All posts by A Khokar

Hum barbaad ho gaey

Sometimes the sky above us brings up unique colours to display. Zardari who would have never thought of becoming a President even in his dreams but with a single jolt which pushed her wife Benazir Bhutto up for the heavens… brought him on the thrown as a supreme commander and President—– not only of this unfortunate land but of BB’s political party; PPP too.

It was, as man has got a lottery doors opened for him…. Same was the case for American CIA that what a man they got in lieu of Benazir Bhutto who had lately turned somewhat defiant against the will and wishes of America. Zardari was a perfect substitute.

When loot is the free option; who would not indulge in it —-and then we saw that how the entire entourage of his creed landing in Islamabd went on pilfering spree. Any asset of this land that they could lay hand on was subjected to loot and turned into dirt.

This has crippled the entire society and all the institutions and services like railway, transport, industries with no fuel, electricity or gas have come to a grinding halt.

Hum barbaad ho gaey

I will bear repeating that more than half the public is job less. I recently visited Pakistan and saw that most of the food and commodities items of daily consumptions are sold at European or UK rates; whereas an average person in Pakistan just earns Pak Rs.7000 and monthly earning of even a low class person in UK is in Pak Rupees about 175,000. Ratio comes to 1:25. What is this justification of price hike in Pakistan on this scale?

But where is this civil society of our which somehow is showing its reluctance to come out and fiercely demand the eviction of the stooges installed in Islamabad. These stooges are fast selling this nation to foreign forces, reducing every national asset to ashes and conspiring to deplete and defang the only saviour institution of Pakistan; the Pak Armed forces?


Was OBL killed with the tacit Approval of Zardari?



Day by day; this news in the Media is becoming clearer that President, Asif Ali Zardari had the knowledge of raid on CIA compound of OBL at Abbottabad. From the operation timings point of view; it may be that he knew it vaguely but for sure President Asif Zardari knew about the OBL fiasco that it was being orchestrated as a play let to demonise our Military Generals and ISI to flog them back in line…. and it was done with his tacit approval.

But why it is so…?

If we only know that this is an old Saudi-US nexus to bring the nuclear potent and known fortress of Islam—Pakistan in American fold as her subservient. Somehow this nexus only became obvious owing to 9/11 incident in Musharraf era. Saudi-US nexus had originally started in Ziaul Haq time.  He was the first pawn; a bead fixed in that long stretched and conducive ‘Rosary knot cord …of Deceit’ when on religious bases this nation was turn on and exploited to become US proxy. Saudis paid an active part as agents and financiers.

After Zial ul, when he was blasted out in the sky; can we possibly say that Miss Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif is to be placed outside of this Rosary beads string of Saudi-US nexus? You may not…because they too happened to be US pawns who during their Premier tenures did serve as the conduits and enablers to carry forward the given leads of Saudi-US nexus set by Ziaul Haq.

After BB and Nawaz Sharif; although Pervez Musharraf took the rein of the country as a military dictator but only one single US threatening roar after the incident of 9/11, was sufficient enough to bring him in line. The incident of 9/11 can be said that it tied the knot of Pakistan—- to serve as US proxy more firmly.

Ever since the above mechanism is in place it works like a reef knot that It holds solid and pulls tighter under pressure. It is so well placed that even after decade long duration, the Musharraf regime’s successor; the cunning Zardari who was installed under the provision of wishy-washy scheme of NRO may dare not to step out of the US given lines.

May it be raid on CIA compound of OBL at Abbottabad, the Mehran base fiasco or the recent NATO forces attack on Salala Posts and other continuous Drone attacks in FATA area—– they all are part of evil design of our enemies found hovering on our border (even have infiltrated beyond our defence lines) to provoke the Armed Forces to draw them into war in order to defang our nuclear weapons and finish the military power off before the great US game in this region is brought to an end or taken to a next stage.

On the other hand; there are desperate efforts being made to make the latest Memogate a controversial issue—- but its contents reveal a lot.


