Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by admin in BIGOTRY, Bigots Around the Globe, ISLAMOPHOBIA, Islamophobia & Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes in France, Muslim Haters, Zionist Paranoia on December 9th, 2019
The Long Island Republican will leave a legacy of division and demonization. Schumer is wrong to celebrate it.
Alex Brandon / ASSOCIATED PRESS
Rep. Pete King, then-chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, during one of his 2011 hearings on Islamist extremism in the United States.
It took a quarter of a century, but Rep. Pete King, a Long Island Republican, is finally retiring. King built a durable following among the Fox News coterie thanks in part to his unflinching efforts to demonize Muslims, racial justice activists, critics of torture, and victims of police violence.
King’s legacy of division makes it all the more inexplicable that Sen. Chuck Schumer — a fellow New Yorker who’s well versed in King’s abuses — would spend Monday morning praising King as standing “head and shoulders above everyone else.”
“He’s been principled and never let others push him away from his principles,” Schumer added. Given that King’s principles included slandering almost any community that didn’t look like him, it’s reasonable to ask what the leader of the Senate Democrats was thinking when he decided to celebrate King’s extremism.
Let’s take a look at a few of the “principles” King held so dearly.
To most Americans, King is best known as the representative who saw Muslim threats around every corner. In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he became a staunch advocate for expanding the national security and surveillance state into the unaccountable behemoth we know today.
King has urged police to focus on Muslim communities for potential terrorist activity. He whined that there were too many mosques in the country. And he didn’t stop there. In 2011, he led a series of hugely wasteful, McCarthy-esque trials popularly known as the “radicalization hearings.” Those congressional sideshows became fountains of anti-Muslim disinformation, where King made the risible claim that “80% of the mosques in this country are controlled by radical imams.”
The hearings never produced an iota of evidence to support King’s claims.
Henny Ray Abrams / AP
A protester supports Rep. Pete King’s congressional hearings on the role of Muslims in homegrown terrorism in New York, March 2011.
There is nothing praiseworthy in King’s tireless effort to establish himself as the United States’ leading anti-Muslim fearmonger. Schumer should explain what, precisely, he found to admire in any of King’s hatred.
Not content with only marginalizing American Muslims, King has also shown contempt for those protesting police brutality. After a New York police officer killed Eric Garner with a prohibited chokehold in 2014, King took to the media to blame not the officer but Garner’s obesity. His statement was so outrageous that even fellow Republicans criticized it.
And it wasn’t just the Garner case. Just last year, King questioned the patriotism of NFL players who chose to kneel for the national anthem, comparing their kneeling to a Nazi salute. In a tweet criticizing the New York Jets, King claimed systemic police violence was a “false narrative” created by liberal elites to sow racial distrust between communities of color and white Americans.
None of this is new information to Schumer, whose own tenure in politics overlaps every single one of King’s racist and anti-Muslim outbursts. Such divisive, hateful rhetoric runs in opposition to the culture of inclusivity and tolerance that Democrats aim to strengthen.
King’s tenure in Congress was not a noble one. His repeated attempts to strip health care from millions of Americans should not be celebrated as “sticking to principles.” It should be viewed as it is — a nakedly partisan act against the wishes of King’s own voters. Not that you’d know: King’s social media profiles censored criticism of his votes to kill Obamacare.
There is always the possibility Schumer was merely being civil. After all, politicians tend to speak well of their departing colleagues no matter how odious their records. But this is a perfect example of how the veneer of political civility minimizes the true damage caused by extremists like King. It is certainly not a courtesy King ever extended to the communities he terrorized with bogus hearings and incendiary attacks.
It is tragic that a politician whose career focused so completely on sowing distrust and enmity between fellow Americans can still be described as a fairly “moderate” Republican. By enabling King’s antics, Republicans allowed their party to swing to its current extremes. Democrats, and especially Democratic leaders like Schumer, should have no part in legitimizing this Republican march into madness.
The only silver lining of King’s tenure is that a Democrat could win his Long Island seat and begin the long process of repairing the damage King wrought. Schumer can start by apologizing to those communities revictimized by his thoughtless praise of King’s poisonous legacy.
Max Burns is a Democratic strategist, political commentator, and former director of communications for Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights,an international nonprofit organization.
When I was serving as Director Psychological Operations (PsyOps) in GHQ way back in the early 1990s, I had the privilege of revolutionizing this neglected subject and upgrading its significance in the Army in a big way for the first time. The then Army Chief Gen Asif Nawaz backed my efforts. I had argued that while the armed forces prepared itself during peacetime for the future war by carrying out intensive physical, technical, educational, operational and administrative training and procuring weapon systems in order to defeat the enemies on the battlefield, When proxy war failed to achieve its objectives, the subversive war was further stepped up which is now being termed as hybrid war. It has been made more lethal by adding social media to heighten political polarization and to sharpen the existing divides and to create tensions in civil-military relations. Besides Indian water terrorism, Indo-US-Afghan aggressive tactics are aimed at creating chaos and melting down Pakistan’s economy. remain operative both during peace and wartime to supplement war effort.
Peace time psy ops are akin to pre-H Hour artillery bombardment to soften the adversary from within. The only difference is that the bombardment is noisy and can be responded through counter bombardment, but in case of PSYOPS, the deceptive and pain-free stings and arrows aimed at subverting and controlling the minds are silent and invisible. It is slow-poisoning of the minds to shatter the will to fight.
Pakistan had gone through the painful experience of the 1971 tragedy in which India had made maximum use of Psy Ops to brainwash the Bengalis. It took Indian psychological operators 23 years of sustained efforts to subvert the minds of the Bengalis and make them love India and detest West Pakistan. All that time, we kept sleeping and didn’t take note of the building storm. Indo-Bengali poisonous propaganda was not countered and no effort was made to show the true face of Hindus who in connivance with the British had turned the Muslim nobility of East Bengal into servitude and had made the region the most impoverished region of united India during the British rule.
Bifurcation of Bengal and making Calcutta part of West Bengal in 1947 further worsened the socio-economic plight of East Bengal. Our successive rulers failed to address the genuine grievances of eastern province and above all to integrate the two widely apart provinces because of which the gap kept widening. The germs of Bengali nationalism were first stoked through language riots in 1953 followed by political and economic deprivations. The youth was systematically indoctrinated by Hindu teachers and professors. In the final act of the drama, Indian protégé Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was given a free hand to build Bengali nationalism and to foment hatred against West Pakistan. Once the small-sized Pak military force lost the support of Bengalis, East Pakistan became a ripe apple to be plucked and it became easier for the Indian military to intervene and win the war on the East front.
