Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category Defense

WHAT DOES PAKISTAN WANT?

coll-photo.jpg

“I think it’s important for us to get it right,” President Obama said on Tuesday of the American relationship with Pakistan. Lately, though, we haven’t. After 2009, the United States and Pakistan constructed what they called a “strategic dialogue”—addressing Pakistan’s needs for economic growth, its search for energy and water security, Afghanistan, and possible negotiations with the Taliban—to define and solidify a long-term partnership. Three years later, those ambitions are in tatters, undone by the Raymond Davis affair, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and continuing drone strikes, which most Pakistanis regard as acts of war.

In late February, I travelled to Pakistan and met with a number of military officers there, including several senior ones. They explained how they saw, from their side, the rise and collapse of the strategic dialogue with Washington.

It is a story laced with the generals’ resentments, geopolitical calculations, fears, and aspirations. Listening to them after absorbing the recent months of Pakistan ennui and Pakistan bashing in Washington was like watching one of those movies where a single narrative is told and retold selectively, from irreconcilable points of view.

Some of the basics of the Pakistan Army’s arguments about the Afghan war and the struggle against Al Qaeda-influenced terrorist groups are contained in a twelve-page document called “Ten Years Since 9/11: Our Collective Experience (Pakistan’s Experience).” The document, labelled “Secret,” is below; it has not previously been published.

Despite its classification, the essay is perhaps best understood as part of a Pakistani strategic communications or lobbying campaign. (Presumably, the sources that provided the document to me were undertaking an act in that campaign.) This particular text was a basis for briefings that General Ashfaq Kayani, the powerful Army chief, provided to NATO leaders at closed meetings last September, around the tenth anniversary of the 2001 attacks. It updates a case Pakistani generals have been making in meetings with their counterparts for years: that the casualties, economic disruption, and radicalization Pakistan has suffered from because of spillover from the American military campaign in Afghanistan are deeply underappreciated. The essay declares that Pakistan’s total casualties—dead and wounded—since 2001 in the “fight against terrorism” number about forty thousand.

Because of its record of past lying about its covert-action programs (and other matters), the Pakistani military does not engender much trust. One question, then, is whether this document represents a reliable expression of what the Pakistani security services actually believe—as opposed to what Pakistan’s generals have learned that the world wants to hear from them.

But there is another question: what are the implications for NATO’s exit strategy from Afghanistan if Pakistan’s military means what this document says—or at least some of what it says?

The document, written in a pleasing form of South Asian English, provides an outline of Pakistan’s political analysis and assessment of the Afghan war, asking, “How should success be measured?” It offers four criteria:

Are policy options opening or getting restricted?…Are we gaining or losing the public support[?]…Is the military strategy creating necessary conditions to help political strategy (military strategy is not an end in itself)…Are the constraints of time and resources being met?

The answers to those four questions, if they are asked about the NATO campaign in Afghanistan this spring, are depressing.

Elsewhere, the essay provides glimpses of Pakistan’s deeply cautious position on negotiating with the Taliban. Pakistan’s timeline in Afghanistan extends much longer than that of NATO, which has announced that it is leaving by 2014. Pakistan will always be a neighbor, so its generals see no reason to rush into endgame talks that they cannot control or predict. “Pakistan is prepared to help,” the document says. “However, the extent of this help should be correctly appreciated. We can facilitate but not guarantee. Ultimately it will remain Afghan responsibility.”

Many Afghans, who have suffered immeasurably during the past thirty years because of Pakistani interference, doubt that the Pakistani security services have anything constructive in mind. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or I.S.I., has backed Islamist militias fighting in Afghanistan since the 1980s, and there is evidence that the I.S.I. continues to harbor the Taliban. “Ten Years Since 9/11” lays out various ideas for winding down the Afghan war; how fully those align with what Pakistan actually does on the ground is another question.

The document is silent about the most toxic subject in U.S.-Pakistani relations: America’s determination to continue firing missiles from drones at those it has identified as militants inside Pakistan without seeking Pakistan’s permission.