CIA lured in NATO forces to attack Pakistani posts

There are latest reports that TTP hirelings are being heavily armed and paid by CIA and made to infiltrate in Pakistan from Afghanistan. They are assigned with the tasks to fire back especially by mortars fire on different borders villages from inside Pakistan to instigate the clashes on the border.

Recently some civilian causality has also been reported in Afghani villages in Kunar province. Currently Pak army is engaged to check any such infiltration and day in and out these elements are being plucked and eliminated.

This is another CIA tactics to create a situation where by they foresee that in the name of hot pursuit; NATO forces may come across border to attack inside Pakistan.   Continuation of drone attacks is also being conducted on the same pretext.

According to preliminary US military reports of Salala area post, it is being said that the Tehrik e taliban may have deliberately lured NATO forces to attack the Pakistanis.

American commanders insist that a joint US and Afghan patrol came under mortar and small arms fire early on Saturday morning. They requested back-up, the report suggests, and checked whether Pakistani forces were in the area. The answer was apparently negative.

Two hours later, while still hunting the insurgents, the US commander spotted what he thought was a militant encampment, with heavy weapons mounted on tripods. In fact this was a Pakistani military outpost, 300 metres inside Pakistani territory, in the mountainous Mohmand tribal area. Pakistani officials say the post was well known to NATO and US forces even used for number of their previous NATO-Pak flag meetings

The NATO joint patrol called in air strikes on the post at 2.21am local time. Apache attack helicopters and an AC-130 gunship destroyed the encampment, unaware it belonged to the Pakistan military. US officials quoted by the Associated Press say they believe the Taliban chose the location for the attack in a deliberate — and successful — attempt to get US and Pakistani forces to fire at each other.

Meanwhile the Pakistan military said that the NATO helicopters that attacked the border post had returned a second time and fired on them again.

Pakistan’s director general of military operations, Major general Ishfaq Nadeem, said that the first attack, starting at about 12.30am local time, lasted about half an hour and had caused all the casualties. NATO helicopters hit a border post called Volcano, cutting all its communications. In response, the nearby Boulder post engaged the helicopters with anti-aircraft guns and all available weapons. The attack ended after the Pakistani military managed to contact their NATO counterparts. “We informed them about the attack. But, the helicopters reappeared and also engaged the Boulder post,” Nadeem told journalists in a special media briefing, according to news agency reports.

NATO forces are likely to take this plea in the forth coming Inquiry as how NATO attacked Pakistani military posts where NATO is poised to allege that they only retaliated after finding that they have received some fire from these posts….which is total an absurd plea,…knowing it to be such these are old NATO known posts in the area from where the insurgents have totally been eliminated.

Syria, Iran and the Balance of Power in the Middle East

By Geoge Friedman

U.S. troops are in the process of completing their withdrawal from Iraq by the end-of-2011 deadline. We are now moving toward a reckoning with the consequences. The reckoning concerns the potential for a massive shift in the balance of power in the region, with Iran moving from a fairly marginal power to potentially a dominant power. As the process unfolds, the United States and Israel are making countermoves. We have discussed all of this extensively. Questions remain whether these countermoves will stabilize the region and whether or how far Iran will go in its response.

ran has been preparing for the U.S. withdrawal. While it is unreasonable simply to say that Iran will dominate Iraq, it is fair to say Tehran will have tremendous influence in Baghdad to the point of being able to block Iraqi initiatives Iran opposes. This influence will increase as the U.S. withdrawal concludes and it becomes clear there will be no sudden reversal in the withdrawal policy. Iraqi politicians’ calculus must account for the nearness of Iranian power and the increasing distance and irrelevance of American power.

Resisting Iran under these conditions likely would prove ineffective and dangerous. Some, like the Kurds, believe they have guarantees from the Americans and that substantial investment in Kurdish oil by American companies means those commitments will be honored. A look at the map, however, shows how difficult it would be for the United States to do so. The Baghdad regime has arrested Sunni leaders while the Shia, not all of whom are pro-Iranian by any means, know the price of overenthusiastic resistance.