After the creation of Bangladesh, RAW turned its attention towards Sindh and Baluchistan but we once again failed to checkmate subversion of the two provinces. By early 1990s, Sindh had turned into a wounded province due to urban-rural divide, while Baluchistan had gone through a full-fledged insurgency in the 1970s. RAW also had a hand in keeping the Pashtunistan issue alive and its footprints were seen in the Saraiki belt. I reminded the policymakers in the Army about the dangers of subversion and the need for a counter plan to thwart its ill effects on the society both at the Army and national levels.
Indian Psy Ops were aimed at fomenting misgivings, disillusionment, hatred, ethnicity, sectarianism, religious extremism, political polarization, intensifying love for materialism and contaminating the moral turpitude of the society, the effects of which had also seeped into the armed forces. The ultimate aim was to weaken the willpower of the armed forces to fight. All these trends intensified in the 1990s.
I held a strong view that no amount of tangible factors will help until and unless the intangibles are also strengthened to build up morals, patriotism and nationalism in the armed forces as well as the society as a whole that had become vulnerable to foreign subversion. I highlighted the need to create awareness about the pitfalls of this silent war in which India had gained substantial expertise. I had given a workable plan to develop defensive and offensive PSYOPS. Had a national Psy Ops Cell been established in 1993 as suggested by me and approved by the GHQ, we would have been in a better position to confront the ongoing hybrid war.
After 9/11, India teamed up with the US, Israel, the West and the puppet Afghan regime and launched a massive covert war coupled with subversive war to destabilize, denuclearize, secularize and balkanize Pakistan.
It is now an established fact that the US enabled Gen Musharraf regime in 2002 to expand and modernize Pak electronic media by doling out millions of dollars. Most leading media houses were purchased by foreign powers to promote their agenda of demonizing Islam, liberalizing the society, promoting obscenity and vulgarity and deflecting the youth towards a life of fun and frolic. Media was misused to sell tutored perceptions, to clone the minds of the elites, foment extremism, divide the society, and breed extreme hatred. The secular-Islamic divide was widened.
Purchased proxies were used to destabilize FATA, settled areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan. Urban terrorism was ignited with the help of Blackwater, CIA-FBI network, MQM and NGOs duly aided by their toadies.
Army, Rangers, FC and Police had to make sustained efforts from 2009 onward to rollback rural and urban terrorism but at a heavy cost and much to the grief of adversaries of Pakistan. Today, Pakistan can confidently claim that the back of foreign-supported terrorist groups has been comprehensively broken and there is no network or safe haven anywhere in the northwest. Likewise, the militancy of MQM has been busted and the separatist movement in Baluchistan reined in.
Notwithstanding these outstanding achievements that have been acknowledged by the world, the terrorist groups based in Afghanistan in concert with their handlers, facilitators and financiers in Pakistan are still able to carry out random attacks. Nationwide Operation Raddul Fasad coupled with fencing of western border and gradual implementation of National Action Plan are taking care of these aspects adequately.
When proxy war failed to achieve its objectives, the subversive war was further stepped up which is now being termed as hybrid war. It has been made more lethal by adding social media to heighten political polarization and to sharpen the existing divides and to create tensions in civil-military relations. Besides Indian water terrorism, Indo-US-Afghan aggressive tactics are aimed at creating chaos and melting down Pakistan’s economy.
The Army is neither equipped nor has the expertise and capacity to fight back the hybrid war in which electronic and social media are playing a lead role. So far, no plan has been made to counter this menace. As a consequence, the inaudible and concealed hybrid war has been going on unabatedly unchecked.
Unfortunately, the veterans have bolstered the negativity of social media. Instead of behaving maturely, in their exuberance to exhibit love for Pak Army and their parent units, they have been adding fuel to the deplorable media war between the Patwaris (PML-N lovers) and Youthias (PTI lovers), each trying to gun down the other and intensifying intolerance. The disgruntled veterans are using this platform to air their grouses and have crossed all limits of decency by going to the extent of passing filthy comments against each other. The majority which is tilted toward the PTI has been passing loathsome remarks, unbecoming of a gentleman.
As if this was not enough, they divulge information about the happenings in the combat zones. Some have been passing details about ongoing operations much before the desired details could reach GHQ. In some cases, the media received information about an incident in greater details than what was received by GHQ. On occasions, the media pressed the ISPR to confirm the information that is collected from social media and the ISPR couldn’t answer back. This has been happening since some young officers deployed in the combat zones shared information with their retired seniors, or relatives, or in the social media groups run by veterans in which hate-filled articles of civil writers are also shared and lauded.
WhatsApp Groups run by retired unit officers in particular mindlessly divulge names and location of units and officers and intimate details of activities of their units. Likewise, all promotion and postings of senior officers are flashed. Senior veterans taking part in TV talk at times display their political biases and many times have to face embarrassing situations.
No heed was paid by the veterans to several warnings issued by the GHQ. It was also learnt that India, in particular, had penetrated most groups. Facebook is already controlled by RAW from Pune and by the Jews. In the wake of the veterans displaying lack of sense of security and becoming a security hazard and an embarrassment for the Army, the GHQ was compelled to debar serving Army officers and re-employed retired officers from taking part in social media. Restrictions have now been imposed upon the veterans on use of WhatsApp, Twitter and Veterans Groups operative in social media. Retired officers operating groups having military signatures, or created on the basis of military affiliations such as PMA Courses, parent units, staff courses etc have been told to close them or change the title nomenclatures.
Some of the veterans have resented the move, arguing it shouldn’t be applicable to the retired officers. One by the name of Brig retired Syed Hanif Ahmed has recently circulated his vitriolic write-up on social media, terming the decision as illogical and stupid. While the saner people all across the globe are raising their voices against the hazards of social media which is dividing the families, he has termed the social media as a necessity. In his view, social media helps in keeping the family connected, and in maintaining a bond between the serving and retired officers. He forgets that this bond had been happily kept intact before the birth of social media.
In his jaundiced view, growing bondage between a unit and retired officers and families because of WhatsApp has vexed the senior military leadership. To give vent to his feelings and the questions, “Are we traitors, or are doing something illogical and immoral”? So far, his identity has not been found out and it seems he is fake. In any case, the sort of language he has used is regrettable. Chairman Pakistan Ex-Servicemen Society Lt Gen Amjad Shuaib has deplored it and has viewed the GHQ decision as most appropriate.
In my view, this decision should have been taken much earlier. But as they say, it is never too late. The berserk social media which has of late added another evil in the form of ‘Tip Top’, it needs to be bridled. Likewise, the electronic media which has gone bonkers requires disciplining. Anchors have become omniscient jabbers, firing hate-filled salvos on those whom they don’t like, and trying to influence the minds of decision makers.
To effectively fight the 5th generation war, the policymakers will have to take tough measures. I reckon plans are afoot to strengthen toothless PMRA and make it an effective regulatory authority that can put sense into a wayward approach of media. There is an urgent need to ensure that all avenues of foreign funding to media houses are closed, and all anchors and journalists on the payroll of foreign agencies weeded out. Our media which has become a tool in the hands of adversaries of Pakistan should be streamlined and made into the 4th pillar of the state.
