to be in possession of illegal weapons and explosives.

The enormity of the carnage that visited the civilians at the Meena Bazaar in Peshawar on Wednesday is certainly not going to be Pakistan's last.

The blast at a bazaar that sells largely women merchandize, some say, was an attack on Pakistan's way of life. But the picture behind the horror is more complex and has many hands behind it.

The enemy is targeting schools. Many a girl school in the enemy-dominated areas have been attacked or closed. Co-ed schools in other parts of the country, including the heavily-guarded capital, have received threats. Reports say many private schools have installed CCTV cameras, deployed snipers and placed sandbags around their buildings with local police patrolling the area during school hours. The obvious suspect is the fundamentalist Taliban. But the fact that a car carrying huge amounts of explosives had reached the market in spite of tight security and the militants' success in carrying out a series of attacks in recent weeks raise many questions with regard to the terrorist network. How can they be so efficient? Why the terrorists are lucky so many times?

It appears that the script of the horror that is unfolding in Pakistan is not written by Pakistanis, for no Pakistani would like to see his or her country being destabilized or devastated.

True, a majority of the Pakistanis, fed up with the terrorism that is destroying their country, back the military operation codenamed Rah-i-Nijat (Path to Deliverance). But they also ask how long they should wait or how bad the situation can become before the deliverance finally comes.

The Pakistani government apparently does not have the answer. It simply employs a strategy made in Washington. The common wisdom that Pakistan's problems need solutions made in Pakistan appears to be lost on the government. The US strategy calls on Pakistan to destroy the miscreants among Waziristan's Pashthun tribes, who are supportive of the Afghan Taliban forces now engaged in a battle to evict the US-NATO forces from their country. But Pakistan was asked to do the job only after the United States made the situation worse. Continuous and indiscriminate US drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas and the North Western Frontier Province have killed more than 600 civilians since August last year. This has only pushed an already-pro-Taliban tribal population towards the extremists.

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf resisted US pressure to launch an all-out war in the tribal areas. Despite his anti-democratic credentials during his final days in office, Musharraf was more circumspect than the present President, Asif Ali Zardari. Under pressure from the US, Musharraf launched limited operations against the militants but he was mindful that the situation warranted a Pakistani solution. So defying the hawkish administration of President George W. Bush in Washington, Musharraf signed agreements with tribal leaders in a bid to find a home-made solution to the crisis. He did not want an important segment of the Pakistani population alienated. After all, the Pashtuns were patriotic to the core. Besides he was also duty-bound to the pro-Taliban Islamist MPs who were propping up his government. He was also aware that the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul was pro-India and that Pakistani troops had a bigger responsibility in guarding the Kashmir border where some 400,000 Indian troops had been threatening Pakistan's sovereignty.

But the Americans did not like Musharraf's pact with the Pakistani Taliban. Since double-crossings and double-dealings were all part of the great game being played in Afghanistan and Pakistan by regional and global powers, it was no mystery why the Musharraf-Taliban agreement did not succeed.

The Zardari government too saw some wisdom in going for a deal with the Paksitani Taliban but his government was more vulnerable to external forces which were trying to destabilize Pakistan. It was no secret that India, Israel and the neoconservative elements in the US administration would like to see a weak and denuclearized Paksitan. They are also not happy with Pakistan's close military, trade and political ties with China.

The Pakistani government and the military have expressed concern over some 26 Indian consulate offices in Afghanistan close to its border. Pakistan also sees an Indian hand in the simmering troubles in Baluchistan.

Israel and the neocons in the US want to see an end to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Thinking and planning in terms of a clash of civilisations, the neocons, in fact, had a map drawn, showing the borders of a balkanized Pakistan. The map annexes Pakistan's North West Frontier Province with Afghanistan and the South West with a separate state called Baluchistan.