Pakistan’s generals told me that while they have, in fact, quietly sanctioned some American drone operations against Pakistani militants, they have never issued approval for lethal strikes carried out unilaterally by the United States—they only sanctioned aerial surveillance in defined areas. The generals say that they are willing to use Pakistani F-16s loaded with precision weapons to strike at Al Qaeda targets identified with intelligence from the United States—a form of partnership that would not violate their pride or sovereignty because it would be the Pakistani military carrying out operations against its own enemies. In the past, the U.S. has been reluctant to share such intelligence with Pakistan, because it has sometimes leaked, allowing the target to escape. The Obama Administration has signalled to Pakistan’s military leadership that it is willing to try again, but has urged the Pakistanis to accept that the U.S. reserves the right to attack any target that threatens American lives or other important interests. I was told that at least one operation of this type—a tip from American intelligence, leading to a strike in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas by Pakistani aircraft—has been carried out without publicity this year.

Pakistan’s generals believe that one chronic problem is America’s drone-targeting policy. Many lethal drone strikes are not directed against a specific terrorist whose name is known and whose real-time location has been pinpointed. There are a few cases like that, but often the American drones strike more adaptively at what are known as “force protection” and “signature” targets.

A force-protection target can be a truck full of bearded men wearing turbans and holding rifles, driving toward the Afghan border. There are, as it happens, more than a few of these.

A signature target can be a house in North Waziristan where many bearded men wearing turbans and carrying arms gather for dinner, chatting on their phones. The U.S. drone operators may listen in and watch over such a suspicious-looking dinner party, and, back at Drone Central, officers on duty may conclude there is sufficient cause to fire missiles at the house—but they could have little or no idea about the names of all the guests. The Americans insist that signature drone strikes of this kind are necessary because that is how the United States has regularly, semi-accidentally killed Al Qaeda leaders along the Pakistani border in recent years, resulting in a reduction of Al Qaeda’s global capability. But they have also semi-accidentally killed Pakistanis who are not tied to Al Qaeda.

The generals I met were somewhat understanding about the signature-target policy, at least where Al Qaeda is involved, but they were unyielding in their resentment of American unilateralism, and the violations of Pakistani sovereignty and dignity that drone strikes present.

As for force-protection targets, the Pakistanis ask why the American military can’t just track hostile trucks that might be heading for war in Afghanistan until they cross the border—and then strike them on Afghan soil.

Most analysts acknowledge that unilateral, cross-border drone strikes are destabilizing Pakistan. Yet Pakistan’s stability remains a putative goal of the American military campaign in Afghanistan. American troops must be in Afghanistan to help assure, through Al Qaeda’s defeat, the long-term stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan, but in order for the American troops to protect themselves, they must destabilize Pakistan. Is America destroying villages in order to save them again?

The tone of “Ten Years After 9/11” is not so sharp. Strategic thinkers in the Pakistani military constructed the document to coax sympathy from NATO governments on whom they continue to depend in some respects, and it includes a measured, sensible call for “humility and understanding.” At the same time, many in the Pakistani élites hold a firm conviction: that the logic chain of the American military campaign is broken.

DOCUMENT
PAGES
Zoom

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/03/classified-document-our-collective-experience.html#ixzz1xTLNXfk4

No Comments

PAKISTAN WARNS ALL ENEMIES: BUBBA DON’T MESS WITH US, UNLESS YOU NEED A TICKET TO VALHALLA,JEHANNUM, OR SHE’OHL!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the Opinion of Defense Analysts, FAS’s Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material Estimate on Pakistan is way off the mark and may be an underestimate by a statistically significant margin! Among, Pakistani Defence Analysts, the FAS table is a figment of its founder’s vivid imagination, cooked-up data, and/or purely a wild guesstimate. Pakistani nuclear scientists knowingly chuckle, when asked about the FAS table shown above. However, the Zionists are in a frenzy over this data. Lately, they have launched a furious campaign nudging the US goverment to act against Pakistan’s Nuclear & Missile Program. FAS’s flawed numbers and SIPRI estimates are being used as solid data to malign. A  global propaganda has been launched, since May 2011, utilizing academia, print news and electronic media, TIME, NEWSWEEK, NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, LOS ANGELES TIMES, CHICAGO TRIBUNE and ahost of others, against Pakistan’s nuclear program, and of course, not a word about the Elephant or ganesh in the Nuclear Producer’s Room, namely India.