The writer is a retired Brig, a war veteran, defence and security analyst, and author of five books. asifharoonraja@gmail.com
Posted by admin in DEVIL'S DISCIPLES, ISRAEL'S MASSIVE NUCLEAR-Dangerous to Global Peace, QUAID-I-AZAM, SOUTH ASIA, UAE - Israeli Connection, US CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER TO PAKISTAN, WEST AND ZIONIST CONTROL OF GLOBAL MEDIA, Zionist Enemy, Zionist Paranoia, Zionist-Hindutva axis of evil on July 3rd, 2018
Awareness Brief–AB-03-18, Thursday, 17 May 2018, 1 Ramazan 1439
This analytical article on a critical matter was written in May 1997 and was published in weekly The Facts International, Lahore, in its issue of June 1—7, 1997. The article’s circulation was limited to The Facts’ readers. Besides, that was 21 years—nearly a generation—ago. There was a need to bring this important matter to the knowledge of the present generation of policymakers, writers and other relevant people.
A malevolent statement allegedly made by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and said to have been quoted by a doctor who treated him in the last days of his fatal illness, was printed by the American weekly Time in its issue of December 23, 1996, in a story on the founder of Pakistan.
A Proven Concoction
It immediately drew denunciation and protests from many Pakistanis who read the evidently untrue statement in Time or some of the local newspapers which had reproduced it. Several letters refuting the statement and demonstrating its falseness appeared in various newspapers.
That the statement is a concoction had been proved indisputably as it will be further demonstrated in this study. The issue, however, cannot be left there. Time is a prominent worldwide publication. Why did it indulge in such a repugnant venture? Moreover, where exactly did that cunning canard spring from? Who all participated in the subversive scheme? These questions ought to be seriously looked into. The canard should be thoroughly exposed.
The Weapon of Propaganda
In the game of power politics between nations, propaganda is used as the main weapon. Indeed, no other weapon or agent of aggression can match poisonous propaganda in its destructive effects against societies and states. Therefore, expansionist powers, aiming at imperialistic hegemony over weaker nations, extensively employ this weapon to demoralize and debilitate and thus subdue, their targets. Deception, fabrication and disinformation are a staple menu of propaganda fed to the people for such purposes.
As the hegemonic powers are clear about their strategic aims, they are able to plan the menu of the propaganda and its methods of dissemination years in advance. How this stream of fake or untrustworthy information is passed off as a credible and acceptable material is an intricate art in itself. The main method is to propagate the information through prominent media organs whose credibility is well-established. It has the added advantage that if anyone challenges the questionable information, the managers, drawing on the prominent image of their periodical or network, manage to overlook or deflect the criticism. This should be kept in mind while examining the malicious statement in Time’s story.
Letters Not Published
The exact words in the story, written by Carl Posey, were. “On his deathbed, according to his doctor, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the wealthy lawyer of Bombay, rendered his final judgment on his signal achievement: ‘Pakistan,’ he said, had been ‘the biggest blunder of my life’”. When I read it, I immediately wrote to Time by e-mail with the intention of not merely refuting the statement but challenging the whole episode.
The first step to know was what was Time’s source, as Posey had cleverly left the reference and even the doctor’s name out. I expected there would be other letters also disproving the statement, and the editors while publishing the letters would certainly reveal the sources to support their story. My letter, dated 27 December 1996, to the editor was as follows:
I am a reader of Time since 1960, and am aware of its brilliant reporting of facts and equally brilliant reproduction of concoctions and distortion of facts. Carl Posey’s report (Dec 23) that on his deathbed, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, according to his doctor, said that Pakistan had been the ‘biggest blunder of my life,’ falls in the latter skill. Mr Jinnah’s sister Fatima Jinnah, and two prominent doctors, Riaz Ali Shah and Colonel Elahi Bakhsh remained by his side till he breathed his last. None of the doctors ever quoted such a statement; neither is it mentioned in Col Bakhsh’s book, With the Quaid-e-Azam during his Last Days. Indeed, both of them and Fatima Jinnah, who wrote a book, My Brother, narrated that Mr Jinnah continued to express his love for and pride in Pakistan till the end.
Simultaneously, a letter countering Carl Posey’s tale with weighty reasoning was dispatched to Time by a friend of mine who used to be a student of Dr Elahi Bakhsh in late 1950s, and had heard from him many an anecdote about Quaid-e-Azam but never anything like what Time had quoted. Both of our letters were not published by Time. Subsequently, it was learnt that Time had refused to publish several other letters including one by a former Aide-de-camp to Quaid-e-Azam.
Time’s Tactics
Not finding my letter in Time’s issue of January 20, 1997, which carried a few letters on the subject, I at once sent a reminder, and only then received a reply. By then, it was obvious from several indications that Time knew the statement to be disinformation and was using all kinds of tactics to camouflage its motives and deceive the protesters and the public.
Before looking at its reply, let us take a look at Time’s tactics. The piece of disinformation is placed at the very end, to serve as the closing words of the two-page story, “The Great Pleader for a Muslim State.” Reading through the story when you come to its end, the malevolent closing words hit you like a knock of a hammer, and all that you may have found favourable to Pakistan’s founder, in the story, fades away. The story’s writer triumphs, in the effect that he wanted to create on the readers.
It is a usual practice with any standard periodical, including Time, that when its information is questioned or disproved, it reveals its own source or extends an apology. Time did not publish in its own pages the source of that statement. It disclosed the source only to individual protesters.
Time did not indicate how much mail it had received on this topic of the false quote. Normally, in such cases, it publishes several of the letters in a separate box and even cites brief comments from some of the unpublished letters. A recent example could be seen in the issue of January 27, 1997, in which the editors, after publishing 12 letters about a previous cover story, had given short excerpts from a number of the unpublished letters.
Posey’s story, as mentioned, did not reveal the name of the doctor who had leaked the so-called quote of the Quaid. On the other hand, the one-sentence statement was so phrased, and with such audacity, as if the writer, Carl Posey, had himself heard the statement from the doctor!
Its timing was perfectly calibrated. The story was printed to coincide with the birth anniversary of Quaid-e-Azam on December 25. As it was reproduced by several of the local newspapers, it was read by a large number of people. The malignant disinformation, even though disbelieved by almost everyone, created a sense of confusion and frustration among the people, at a time when they traditionally celebrate the merits and achievements of the founder of the country with a measure of pride.
With this story, Time also closed its special series titled “Newsmakers of the Half Century” under which it was written. The series had been started just two months earlier, with its issue of 21 October 1996, for write-ups on Time’s own selection of nine Asian leaders including Sukarno, Mao Zedong and Nehru. A comment on Quaid-e-Azam by Time in its special issue on Asia, ahead of the series, should be exposed. Donald Morrison, writing in a column, otherwise exclusively devoted to praising the weekly and its staff, made a mean swipe at Quaid-e-Azam. He claimed: “Our readers included nearly all the region’s top political and business leaders—the founding father of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, for example, who once granted a Time correspondent an interview in exchange for a subscription.” Were the facts to be dug out, this statement too will turn out to be false.