Amid these concerns, a disturbing news item posted this week on Pakistan's alternative press raises more questions regarding the extent to which the foreign forces have penetrated the country. The story headlined 'Americans dressed as Afghans caught with weapons in Islamabad' was posted on websites such as pakalert.worldpress.com, paksitanidefence.com and defence.pk. The Islamabad-datelined story says:

"Four American citizens were caught red-handed by Capital Police early Tuesday for photographing sensitive buildings. All four were dressed in traditional Afghan outfits and were found to be in possession of illegal weapons and explosives.

"According to details, police personnel deployed here at Nawaz Chowk, sector F-8, intercepted two suspicious vehicles. During the search, police recovered weapons from their custody. The riders of these vehicles were found to be American citizens. They were all dressed as Afghans.

"The number plates on both vehicles (IDM 2030 & LG 501) were found to be fake. The police personnel called for backup when the Americans refused to allow them to search the car. High ranking Capital Police officials reached the site within minutes and had the vehicles searched, recovering two M-16A1 rifles, two handguns and two hand-grenades.

"The police held the American citizens in custody for an hour before the Interior Ministry intervened and had them released without charge even as preliminary investigation was being carried out."

Some of these websites drew readers' attention to an incident in the Iraqi city of Basra in 2005 when two British operatives dressed in local Arab dress were arrested by Iraqi police. The British operatives were carrying weapons, explosives and bomb detonators. Hours later, British tanks rammed into the building where the two operatives were being detained to rescue them after a gun battle with the Iraqi police.

When the Pakistani Interior Ministry was asked to comment on this story, it said there existed no law in Pakistan that might allow any foreigner or diplomat, including Americans, to move on busy roads of federal capital with illegal arms.

The websites also said that days before the incident involving the Americans, the City Police arrested two Dutchmen with illegal weapons. Soon after they were released after the Interior Ministry and the US embassy intervened, they were put on a plane and sent out of the country.

When on Wednesday, TV talk-show host Hamid Mir asked visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the arrests of the Americans, she tactfully evaded the issue and commented on concerns over the US drone attacks.

Wednesday's blast and the series of terror incidents that have been shaking Pakistan for the past three weeks or so almost on daily basis should be seen in the light of conspiracies aimed at destabilizing Pakistan.

These attacks also come against the backdrop of moves by the US administration to depoliticize Pakistan's military. The Kerry-Lugar Bill that recently endorsed US$ 7.5 billion aid to Pakistan over the next five years only invites more questions with regard to the intentions of the United States. The Zardari government's readiness to accept the conditions attached to the aid package has created a political crisis in Pakistan.

There is near unanimity in public opinion that the conditions are an insult to Pakistan's dignity and a threat to its sovereignty. It implies that Pakistan is a state aiding terrorism and demands Pakistan to furnish sensitive information about its nuclear programme and people involved in it.

Another demand that Pakistan's politics be demilitarized has caused ripples within the military top brass and soured military's relations with the civilian government at a time when the military is going after the pro-Taliban militia in an all out war that began as America's war and now rages as Pakistan's war.

In this war, the people in Waziristan are suffering untold hardships and already some 200,000 people of the 500,000 population have fled the war zone.

The war is not the solution. It should not be waged to please the Americans for a few billion dollars. But Pakistani leaders need the American money though they are concerned about political stability and unity among the people. Can Pakistan strike a balance? However, for any solution to succeed, the Americans should leave Afghanistan.

http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=66281

US Terror In Pakistan

40 km from Islamabad is this secret training facility set up by the US embassy & private security firms that recruit retired Pakistani officers to create militias and spy on the Pakistani military and ISI. The pro-US 'democratic' government has issues scores of visas to US mercenaries to enter Pakistan without informing security officials. This is how Pakistan is being turned into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Update:

Pakistani-Pashtuns Say Blackwater USA (Xe Services) Responsible for Peshawar Bomb

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, 29 October 2009 (Xinhua) - Chief of Pakistani-
Pashtun Movement in Pakistan Hakimullah Mehsud has blamed the
controversial American private firm Blackwater [Xe Services] for the
bomb blast in Peshawar which killed over 117 [Pakistani] people, local
news agency NNI reported Thursday.

The bomb, exploded at a crowded market at Chowk Yadgar [in Peshawar,
Pakistan] on Wednesday [28 October 2009], also injured more than 250
[Pakistani] people.