 Pakistan has an extremely fast-track nuclear program. The miniaturization of nuclear war-heads has facilitated the development and deployment of nuclear weapons and put it on fast track.  The shell game strategy is behind the security of the nuclear devices and delivery systems. Pakistan’s Nuclear Command Authority has done a superb job in the security and safety of Pakistan’s crown jewels. Therefore, FAS Nuclear Weapons Estimate may be off, by a margin of 100 +/- 10. So any foolish adventurer, think one billion times, before, planning an incursion to knock-off Pakistan, by conventional or nuclear weapons. According to some sources Pakistan has its own version of Samson Option in which India is a victim also.  Pakistan navy has the capability to deal with adventurers in a second strike capability. And, last but the foremost, Pakistan has a Protector! Guess Who? If you are a Mushriq or a Kafir, your guess will be wrong.

US, Pakistan Near Open War:Chinese Ultimatum Warns Washington Against Attack

Reference

In May. 2011, China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.

“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”

Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.

Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2

The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.

The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.

As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.

Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets

The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.

The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.6

Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes

According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”7

Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”

The Shooting Has Already Started

The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8

Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.

US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations

US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10

In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”11

The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang

One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.” The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”12 Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?

According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.

CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan

If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.

In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.

US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan

The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.”15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.

If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.

Are We in July 1914?

The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.

 

 

 

 


References

2 “China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden,” AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden
6 Rowan Scarborough,”U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.
7 “US ‘To Protect Pakistan,” London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-
9 “US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally,” http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758
11 “Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy,” Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational
12 “CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper,” ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html
13 “New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan,” May 19, 2011

No Comments

Who Controls the News?


One

William Dean Singleton(White European) – Chairman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dean_Singleton

Mary E. Junck(Ashkenazi Jew) – Vice Chairman
http://www.lee.net/aboutlee/bios.shtml

Gannett Company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett_Company

Craig A. Dubow(Ashkenazi Jew) – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
http://www.gannett.com/about/management/mgmt.htm

Gracia C. Martore(White European) – President, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
http://gannett.com/news/pressrelease/2010/pr020110.htm

David L. Hunke(Ashkenazi Jew) – President and Publisher, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit/pressroom/press_kit_bios.html

John Hillkirk(White European) – Editor, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit/pressroom/press_kit_bios.html

Susan Weiss(Ashkenazi Jew) – Executive Editor of Content, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit/pressroom/press_kit_usat.html
(no picture available)

Chet Czarniak(Ashkenazi Jew) – Executive Editor of Distribution, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit/pressroom/press_kit_usat.html

Brian Gallagher(White European) – Editorial Page Editor, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit/pressroom/press_kit_usat.html
(no picture available)

Hearst Magazines:
http://www.hearst.com/magazines

Cathie Black(Ashkenazi Jew) – Chairman
http://www.hearst.com/about-hearst/corporate-cathie-black.php

David Carey(Jewish spouse: Lauri Friedman) – President
http://www.hearst.com/about-hearst/magazines-david-carey.php

Ellen Levine(Ashkenazi Jew) – Editorial Director
http://www.hearst.com/about-hearst/magazines-ellen-levine.php

Hearst Newspapers:
http://www.hearst.com/newspapers

Steven R. Swartz(Ashkenazi Jew) – President
http://www.hearst.com/about-hearst/corporate-steven-r-swartz.php

Mark E. Aldam(Ashkenazi Jew) – Executive Vice President & Deputy Group Head
http://www.hearst.com/about-hearst/newspapers-mark-e-aldam.php

Phil Bronstein(Ashkenazi Jew) – Director of Content Development & Editor-at-Large
http://www.hearst.com/about-hearst/newspapers-phil-bronstein.php

Dow Jones & Company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_&_Company

Les Hinton(White European) – Chief Executive Officer, Dow Jones & Company; Publisher, The Wall Street Journal
http://www.dowjones.com/djcom/leadership/LHinton.asp