After its December 23 issue, which carried Posey’s story, came Time’s end-of-the-year double issue, meaning the next issue would not appear till after two weeks. That meant a week’s long delay in publication of letters protesting that false quote—which, thus, remained unquestioned in the pages of Time for that extra period.
The magazine, of course, also had a more concrete plan to deal with the letters of protest and refutation. Time, the champion of all kinds of conceivable and inconceivable human rights, including freedom of speech, equality and impartiality, had no intention of publishing them! Indeed, the editors adhered to their plan, without the least remorse.
Time’s Own Choice of Letters
The editors cleverly selected just four letters, on the topic, which they published in the issue of January 20, 1997. Only one of these, from a lady in Islamabad, questions the false quote—just in one sentence! It reads: “For Jinnah to have said on his deathbed that Pakistan was his ‘biggest blunder’ flies in the face of all that has been recorded and written about the Quaid and is entirely out of character.” That was all, to represent the anger and protests over the false statement registered by many Pakistanis and the undeniable refutation of it presented to Time by some very authentic protesters!
The editors did not stop at that dishonest act. They employed an additional trick without any qualm. Immediately below that letter, they placed a letter which purports to sustain the canard, though the comment made is incoherent! It is by someone named Umer Pasha, from Lahore; and he is made to say: “Time has really done justice to the tremendous personality of our great leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah. I think Jinnah knew what he was saying when he called his nation-building the biggest blunder of his life. None of the current leaders of Pakistan has the sincerity and the will to build the economy of the country.” The other two letters do not speak about the false quote and comment on some other aspects of the story.
Time’s Reply
We can examine now Time’s reply to my letter. The same reply was received by a few other people, who persisted in demanding a reply to their letters. The full text of Time’s reply is as follows:
Thank you for taking the time to register your reaction to our December 23 anniversary supplement about Mohammad Ali Jinnah. We were, of course, sorry to learn of your disappointment with our reporting but we do appreciate the opportunity to consider your critical perspective.
In addressing broad-based criticism of the overall tone of our reporting, it is often difficult for us to do more than offer our assurances that we have no interest in pursuing programmatic biases in the magazine. We are certainly most sensitive to the extraordinary diversity of our audience and, naturally, we strive to apply a consistently dispassionate measure to each and every topic with which we engage.
Having said that, we would like to speak specifically about the deathbed quote you mention. Our source was M. J. Akbar’s Nehru: The Making of India (Viking 1988). On page 433 of that biography, Akbar writes “Jinnah’s personal physician in his last days, Colonel Elahi Bakhsh, had recorded that once Jinnah, on his deathbed, blew up at Liaquat Ali Khan, who had come to see him, and described Pakistan as ‘the biggest blunder of my life’. The story was printed in Peshawar’s Frontier Post in November 1987 and quotes Jinnah as saying, “If now I get an opportunity I will go to Delhi and tell Jawaharlal Nehru to forget about the follies of the past and become friends again.” We do know that Colonel Bakhsh did not include this quote in his own memoir, With the Quaid-e-Azam during his Last Days, but that does not, in our view, mean that he may not have remembered it nonetheless and related it later to a different audience.
In closing, we thought you might be interested to know that several letters expressing similar criticisms to yours were published in our Asian edition, where the story originally appeared. Although we were unable to include your letter as well, you can be sure that it met with an attentive audience among our editors. Again, our thanks for letting us hear from you, and best wishes.
Sincerely,
Winston Hunter
Analysis of Time’s Reply
One cannot be impressed by the “courtesies” in Time’s letter when the subject is its inaccuracies and prevarications—which is a courteous expression for lies.
It is incorrect for the editors to say that they “have no interest in pursuing programmatic biases in the magazine.” The fact that they deliberately did not publish many letters of protest from Pakistanis disproves their statement. This itself testifies to their “programmatic biases.”
It is a lie on their part to say “that several letters expressing similar criticisms to yours were published in our Asian edition”. How could they make such a false claim against the evidence in their own magazine! There were not several but just four letters; and out of these four, only one letter expressed criticism of the quote, in just one sentence!
The editors said they were unable to include my letter; they said the same words to others whose letters were not published. But the editors presented no reason to anyone, as to what made them ‘unable’ to publish those letters? What else could be the reason, except that the editors were afraid the readers of Time would know that the statement about Mr Jinnah was a concoction.
Indian Author’s Book
From the wording of their reply, it appears that the book of the Indian author, M.J. Akbar, is Time’s main source for the quote. I found the book in Quaid-e-Azam Library, Lahore. On looking up the book, one finds that Akbar’s source for the concocted statement is none other than the Frontier Post story! Incidentally, this book on Nehru is considered of no authentic value. Even in India, it is treated with disdain, because in his adulation of his subject, Akbar became blind to Nehru’s faults losing all sense of objectivity, while the Indians from authentic literature have been learning more and more about Nehru’s moral weaknesses and political blunders. It should also be of interest to know that M.J. Akbar’s zealous devotion to the Indian National Congress surprises even the party’s own Hindu loyalists!
Tracking Down the Primary Source
Next, we come to the so-called primary source—the story in the Frontier Post. It was a bizarre situation; an unheard of the statement had found a passage into an Indian author’s book and an American weekly, and its primary source was a little-known, literally obscure newspaper!
Both Time and M.J. Akbar had intentionally not mentioned the exact date of the story. I reckoned there would be some difficulty in finding the date and then the story in Frontier Post Files. It turned out I had underestimated the problem. The Frontier Post office in Lahore plainly expressed their inability to help in the matter, saying that the Lahore Edition was launched only in July 1989. A letter, followed by a reminder to the Frontier Post’s chief editor, in Peshawar, requesting his help failed to elicit any response from him.
Inquiries revealed that a ‘seasoned hand’, who had spent several years at the Frontier Post and was considered a walking encyclopedia on the Peshawar daily, could be contacted in Lahore. He did prove to be ‘seasoned’. He was a diehard congressite in his political allegiance. He knew about the Frontier Post story and its author’s name, and even defended it, but said he did not know its date, and that even the year could be 1986 or 1988 and not necessarily 1987! I understood his trickery.
Finding the Frontier Post Files of 1987 was another problem. It was the Dayal Singh Trust Library, Lahore, which, in this case, proved to be an asset, superior to all the other local libraries. On a day, in the month of Ramazan (1997), I spent several hours going through the Frontier Post Files of November and December 1987, but the story was not found.