Syria and Iran

The situation in Syria complicates all of this. The minority Alawite sect has dominated the Syrian government since 1970, when the current president’s father — who headed the Syrian air force — staged a coup. The Alawites are a heterodox Muslim sect related to a Shiite offshoot and make up about 7 percent of the country’s population, which is mostly Sunni. The new Alawite government was Nasserite in nature, meaning it was secular, socialist and built around the military. When Islam rose as a political force in the Arab world, the Syrians — alienated from the Sadat regime in Egypt — saw Iran as a bulwark. The Iranian Islamist regime gave the Syrian secular regime immunity against Shiite fundamentalists in Lebanon. The Iranians also gave Syria support in its external adventures in Lebanon, and more important, in its suppression of Syria’s Sunni majority.

Syria and Iran were particularly aligned in Lebanon. In the early 1980s, after the Khomeini revolution, the Iranians sought to increase their influence in the Islamic world by supporting radical Shiite forces. Hezbollah was one of these. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1975 on behalf of the Christians and opposed the Palestine Liberation Organization, to give you a sense of the complexity. Syria regarded Lebanon as historically part of Syria, and sought to assert its influence over it. Via Iran, Hezbollah became an instrument of Syrian power in Lebanon.

Iran and Syria, therefore, entered a long-term if not altogether stable alliance that has lasted to this day. In the current unrest in Syria, the Saudis and Turks in addition to the Americans all have been hostile to the regime of President Bashar al Assad. Iran is the one country that on the whole has remained supportive of the current Syrian government.

There is good reason for this. Prior to the uprising, the precise relationship between Syria and Iran was variable. Syria was able to act autonomously in its dealings with Iran and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon. While an important backer of groups like Hezbollah, the al Assad regime in many ways checked Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, with the Syrians playing the dominant role there. The Syrian uprising has put the al Assad regime on the defensive, however, making it more interested in a firm, stable relationship with Iran. Damascus finds itself isolated in the Sunni world, with Turkey and the Arab League against it. Iran — and intriguingly, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — have constituted al Assad’s exterior support.

Thus far al Assad has resisted his enemies. Though some mid- to low-ranking Sunnis have defected, his military remains largely intact; this is because the Alawites control key units. Events in Libya drove home to an embattled Syrian leadership — and even to some of its adversaries within the military — the consequences of losing. The military has held together, and an unarmed or poorly armed populace, no matter how large, cannot defeat an intact military force. The key for those who would see al Assad fall is to divide the military.

If al Assad survives — and at the moment, wishful thinking by outsiders aside, he is surviving — Iran will be the big winner. If Iraq falls under substantial Iranian influence, and the al Assad regime — isolated from most countries but supported by Tehran — survives in Syria, then Iran could emerge with a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean (the latter via Hezbollah). Achieving this would not require deploying Iranian conventional forces — al Assad’s survival alone would suffice. However, the prospect of a Syrian regime beholden to Iran would open up the possibility of the westward deployment of Iranian forces, and that possibility alone would have significant repercussions.

Consider the map were this sphere of influence to exist. The northern borders of Saudi Arabia and Jordan would abut this sphere, as would Turkey’s southern border. It remains unclear, of course, just how well Iran could manage this sphere, e.g., what type of force it could project into it. Maps alone will not provide an understanding of the problem. But they do point to the problem. And the problem is the potential — not certain — creation of a block under Iranian influence that would cut through a huge swath of strategic territory.

It should be remembered that in addition to Iran’s covert network of militant proxies, Iran’s conventional forces are substantial. While they could not confront U.S. armored divisions and survive, there are no U.S. armored divisions on the ground between Iran and Lebanon. Iran’s ability to bring sufficient force to bear in such a sphere increases the risks to the Saudis in particular. Iran’s goal is to increase the risk such that Saudi Arabia would calculate that accommodation is more prudent than resistance. Changing the map can help achieve this.