Todd Larsen(White European) – President, Dow Jones & Company
http://www.dowjones.com/djcom/leadership/TLarsen.asp

Robert Thomson(White European) – Editor-in-Chief, Dow Jones & Company; Managing Editor, The Wall Street Journal
http://www.dowjones.com/djcom/leadership/RThomson.asp

Kevin Halpin(Ashkenazi Jew) – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Dow Jones & Company
http://www.dowjones.com/pressroom/releases/2010/092810-Halpin-Named-DJ-CFO-0062.asp
(no picture available)

Neal Lipschutz(Ashkenazi Jew) – Senior Vice President and Managing Editor, Dow Jones Newswires
http://www.dowjones.com/djcom/leadership/NLipschutz.asp

Paul A. Gigot(White European) – Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
http://www.dowjones.com/djcom/leadership/PGigot.asp

Daniel Henninger(Ashkenazi Jew) – Deputy Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
http://topics.wsj.com/person/H/daniel-henninger/5468

Bret Stephens(Ashkenazi Jew) – Deputy Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
http://topics.wsj.com/person/S/bret-stephens/5463

James Freeman(Ashkenazi Jew) – Assistant Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
http://topics.wsj.com/person/F/james-freeman/5461

Newsweek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek

Sidney Harman(Ashkenazi Jew) – Owner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Harman

New York Times Company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Company

Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr.(Ashkenazi Jew) – Chairman, The New York Times Company; Publisher, The New York Times
http://www.nytco.com/company/executives/Arthur_O_Sulzberger.html

Michael Golden(Ashkenazi Jew) – Vice Chairman, The New York Times Company; President and Chief Operating Officer, The New York Times Company Regional Media Group
http://www.nytco.com/company/executives/Michael_Golden.html

Janet L. Robinson(Ashkenazi Jew) – President and Chief Executive Officer, The New York Times Company
http://www.nytco.com/company/executives/Janet_L_Robinson.html

Scott Heekin-Canedy(White European) – President and General Manager, The New York Times
http://www.nytco.com/company/executives/Scott_Heekin-Canedy.html

Bill Keller(White European) – Executive Editor, The New York Times
http://www.nytco.com/company/executives/Bill_Keller.html

Andrew M. Rosenthal(Ashkenazi Jew) – Editorial Page Editor, The New York Times
http://www.nytco.com/company/executives/Andrew_M_Rosenthal.html

Jill Abramson(Ashkenazi Jew) – Managing Editor, The New York Times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Abramson

John M. Geddes(White European) – Managing Editor, The New York Times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Geddes

William E. Schmidt(Ashkenazi Jew) – Deputy Managing Editor, The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/media/20times.html?ref=william_e_schmidt

Time, Inc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_magazine

John Huey(White European) – Editor-in-Chief
http://www.timeinc.com/aboutus/executives/huey.php

Maurice F. Edelson(Ashkenazi Jew) – Executive Vice President and General Counsel
http://www.timeinc.com/aboutus/executives/edelson.php

Howard Averill(Ashkenazi Jew) – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
http://www.timeinc.com/aboutus/executives/averill.php

John Q. Griffin(White European) – Executive Vice President and News Group President
http://www.timeinc.com/aboutus/executives/jqgriffin.php

Martha Nelson(White European) – Editorial Director
http://www.timeinc.com/aboutus/executives/nelson.php

Richard Stengel(Ashkenazi Jew) – Managing Editor, TIME
http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/stengel.html

Michael Elliott(White European) – Deputy Managing Editor, TIME
http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/elliott.html

Jim Frederick(White European) – Executive Editor, TIME
http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/frederick.html

Nancy Gibbs(White European) – Executive Editor, TIME
http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/gibbs.html

Tribune Company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Company

Samuel Zell(Ashkenazi Jew) – Chairman
http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?page_id=2332

Eddy Hartenstein(Ashkenazi Jew) – Co-President, Tribune Company; Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, The Los Angeles Times
http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?page_id=2345

Tony Hunter(White European) – Co-President, Tribune Company; President, Publisher, and Chief Executive Officer, The Chicago Tribune
http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?page_id=2346