An Intriguing Column
However, I found two unusual features in the paper. It carried a continuous stream of subtle, and sometimes even blatant, propaganda against Pakistan and its raison d’etre ie, its reason for existence. Unfortunately, it is also a characteristic of several other dailies in our country, but the Peshawar daily topped the other papers in this respect. The second was an intriguing feature. The Frontier Post, sometime in October 1987, had initiated on the ‘City Post’ page, a special but occasional column titled “Historical Notes.” It seemed to be a technique for airing ‘new disclosures and theories’ to distort the facts about the Pakistan Movement, the Muslim League, and the leading personalities who led the movement and the party.
Under that ‘special’ column, on Saturday, 12 December 1987, is a story “Quaid Wanted To Abandon Muslim League” by Al-Huma, obviously a cover name. An inscription at the story’s beginning says, “The writer of the article is a student of the history of Pakistan Movement. In 1972 he undertook a self-imposed mission of collecting information and historical evidence so as to set the historical record straight for the posterity”. Al Huma’s narrative which he says is based on an interview of Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, the Mir of Kalat, is pathetically unfit to be of any historical value. Four days later, on 16 December, the newspaper was compelled to publish a reply challenging Al-Huma and exposing his narrative to be manifestly inaccurate.
The mystery around the Concocted Story
A study of that column did give a clue to finding the story. It was obvious the elusive story would be found in the “Historical Notes” on the ‘City Post’ page. But, I failed to find the story! It was eventually found by a helpful source, Hakim Naeemud Din Zuberi, the learned Director of Library, Hamdard University, Karachi, to whom I had written to help with the research.
The story was in the paper of 25 November 1987. It was indeed on the ‘City Post’ page and in the special column, this time more grandiloquently titled as “Footnotes of History.” It is by Mohammad Yahya Jan, and is headlined, “What Quaid’s Physician told me”.
How did I miss it? In the Frontier Post Files in the Dayal Singh Trust Library, the page was not there! It had been removed—by design.
The Story’s Author
An inquiry into Yahya Jan’s background revealed that his father was a brother of Dr Khan Sahib and Abdul Ghaffar Khan. They were the founders of the anti-Pakistan ‘Red Shirts’ movement. They were loyal to the Indian National Congress, deadly opposed to Pakistan. Yahya Jan had served in the pre-partition Congress régime in the Frontier Province as education minister in 1945. Yahya Jan was a tottering old man touching the debilitating age of 90 in 1987, when he ‘remembered’ to disclose something which, he said, had been told to him by Col Elahi Bakhsh 35 years before, in 1952!
Cleverly-Written Narrative
At the outset, Yahya Jan says, “I cannot vouch for the truth of Col Elahi Bakhsh’s account. All I can say, with God as my witness, that this is what he told me”. Then follows a long narrative of how and what Dr Elahi Bakhsh confided to Yahya Jan and Dr Khan Sahib, in a patients’ ward in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where an ailing Ghaffar Khan was under treatment. Yahya Jan claims he received the information, that he had disclosed in the story, over a number of sessions of conversation with Bakhsh. On this point, he writes: “Col Elahi Bakhsh, as the superintendent of the Mayo Hospital, used to come on his rounds of the wards between 8 and 9 in the morning. He would exchange a few words and then pass on. As he got to know us better he occasionally lingered on for longer periods. Sometimes our conversation stretched out for quite a while, and their memory endures in my mind.”
The narrative contains the malicious quote and a number of other preposterous statements, allegedly made by Quaid-e-Azam to Liaquat Ali Khan when the latter, accompanied by Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, called on the Quaid at Ziarat in late July 1948. The utterances are exceedingly insulting to Quaid-e-Azam, Mr Liaquat Ali Khan, Miss Fatima Jinnah, the State of Pakistan and the entire Pakistan Movement. The basis of the narrative is that Col Elahi Bakhsh was in the room throughout when Quaid-e-Azam had the exclusive meeting with Liaquat Ali Khan.
According to Yahya Jan, apart from the Khan Brothers, the only person who learnt of Col Bakhsh’s account was Agha Shorish Kashmiri, a well-known journalist, to whom Yahya had passed it on. According to the narrative, Agha Shorish, apparently, had it confirmed from the doctor but then kept it to himself! The full narrative mentions other malicious things also. Towards the narrative’s end, Yahya again swears by God, and says, “I hold myself accountable to God if I have misquoted anything Col Bakhsh said”. Swearing by God is an old ruse to make concocted statements ‘credible.’
Refutation of the Story
Amongst the evidence that appeared in newspapers proving the falseness of the story, the accounts by three persons are of special significance. They are: Dr Zafar Omer, an assistant of late Col Elahi Bakhsh, Dr Ghulam Mohammad Khan, the only living doctor out of a team of four from Mayo Hospital who attended Mr Jinnah during his terminal illness in Ziarat and Quetta, and Brigadier (Retd) Noor A. Hussain, Quaid’s ADC in the last four months of his life in Karachi, Quetta and Ziarat. Excerpts from their letters which appeared in Dawn on 30 January, 26 January and 4 March 1997, respectively are reproduced below.
Zafar Omer, Lahore. “I was privy to most of the observations of late Col Elahi Bakhsh (about Quaid-e-Azam), because I was his assistant, and quite close to him. I never heard him mention any such remark. In fact, according to Col Elahi Bakhsh, the Quaid till the last seemed most proud of his achievement and had great hopes regarding the country”.
Dr Ghulam Mohammad Khan, Lahore. “I have no wish to dwell upon all the malicious and vituperative statements of the writer (of Time’s story). However, the last paragraph of his story should not go without comment. Besides other things, it states that on his deathbed Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah told his doctor that Pakistan had been ‘the biggest blunder of my life’. I happen to be the only living doctor out of a team of four from Mayo Hospital, Lahore, who attended Mr Jinnah during his terminal illness in Ziarat and Quetta. He was never left unattended—day or night—as we had adjacent bedrooms. It is absolutely unimaginable and unbelievable that a statement of such import and implication was ever made by Mr Jinnah and none of the doctors present at hand had known it for nearly 48 years till Carl Posey brought it to our notice.
“Furthermore, late Col Elahi Bakhsh makes no mention of any such statement in his book “With the Quaid-e-Azam during his Last Days”. The statement attributed to the founder of Pakistan by Carl Posey is a figment of his own imagination. It is clear that this statement has been deliberately concocted in order to malign a great leader and the country he brought into existence, and it is obviously sponsored by the enemies of Pakistan.”
Brigadier (Retd) Noor Hussain, Rawalpindi. “I was the Quaid’s ADC in the last four months of his life in Karachi, Quetta and Ziarat. I cannot recollect the Quaid ever feeling or making such remarks to his doctor or anyone else, even on his deathbed, where I was present throughout.