Hakimullah Mehsud told media that if Pakistani-Pashtuns can carry out
attacks in Islamabad and target Pakistan Army's headquarters, then why
they should target general public.

He claimed that American security agency Blackwater [Xe Services] and
Pakistani agencies are involved in attacks in public places to
[maliciously] blame the militants.

When asked that the people also think that the militants are involved
in such attacks, the Pakistani-Pashtun leader was quoted as saying:
"Our war is against the [PPP-ANP-MQM-JUIF corrupt and tyrannical]
government and the security forces [of Pakistan] and not against the
[Pakistani] people. We are not involved in blasts."

Azam Tariq, the Pakistani-Pashtun spokesman, who was accompanying
Hakimullah [Mehsud], warned that those [corrupt] media organizations
[Geo News TV, ARY News TV, Dawn News TV, Dunya News TV, Samaa TV,
Express News TV, Aaj TV, Business Plus TV, Channel 5 TV, Indus News
TV, News One TV, PTV, Radio Pakistan, and other corrupt mercenary
media of Pakistan] could be targeted which are [illegally and
maliciously] defaming Pakistani-Pakhtoons.

Information Minister of Northwest Frontier Province [NWFP] Iftikhar
Hussain and the Pakistan Army spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas had
[falsely, fraudulently and maliciously] blamed militants [without any
legal evidence or prosecutable proof] for the Peshawar blast,
[wrongly] saying that the militants are facing defeat in South
Waziristan tribal region and are now targeting the people.

Pakistan Car Bomb Toll Passes 100

LONDON, UK, 29 October 2009 (BBC) - The head of the Pakistani-Pakhtoon
Movement has denied responsibility for the [U.S. drone-missile or
bomb] attack [of 28 October 2009 in Peshawar, Pakistan].

Hakimullah Mehsud told the BBC that the latest attack was orchestrated
by the Americans and Pakistani intelligence agencies "to malign the
name of the Pakistani-Pakhtoons".

"If we are able to attack sensitive installations... as well as the
[Pakistan Army] General Headquarters [GHQ], then why would we need to
attack ordinary people?" he asked in brief telephone interview.

"Our war is only against the [corrupt and tyrannical PPP-ANP-MQM-JUIF]
government and the security forces [of Pakistan]. The common people
are not part of it", he replied.

The BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad [Pakistan] says that Mr.
[Hakimullah] Mehsud's denial of Pakistani-Pashtuns' involvement is
likely to be met with much scepticism, even though an increasing
number of people do not rule out the involvement of U.S. security
agencies in attacks in the country.

Can American War Criminal Hillary Rodham Clinton Control U.S. CIA in
illegally Occupied Afghanistan?

http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/article_detail.php?id=842

INTERNET-WEB LINKS:

(1) Pakistan’s Growing Anti-Obama Anger

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/…

U.S. Outlaw Hillary Clinton Faces Pakistani Anger At U.S. Predator Drone Attacks on Innocent Pakistanis and Afghans http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/30-5

U.S. Drone Attacks on Pakistanis and Afghans Violate UN Laws http://groups.google.com/group/reportpress/t/27a904ee25133748

Petition Against NATO Terrorism and U.S. Drone Attacks in Pakistan http://groups.google.com/group/reportpress/t/5cac8f691d0c0f

(2) Lawsuit Filed Against Blackwater USA – Xe Services in Lahore High Court

http://groups.google.com/group/reportpress/t/788579c661922a8e

- Blackwater Book – http://www.blackwaterbook.com – Rebel Reports – http://www.rebelreports.com – Blackwater Watch – http://www.blackwaterwatch.net

(3) October 2009 the Bloodiest Month for U.S. Troops Since US-NATO War on Afghans Began

- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/afgh-o28.shtml – http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/afpa-o29.shtml – http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/pers-o26.shtml – http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/29-13

(4) U.S. War Criminal Barack Obama’s Real Death Panels

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23835.htm

Zionist Blackwater Mercenaries in Pakistan