Nils Larsen(Ashkenazi Jew) – Co-President, Tribune Company; Chief Investment Officer
http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?page_id=2347

Donald J. Liebentritt(Ashkenazi Jew) – Co-President, Tribune Company; Chief Restructuring Officer
http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?page_id=2348
(no picture available)

Gerould W. Kern(White European) – Senior Vice President and Editor, The Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/about/chi-kernbio-htmlstory,0,1387987.htmlstory

Jane Hirt(Ashkenazi Jew) – Managing Editor, The Chicago Tribune
http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2008/08/redeyes-jane-hirt-named-chicago-tribune-mangaing-editor

R. Bruce Dold(Ashkenazi Jew) – Editorial Page Editor, The Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-editdold,0,1771867.story

Russ Stanton(White European) – Editor, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/about/mediagroup/latimes/masthead/russ-stanton

Nicholas Goldberg(Ashkenazi Jew) – Editorial Page Editor, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/about/mediagroup/latimes/masthead/nicholas-goldberg

U.S. News & World Report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_News_%26_World_Report

Mortimer B. Zuckerman(Ashkenazi Jew) – Owner, Chairman, and Editor-in-Chief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Zuckerman

Washington Post Company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post_Company

Donald E. Graham(Ashkenazi Jew/White European) – Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-govHistBio&ID=109604

Boisfeuillet Jones, Jr.(Ashkenazi Jew) – Vice Chairman, The Washington Post Company; Chairman, The Washington Post
http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-govHistBio&ID=175278

Katharine Weymouth(Ashkenazi Jew/White European) – Chief Executive Officer, Washington Post Media; Publisher, The Washington Post
http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-businessbio&ID=187229

Stephen P. Hills(Ashkenazi Jew) – President and General Manager, The Washington Post
http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-businessbio&ID=187230

Marcus Brauchli(Ashkenazi Jew) – Executive Editor, The Washington Post
http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-businessbio&ID=187231

Fred Hiatt(Ashkenazi Jew) – Editorial Page Editor, The Washington Post
http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-businessbio&ID=187232

Jackson Diehl(Ashkenazi Jew) – Deputy Editorial Page Editor, The Washington Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Diehl

Raju Narisetti(Indian) – Managing Editor, The Washington Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raju_Narisetti

Elizabeth Spayd(Ashkenazi Jew) – Managing Editor, The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011300936.html

Summary:
Of the sixty-four(64) senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines, forty-two(42) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 66%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines by a factor of 33 times(3,300 percent).

* Jewish Population of the United States by State:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

One Response to “Who Controls the News? (Part 2)”

  1. allison Says:

    Thank you for your due diligence in researching this subject. I found the facts very interesting.

    The Jewish people are very intelligent. They work hard and aspire to positions of responsibility.

    However, I believe in the interest of all Americans, there should be a limit on one ethnic group influencing the news.

    Why are there no African Americans on this long list?

Leave a Reply

Six Jewish Companies Control 96% Of The World’s Media

The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.

“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…” Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache

Facts of Jewish Media Control

The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney Empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a “control freak”, includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television), its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers. When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, under Eisner, the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and violence. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies. ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, a Jew.

This corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns eleven AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates. Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications, Chilton Publications, and the Diversified Publishing Group. Time Warner, Inc, is the second of the international media leviathans.

The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network. Warner Music is by far the world’s largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersch is president of Warnervision, Warner Music’s video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are Jews. Warner Music was an early promoter of “gangsta rap.” Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites. In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner’s publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).

When Ted Turner, a Gentile, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley (real name Palinsky, a Jew) and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a “friendly” takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin’s Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. Viacom, Inc, headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew, is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books.

It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the younger television audience. With the top three, and by far the largest, media companies in the hand of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part. What about the other big media companies? Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chermin, who heads Murdoch’s film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew. Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division. Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as “the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States,” is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew. The best known of the smaller media companies, Dreamworks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair.

Dream Works was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress. It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century.