“I was ADC on duty when Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan arrived in Ziarat late July 1948, to see Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. After Quaid’s consent, I ushered him into the bedroom on the top floor. They exchanged greetings. Miss Jinnah came out as was the protocol for such meetings between the two. Doctor Elahi Bakhsh and Riaz Ali Shah chest specialist were not present in Quaid’s bedroom but were waiting in the Lounge on the ground Floor with us. After about 40 minutes, the PM came downstairs, met the doctors, had lunch with Miss Jinnah and ADCs and drove down to Quetta for the flight back to Karachi by PAF’s DC-3 aircraft.”
Miss Fatima Jinnah’s Book
Brigadier Hussain’s eye-witness account of Liaquat Ali Khan’s call on the Quaid at Ziarat is fully corroborated by Miss Fatima Jinnah’s description of that visit in her book “My Brother”, (Karachi, Quaid-e-Azam Academy, 1987). In fact, she related that when the meeting was over, she went into the Quaid’s room and wanted to stay with him as he seemed exhausted but he insisted: “Go and eat with them, they are our guests”.
From her book also, it is evident that when Mr Liaquat Ali met the Quaid, there was no one else in the room, not even she or Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, what to speak of Dr Elahi Bakhsh, who was rather a stranger to Quaid-e-Azam till then. It should be remembered that Col Elahi Bakhsh, as recorded in his book, had met Quaid-e-Azam for the first time on 24 July, and it was just around four days later that Liaquat Ali Khan and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali arrived on their visit. Indeed, Dr Bakhsh, in his own book makes no claim of having been present at that meeting; nor is there any mention, or even a hint, of that false statement in the book.
The Source of Concoction
Then, where did that statement and all the other vicious utterances originate from? Who concocted the episode? To analyze this concoction one must comprehend the full dimension of the nature and aims of the psychological warfare being conducted against our country. Once that has been comprehended, then you know that this concoction is the handiwork of the schemers conducting that warfare. Needless to say, the schemers intimately know their subjects, targets, and the local conditions, and have a vast network to gain penetration and influence into the required circles. Indeed, this whole scheme, which in their terminology is called a “sting operation,” has their stamp on it. Like all the other sting operations, this one was also very meticulously planned and had been conceived a long time before it was to materialize.
c
Those people, who think that there would be no harm in befriending Israel, must realize that it will not change Israeli aims. God forbid, if the rulers of Pakistan ever committed the blunder of befriending the Zionist state, they would be offering the Israelis the ideal circumstances and full freedom to realize their aims against Pakistan. That will also invite divine punishment to Pakistan, for transgressing a divine commandment: “O you who believe! Turn not (for friendship) to people on whom is the Wrath of Allah.” The “people” mentioned in this Quranic Verse (Surah 60:13) are the Zionist Jews who deny God and His Prophets. “They are the Party of Satan;” (Surah 58:19). They are the creators and rulers of the Zionist state of Israel.
The Local Fifth Column
Due to various reasons, a Fifth Column exists in Pakistan. Fifth Column, by definition, is “An organized body sympathizing with and working for the enemy within a country.” These people living in Pakistan have amassed wealth and they enjoy many privileges, but they readily act as agents of the Zionist Jews to harm Pakistan. Yahya Jan belonged to this band. The master schemers guided him to be the pivot in this nasty venture.
Final Orchestration
The scheme of the concocted story was made by Zionist schemers. They prepared its full script, had the story printed in the Frontier Post, passed the information to M.J. Akbar and Carl Posey, none of whom, otherwise, would have known about it. The concocted story would find a permanent place in the pages of Akbar’s book and the weekly Time, long after people had forgotten the Frontier Post and Yahya Jan. For Yahya Jan, nearing the end of his life, it was the last desperate stroke of ‘revenge’ against Pakistan whose establishment he and his clan had failed to prevent.
By November 1987, M.J. Akbar’s book was ready to go into print (it was published in 1988) and a sick, awfully aged, Yahya Jan was close to his deathbed (he died in 1989). Shorish Kashmiri had died in 1975. A phoney newspaper had been launched since 1985 and a column “Historical Notes” had been initiated in it since October 1987. So, the plan was set for Time (a mouthpiece of Zionism) to bring out a special series in October–December 1996, on Asian ‘Newsmakers of the Half Century’; it should have a write-up on Mohammad Ali Jinnah carrying the concocted quote, and ending the series! So, the sting operation was launched and successfully completed.
Action for the Government
This whole sordid affair has another deplorable aspect— an absence of any action on the part of the government or scholars in Pakistan to challenge and demolish the lies directed against Quaid-e-Azam and the creation of Pakistan. Their insensitivity and neglect were compounded. They let the Frontier Post story go unnoticed, failed to spot the inclusion of the lies in M.J. Akbar’s book, and maintained a conspiracy of silence when Time advertised the malevolent lies around the world.
The least the government should do now is that either the Information Ministry or the Quaid-e-Azam Academy should declare the false quote to be a concoction, and formally ask the weekly Time and the publishers of M.J. Akbar’s book to annul it from the pages of their publications. The concerned authorities should also place this article at appropriate websites on the Internet, as, besides unmasking the falseness of Time’s story, it exposes this magazine’s dishonesty in knowingly publishing a false story.
The writer is an analyst of International Zionism’s schemes, particularly the schemes against Pakistan and the other Muslim Countries.
Tariq Majeed
Lahore, Pakistan
Israel is a Clear and Present Danger to the Muslim world. It has a declared policy of targeting Islamic nations with its Nuclear Bombs. Therefore, it is imperative that Islamic nations formulate a policy to counter this Israeli plan and pre-empt it before Israel has time to recover and critical to this would be the destruction of Israeli submarines carrying its nuclear weapons for its second strike capability. Israel is in secret collaboration with India and the minutes of Modi-Netanyahu meeting reflect this strategy. Israel and UAE are in secret agreements, therefore, UAE can be considered as Israel’s Trojan Horse.
Privately, it has been well understood by US officials since the 1960s that Israel has the capacity to build its own nuclear weapons. Publicly, Israel has a policy of not confirming or denying its nuclear stockpile, even though by now it is a well-established fact.
Since 1968, or possibly even earlier, Israel has amassed a secretive arsenal thought to amount to at least 80 nuclear warheads. In a hacked 2015 email, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote that Israel has “200 [nuclear bombs], all targeted on Tehran.” The latter figure may be an exaggeration, but there’s no doubt that Israel has the bomb and in significant numbers.
The definitive book detailing the story of how Israel got the bomb is Seymour Hersh’s The Sampson Option. In it, Hersh – a renowned investigative journalist – recounts how Israel worked with French scientists in the 1950s and 1960s to build a nuclear reactor in Dimona in the southern Negev Desert. Photographs by US spy planes showed that Israel, despite its denials, was indeed building the reactor. However, the politicians and higher-ups seemed not to want to know.