This is still the case today. Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above-Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)-accounted for 74 per cent of the total box-office receipts for the first eight months of 1995. The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson, CBS first by William Paley and then by Lawrence Tisch, and NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert. Over periods of several decades, these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong. As noted, ABC is part of Eisner’s Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC’s news programs are all Jews: Victor Neufeld (20-20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight). CBS was recently purchased by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Lawrence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew. At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline).

The Print Media After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,500 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against Jewish control and distortion. However, this is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of our interests than a casual observer would think.

The days when most cities and even towns had several independently owned newspapers published by local people with close ties to the community are gone. Today, most “local” newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or ever thousands of miles away. The fact is that only about 25 per cent of the country’s 1,500 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest depend on these few for all of their national and international news. The Newhouse empire of Jewish brothers Samuel and Donald Newhouse provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America’s daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip.

The Newhouses own 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation’s largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country’s largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madmoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.

This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue–not the small change collected from a newspaper’s readers–that largely pays the editor’s salary and yields the owner’s profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the 20th century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers–primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants. Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America’s newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation’s three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America’s financial and political capitals, are the newspapers which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn’t, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it, and all three newspapers are in Jewish hands. The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld.

Both of the latter are also Jews. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its “leaks” throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John McLean, and later inherited by Edward McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co.

In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.

Other Mass Media

The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a susidiary of Time Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew. Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham.

Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million. U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by Mortimer Zuckerman, a Jew. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country. Among the giant book-publishing conglomerates, the situation is also Jewish. Three of the six largest book publishers in the U.S., according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Schuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown). Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.

The Effect Of Jewish Control Of The Media

These are the facts of Jewish media control in America. Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy. I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least. Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly, not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mold our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests, interests which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people. By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.

 

 

 

No Comments

Who is Professor Victor Asal and why does he write articles against Pakistan’s Nuclear Program in Foreign Policy Magazine?

THE ANSWER HIGHLIGHTED

MA from Hebrew University, Israel, in 1996


 


 Professor Victor Asal (Department of Political Science) received his PhD from the University of Maryland in 2003 and his MA from Hebrew University, Israel, in 1996. He is a specialist in Comparative Politics and International Relations and his research currently focuses on why some groups of people decide to kill people they do not know and other groups decide to discriminate against or restrict the rights of people they do not know.  For example, working with his colleague R. Karl Rethemeyer and many honors college students, they have built a large data base on terrorist organizations, the Big Allied and Dangerous (BAAD) database, to explore questions such as: Why, of the 395 identifiable terrorist organizations operating between 1998 and 2005, had only 39% killed anyone ?” (Professor Asal is pictured with five 2010 honors graduates who worked on one of his research projects.)

No Comments

REBUTTAL TO ZIONIST PROFESSOR VICTOR ASAL’S ATTACK ON PAKISTAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

P.S. Unfortunately, Professor Asal you have failed to disclose that you received his MA from HEBREW UNIVERSITY, ISRAEL, in 1996.

Pakistanis, who wish to rebut Professor Victor Asal, can e-mail him at :

[email protected]

Dear Professor Asal:

I am disappointed in your lack of academic objectivity in your article about Pakistan and its Nuclear Program. It smacks of a well  hidden personal bigotry and a condescending attitude. It also shows, your complete lack of knowledge about the Southwest Asia and the strategic objectives of Pakistan. For your enlightenment, Pakistanis are not a bunch of Yahoos running around yelling,” Jihad! Jihad!”  Pakistanis are moderate people, who know that nuclear weapons are not for wars, but a deterrent against wars. Pakistanis live in a very bad neighborhood, where characters like Bin Ladin and Ayman Zawahiri prowl among the 180 million people. Pakistanis face the curse of extremism is a residual gift of the US sponsored “Jihad,” against the Soviet Empire.

 

BTW, Pakistan Army regulars fighting as “Mujaheddin,” defeated the Soviet Army. I know this because, my brother was a Major and used to train the US sponsored Charlie Wilson’s, “Mujaheddin.”  Pakistan lost several thousand people soldiers in that war. What did Pakistan gain in return? Demonization, by people like yourself, who call themselves “Experts,” or “Scholars.” Taliban were also the monster child of the fall of the Soviet empire.

 

Pakistan is a country whose area almost equals that of Texas and Oklahoma combined.  It has a population of 180 million people.  It has a Nuclear and ICBM-laced 1 million man Indian Army on its border.  It has Indian Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) and Rashtriya Sevak Sangh (RSS) fanatics, whose emblem is a Swastika, running around asking for a Final Solution of Pakistan. It has “friends” like yourself, who also want it wiped off the map, because of some imaginary threat to a Israel.   Pakistan is a nation born out of a desire of Abrahamic people to free themselves from cow-worshipping, urine drinking, casteism-apartheid,based and female infanticide practicing animistic cult called Hinduism.   Can you tell me how many Indians have died in Afghanistan fighting the War on Terror? Pakistanis have died trying to save US soldiers in somalia and Afghanistan. So there!

 

Pakistan has a very powerful and hostile country India next door. Its people face imminent danger every day of their life. Because, Pakistanis die as a blow back of irresponsible behavior of intellectuals, who push US public opinion to go to war in far flung nations like Afghanistan. However, as a word of caution, you’re right,  Pakistan is a nuclear state, it will use its Samsons option , if cornered to a point of destruction.

 

Who is responsible for this situation created by this War on Terror? The virulent creations of  War on Terror, the Taliban are infiltrating across its border from Afghanistan. These are  lunatic Jihadi corn-pones, are a major export of a failed state called Afghanistan. Pakistan has lost 30,000 soldiers and civilians in this War on Terror. But, ungrateful “friends” never take a break from running the juggernaut of malicious propaganda.  This is no way to win the hearts and minds of people. And that is also an answer to the question, “why do they hate us?” Such articles make the situation worse for people like myself, who are working hard to bring education. clean drinking water, and other basic needs for normal human development.  They provide fodder for nihilists and forces of darkness. Such articles  also provide a justification or raison d’etre for fanatics and fundamentalists and may also put our brave soldiers lives in Afghanistan in jeopardy.

 

Currently, a  civilian government based on democratic principles,  is trying very hard (along with the support of the military) to transition smoothly to a democratic electoral process.  However, such articles do not make their work easier. Most Pakistanis know very little about Israel and do not even know that  whether its a friend or an enemy.  But, some Western “scholars are hell-bent in creating enmity among nations, where there is none.  The Indians would love to benefit from the services of such individuals.  Because, to them, it is a win-win situation, where ‘an enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Do you want Israel to play into the hands of Indians? What, if Pakistanis form an axis with fanatical “Mullas.” in Iran? Will that help Israel  if it attacks Iran’s Nuclear Program? Think again, it is a nightmarish scenario, which the Global Village cannot afford. Is that a good scenario in your opinion? Or should Pakistan stay closer to the USand the West? But, those who are protagonists for Israel, would like to make Pakistan the enemy of Israel.

 

I happen to be a Pakistani American, who has visited Israel.  I am trying hard to build bridges between these two nations, who share common values. But, what comes in the way of a detente are hate mongers, who like to stoke the flames of hatred between these two nations.

 

Pakistan has 5000 years of history. Among its people are Pashtuns, who trace their Semitic ancestry from biblical times to Yahuda, a son of Prophet Yaqub (Jacob,Peace Be Upon Him).  Why would the Pashtuns want to destroy the biggest Semitic nation?  The fear about Pakistani nuclear program as israel-oriented is a figment of a paranoid imagination. It comes from the minds of neurotic people who build dungeons in air.  Pakistan has not built a single ballistic missile with any long range to reach Tel Aviv. Pakistani military does not take Israel as an enemy, neither it has a desire to do so. Pakistanis are more worried about, as I said about the  mercurial Mullas of Iran, the lecherous Sheikhs of Arabian Peninsula, the hedonists of Brunei, the ultra nationalists Germans, and the racist Hindu Aryans ruling India, a la Gandhi family.