In fact, there seems to have been a deliberate policy of successive US Presidents turning a blind eye to what was going on, ignoring their own intelligence briefs. One US ambassador to Israel, Walworth Barbour, was in post for 12 years and emblematic of this. His long assignment, Hersh wrote, was a testament to his “willingness to operate the American embassy as a subsidiary, if necessary, of the Israeli foreign ministry.” According to Hersh, Barbour was willing to stand aside when ordered to do so and “permit the White House and the Israeli ambassador to Washington to run the real policy behind his back.”
Official: Israel will attack Iran to prevent it acquiring nuclear weapons
The Sampson Option, published in 1991, is an impressive book, based largely on official US records and US and Israeli official sources, some speaking anonymously. It is the characteristic Hersh blend of impressive military and intelligence sources approached with admirable scepticism and critical rigour. Unlike most mainstream US journalists reporting on Israeli “intelligence” affairs, Hersh refused to submit his book to Israeli censorship.
It is an almost-entirely unreported scandal (in the mainstream, at least) that the Israeli military imposes crude censorship on both domestic and foreign journalists operating in the country. Any other regime operating in this way would not be presented by the media as a “democracy”, as Israel almost always is. For the Palestinians whose life it dominates through a brutal occupation, Israel is a military dictatorship.
Hersh was able to avoid Israeli censorship simply by staying out of the country. He talked to his Israeli sources either over the phone or while they were in the US.
Based on the accounts of anonymous Israeli officials, he recounts a telling story around the production of the first Israeli atomic bomb. With some of Israel’s current best friends being the far-right, anti-Muslim US President Donald Trump and the fascistic “alt-right”, it is a story with a chilling current relevance.
In 1968, Israeli Defence Minister and former General Moshe Dayan showed the Labour government’s Finance Minister Pinchas Sapir around Dimona in an attempt to persuade him that the nuclear bomb made financial sense and was worth funding. Sapir was a sceptic, until Dayan “showed him the whole thing, from A to Z,” Hersh’s official Israeli source said.
“Have you seen it all?” Sapir later asked a ministerial colleague. “I’ve seen it and you don’t know shit. There will be no more Auschwitzes.”
This is a reference to the infamous Nazi death camps in which it is estimated that more than 1.3 million people were slaughtered, mostly Jews. The reference reflects the anachronistic idea, common in Israeli propaganda, that the state of Israel was established to protect Jewish people from Nazi genocide. It was, of course, in the planning at least 50 years before the extent of the Holocaust was acknowledged.
Israeli study warns Netanyahu against ending Iran nuclear deal
Furthermore, Israel’s founding ideology, Zionism, has a far darker and more complicated relationship with Nazism and anti-Semitism than simple opposition. At times, individuals and groups in the Zionist movement collaborated actively with Nazi Germany, first surfacing in the 1930s with the transfer agreement. In the case of Rudolf Katzner (later an Israeli government official and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate for Mapai, the party which went on to merge with other “left Zionist” groups to form Labour), this even extended to outright collaboration with the Nazi regime which was directly occupying Hungary towards the end of the war, giving breathing space for them to slaughter Hungarian Jews while saving himself and over 1,600 others.
There is no doubt about which side Israel is on. Britain First, whose deputy leader’s messages Trump retweeted this week, is extremely pro-Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very pro-Trump. Within this sort of context, Israel’s nuclear weapons today are far more likely to create a “new Auschwitz” than to stop one.
Posted by aka in DEVIL'S DISCIPLES, ISRAEL'S MASSIVE NUCLEAR-Dangerous to Global Peace, Zionist Enemy, Zionist Paranoia, Zionist-Hindutva axis of evil on April 9th, 2018
Facing the Enemy Effectively Requires Knowing his Real Identity and Capability
Awareness Brief-AB-02-18, Thursday, 29 March 2018, 11 Rajab 1439
“Some of the biggest men in the U.S. in the fields of commerce and manufacturing know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” 1
Woodrow Wilson (US President 1912-20)
Woodrow Wilson‘s comments belonged to the early years of the 20th century. By the close of the century, the adherents of that subtle power had gained control over all the vital fields of national life in America. That subtle power rules over America and employs the American state organs and the people for its own exclusive ends.
Without comprehending this fact, US foreign policy’s failures and misconceived and questionable moves that critically harmed the national interest, in the last several decades, cannot be understood. Why did US invade Iraq in March 2003 while it had been confirmed that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 terrorism in America, and UN inspectors had declared that Iraq had no nuclear weapons and had no plan to develop them? Iraq had already suffered crushing defeat by US and NATO forces in the Gulf War, 16Jan-28 Feb 1991, and posed no threat to US.
Why is the US doggedly pursuing a clearly flawed policy in the war in Afghanistan that is being fought for over 15 years now, and shows the US losing it continuously?
Pakistan has never harmed US interests. In fact, it has always loyally complied with US dictates foregoing its own interests. But, US bears an unrelenting enmity toward Pakistan, does not care even when its policies harm Pakistan’s vital interests and every now and then publicly demonstrates its hostility to Pakistan; the question is, why?
Until a few years ago, it was a “conspiracy theory” to say that governmental policies in the United States were made by a secret clique that was pursuing a specific agenda of its own interests which were clearly harmful to US interests. It is this agenda that required the US to devastate Iraq by military invasion in 2003, that keeps the war by terrorism in Afghanistan going, multiplying destruction and fuelling disintegration, and it is to fulfil this agenda that the US targets Pakistan as an enemy state.
The phrase “conspiracy theory” is well known, but not so its definition, because it suits its originators that way. Its definition is actually simple and straightforward. Any explanation of an event or issue that differs from and challenges its explanation given in unison by the official establishment and the mainstream media is called a “conspiracy theory” by these two entities and those who echo their views.
The facts presented here highlight the bizarre reality that an exclusive group of people united in their ideological beliefs and their ambitious goals and commanding the major instruments of power dominates the conduct of national policies in America.
Its discussion in public was still taboo. However, the notion—which indeed is a reality—is finding its way through diverse channels to the people’s eyes and ears in America and abroad. There is also ever-growing writing by American academic researchers and political and military analysts on this alarming issue.
In saying “there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive” Woodrow Wilson did capture the essence of the weird characteristics of this power. But he left out its most important characteristic, that the ‘subtle power’ is International Zionism.
Writers in referring to this ‘subtle power’ have used a variety of names: Pro-Israel Lobby, Jewish Lobby, The Israel Lobby, Zionist Lobby, Organized Jewry, The Order, The Elite, The Invisible Government, America’s Secret Establishment, All-Judaan, Illuminati, a Cabal, Neoconservatives (or Neocons). These names can be found in the books of American authors, some of which are listed in the bibliography.
However, the name that befits it best is Zionist International Jewry, (Zinjri, for short), because its command group consists of non-believing, anti-religion ethnic Jews who belong to different countries and adhere to Zionism. The creed of Zionism vehemently opposes God, His prophets, divine religion, and social and moral values based on religion.