 

Pakistan and Afghanistan have people who are proud to be Semitic, as I said before. Why would a Pashtun want to destroy a nation like Israel, a home for their Semitic brothers of Hebrew ancestry?  I bet, you never had this perspective and that goes to show.that one must know the subject well before writing about it, being a professor in a small school, does not give you license to write subjective, biased, and personal viewpoint based articles.  Most of this argument do not hold water, because they are tainted by personal bias. I would suggest to you to read Robert Fisk, Uri Avnery, and Naom Chomsky.   My Israeli friends have also told me that that some Americans, harm Israel’s interests more by creating real or imagined enemies for their nation. So, please be a responsible scholar. Light a candle, instead of cursing the darkness.

 

 

P.S.China is one of the wisest nations in the world. Please listen to what Chinese have to say, you may be enlightened, or even reach Nirvana!

Pakistan’s sacrifices in war on terror deserve respect

By Fu Xiaoqiang

The killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US special forces in the garrison town Abbottabad, close to the capital of Islamabad, sparked global discussion over Pakistan’s role in the action. 

The US has started to revaluate its relations with Pakistan after the death of Bin Laden. The US Congress launched hearings on Pakistan and Afghanistan on May 5. The Pakistani military also held a special conference to assess the impact of the US mission.

The doubts the US harbors against Pakistan focus on two points: Whether Pakistan knew where Bin Laden was hiding and covered for him while he eluded capture for all these years, and whether to keep on cooperating with Pakistan in anti-terrorism. 

The unilateral and successful mission to eliminate Bin Laden by the US demonstrated to some that the US could achieve its targets without help from Pakistan. 

Leon Panetta, the CIA director, recently claimed that Pakistan could not be informed about the mission for fear that they might leak the information.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari argued in an article in the Washington Post that the US reproaches of Pakistan’s initiative in anti-terrorism were groundless. 

The US-Pakistan Defence Consultative Group said in a joint statement that the anti-terrorism operation aimed at Bin Laden indicated the importance of US-Pakistan cooperation.

The split opinions of the US and Pakistan reflected the ingrained distrust and severe disagreement on anti-terrorism strategies between them. 

The unilateral action of the US in killing the terrorist mastermind has already placed Pakistan in a dilemma. 

The Pakistani government was suspicious of sitting by while the US invaded their territory, air space and sovereignty, and feared that Pakistan might suffer from a round of reprisals from Al Qaeda if they admitted aiding the US. 

But if they played no role, or if the mission truly had to be kept from them for fears of security leaks, the strategic conflicts between the two nations are utterly exposed. 

General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of staff of Pakistan’s army, said in his statement after the special evaluation meeting that any further actions violating Pakistan’s sovereignty will lead the government to re-evaluate its possible military and information cooperation with the US. 

The US needs to assess objectively and fairly Pakistan’s contributions and sacrifice in anti-terrorism. 

During the decade-long anti-terrorism campaign, Pakistan has killed and arrested more than 400 Al Qaeda affiliates, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, suspected of being the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks, and has lost more than 3,000 police to terrorists. 

According to statistics released by the Pakistani government, the direct and indirect economic losses in the recent 10 years from anti-terrorism total $100 billion, far more than the $20 billion economic aid given by the US during the same period. 

Pakistan has paid a heavy social and political price for its involvement in the war on terrorism. 

Society is in disorder, the security situation is deteriorating and many people have lost their homes. 

Take the use of US drones in 2004 in Pakistan. More than 1,000 terrorists were killed in the bombing but an overwhelming number of Pakistan civilians were also slain.  

After the death of Bin Laden, US political and academic circles initiated public discussions on Pakistan’s role in anti-terrorism and started to consider adjusting strategies toward the nation. Unilateral operations and targeted eliminations against terrorism seem to be popular in the US. 

However, this could result in inconceivable consequences if the US keeps resorting to such methods in anti-terrorism operations while ignoring international principles of other nations’ sovereignty.

This July, the US will begin to gradually reduce its army in Afghanistan. The death of Bin Laden and the current strategic successes will accelerate the US retrenchment strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

Nevertheless, Pakistan is still able to play a vital part in regional security and global anti-terrorism.

The US should assist Pakistan in stabilizing its society and reviving its economy while respecting the nation’s sovereignty. 

Utterly uprooting terrorists and extremists in the region is the duty of a global power.

The author is director of the Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. [email protected]

 

No Comments