Author of Who’s Who of the Elite, Robert Ross, says: “There have been dozens of very good books written since the beginning of the 20th century on this subject, but they remain rather obscure because the Elite conspires to suppress them,”2 True. Keeping the public unaware of its existence has been Zinjri’s key strategy for acquiring power. Nevertheless, sufficient literature on this forbidden topic exists that gives a full exposé of this elusive entity and its sinister goals. It also throws light on Zinjry’s command group that wields almost unchallenged power in the international sphere. The US Elite is a part of Zinjri.
Robert Ross. About his book, published in July 1995, Ross says, “It is to alert the public of the existence and activities of the Elite, and to encourage active participation by all concerned citizens to stop the takeover of the US, and the rest of the world by the Elite in their efforts to form their Global Union (formerly called the New World Order).”3 Global Union’s other title is One-World Government, also found on the Internet.
Ross looks into the membership and working of three major interlinking Elite organizations, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission (TC), and Bilderberg Group (BB). The book lists hundreds of names of prominent persons, (including US presidents), in politics, finance, industry, business, media, science and technology, academia, intelligence, military. The three bodies pursue a common long-term program, as directed by Zinjry.
Paul Findley. A former congressman, Paul Findley, was probably the first front-rank politician to alert his countrymen to the dominant power Israel’s Lobby had attained in the US Congress and the Administration. His 1985 book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, is an eye-opener on this subject. He writes:
Over the years the pro-Israel lobby has thoroughly penetrated this nation’s governmental system, and the organization that has made the deepest impact is the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to whom even the President of the United States turns when he has any vexing political problems.4 It is no overstatement to say that AIPAC has effectively gained control of virtually all of Capitol Hill’s action on Middle East Policy. Almost without exception, House and Senate members do its bidding, because most of them consider AIPAC to be the direct Capitol Hill representative of a Political Force that can make or break their chances at election time.5
Alfred Lilienthal. In his 1965 book, ‘The Other Side of the Coin,‘ he makes this profound statement that is as true today as it was in 1965: “While most Americans do not understand Zionism this has not prevented many Jewish organizations from weaving Zionist goals, doctrines and public statements into their daily agenda.” 6 In many of the other countries, the political and military leaders and the intellectuals are victims of the same design.
Henry Ford I. Renowned American industrialist Henry Ford was not only innovative but also exceptionally observant and analytical. He became aware of the Zionist danger to America and wrote a series of articles in 1920-21 warning Americans about it. These were later published as a book titled, The International Jew. Summing up his in-depth study, Ford wrote in 1920, twenty-eight years before the creation of Israel:
Jewry is the most closely organized power on earth. It forms a State whose citizens are unconditionally loyal wherever they may be and whether rich or poor. The designation of this State, which circulates among all the countries, is All-Judaan. Its means of power are Money and Propaganda.7
Book, The Transparent Cabal. Added to the strong evidence of Zionist dominance over US national policies is a remarkable case study of how the Zionist cabal pushed the US into war against Iraq.
Details of the role played by the most hard-line component of the Israel lobby in leading the US to war [against Iraq] are found in this scrupulously researched book by Dr Sniegoski.8
The book’s title, The Transparent Cabal, is intriguing. Cabal by definition is: “A number of persons secretly united and using devious and undercover means to bring about an overturn or usurpation especially in public affairs.”9 Explaining the title, the author says:
The book has been entitled The Transparent Cabal because the Neoconservatives have sometimes been referred to as a cabal. By implying secret plotting, the aim of such a term is often to make the whole idea of Neocons influence appear ridiculous. For while the Neocons represent a tight group devoted to achieving political goals, they have worked very much in the open to advance their Middle East war agenda. Thus, unlike a true “cabal,” characterized by secrecy, the Neoconservatives are a “transparent cabal.10
More Light on Neocons Perfidy. Mentioned below are some excerpts from the book that throw more light on the Neocons’ perfidious nature:
“What Sniegoski is challenging is the management of American foreign policy by extreme Zionists.” (page xiii)
“What is most impressive about Sniegoski’s study is its rigorous demonstration of the persistence with which Neoconservative ‘policy-advisers’ have pushed particular agendas, driven by their strident Zionism, over long periods of time.” (page xi)
“The Neoconservatives quite openly publicized their war agenda both before and after Sept 11, 2001. Like a “cabal,” the Neoconservatives have worked in unison to shape major policy.” (page6)
“Over the years, the Neocons had developed a powerful, interlocking network of think tanks, organizations, and media outlets outside of government with the express purpose of influencing American foreign policy. By the end of the 1990s, the Neocons developed a complete blueprint for the remaking of the Middle East by military means, starting with Iraq.” (page 6)
This section is primarily addressed to Pakistan’s rulers, policymakers and the other authorities responsible for the country’s security. But, it is of equal importance for the ruling authorities of all Muslim countries. The ‘Reality’ to be recognized, as explained in this document, is, that:
■ A Cabal of Zionist International Jewry (Zinjry) rules over the United States and makes the national policies, including foreign policy, in pursuit of its own aims, which, in fact, go against the US national interest.
■ The Zionist Cabal is pursuing global aims, which the policymakers must identify because these aims include disintegration of Muslim countries. Its “complete blueprint for the remaking of the Middle East,” which outlines the scheme for breaking up Saudi Arabia, is being implemented.
The complete blueprint that also targets countries beyond the Middle East was actually published in a Hebrew document in early1980s.
Recognizing its vital importance, French scholar Roger Garaudy included it in his 1983 book. I reproduced it in an awareness brief, titled, The Zionist Scheme to Break up Muslim Countries, and circulated it first in Aug 2003, then in Jan 2016. Apparently, the concerned authorities ignored it. It is hoped they will now give it the attention it deserves.
The writer is an analyst of international and national affairs.
Notes:
Bibliography
―Garaudy Roger. The Case of Israel: A Study of Political Zionism, London,
Shorouk International, 1983.
―Findley, Paul. They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront
Israel’s Lobby, Westport, Connecticut, Lawrence Hill & Company, 1985.
―Ford I, Henry. The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, Umma
Publishing House, Karachi, 1970, first published in 1920.
―Lilienthal, Alfred M. The Other Side of the Coin, The David-Adair Company,
New York, 1965.
―Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time,
The Macmillan Company, New York, 1966, Paperback – March 1, 2014.
―Ross, Robert Gaylon, Sr. Who’s Who of the Elite—Members of the:
Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations & Trilateral Commission,
Spicewood, Texas, published by RIE, First Printing – July 1995.
―Sniegoski, Stephen J. The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda,
War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel. Enigma Editions,
Norfolk, Virginia, 2008.
―Sutton, Antony C. How the Order Creates War And Revolution, Australia,
Veritas Publishing Company Ptv. Ltd. 1986.
Tariq Majeed
Email: dilbedar@yahoo.com
© 2024, All Rights Reserved by Pakistan Think Tank.