It follows that those frightened by this prospect — the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — would seek to stymie it. At present, the place to block it no longer is Iraq, where Iran already has the upper hand. Instead, it is Syria. And the key move in Syria is to do everything possible to bring about al Assad’s overthrow.

In the last week, the Syrian unrest appeared to take on a new dimension. Until recently, the most significant opposition activity appeared to be outside of Syria, with much of the resistance reported in the media coming from externally based opposition groups. The degree of effective opposition was never clear. Certainly, the Sunni majority opposes and hates the al Assad regime. But opposition and emotion do not bring down a regime consisting of men fighting for their lives. And it wasn’t clear that the resistance was as strong as the outside propaganda claimed.

Last week, however, the Free Syrian Army — a group of Sunni defectors operating out of Turkey and Lebanon — claimed defectors carried out organized attacks on government facilities, ranging from an air force intelligence facility (a particularly sensitive point given the history of the regime) to Baath Party buildings in the greater Damascus area. These were not the first attacks claimed by the FSA, but they were heavily propagandized in the past week. Most significant about the attacks is that, while small-scale and likely exaggerated, they revealed that at least some defectors were willing to fight instead of defecting and staying in Turkey or Lebanon.

It is interesting that an apparent increase in activity from armed activists — or the introduction of new forces — occurred at the same time relations between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other were deteriorating. The deterioration began with charges that an Iranian covert operation to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States had been uncovered, followed by allegations by the Bahraini government of Iranian operatives organizing attacks in Bahrain. It proceeded to an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s progress toward a nuclear device, followed by the Nov. 19 explosion at an Iranian missile facility that the Israelis have not-so-quietly hinted was their work. Whether any of these are true, the psychological pressure on Iran is building and appears to be orchestrated.

Of all the players in this game, Israel’s position is the most complex. Israel has had a decent, albeit covert, working relationship with the Syrians going back to their mutual hostility toward Yasser Arafat. For Israel, Syria has been the devil they know. The idea of a Sunni government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood on their northeastern frontier was frightening; they preferred al Assad. But given the shift in the regional balance of power, the Israeli view is also changing. The Sunni Islamist threat has weakened in the past decade relative to the Iranian Shiite threat. Playing things forward, the threat of a hostile Sunni force in Syria is less worrisome than an emboldened Iranian presence on Israel’s northern frontier. This explains why the architects of Israel’s foreign policy, such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, have been saying that we are seeing an “acceleration toward the end of the regime.” Regardless of its preferred outcome, Israel cannot influence events inside Syria. Instead, Israel is adjusting to a reality where the threat of Iran reshaping the politics of the region has become paramount.

Iran is, of course, used to psychological campaigns. We continue to believe that while Iran might be close to a nuclear device that could explode underground under carefully controlled conditions, its ability to create a stable, robust nuclear weapon that could function outside a laboratory setting (which is what an underground test is) is a ways off. This includes being able to load a fragile experimental system on a delivery vehicle and expecting it to explode. It might. It might not. It might even be intercepted and create a casus belli for a counterstrike.

The main Iranian threat is not nuclear. It might become so, but even without nuclear weapons, Iran remains a threat. The current escalation originated in the American decision to withdraw from Iraq and was intensified by events in Syria. If Iran abandoned its nuclear program tomorrow, the situation would remain as complex. Iran has the upper hand, and the United States, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all are looking at how to turn the tables.

At this point, they appear to be following a two-pronged strategy: Increase pressure on Iran to make it recalculate its vulnerability, and bring down the Syrian government to limit the consequences of Iranian influence in Iraq. Whether the Syrian regime can be brought down is problematic. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi would have survived if NATO hadn’t intervened. NATO could intervene in Syria, but Syria is more complex than Libya. Moreover, a second NATO attack on an Arab state designed to change its government would have unintended consequences, no matter how much the Arabs fear the Iranians at the moment. Wars are unpredictable; they are not the first option.

Therefore the likely solution is covert support for the Sunni opposition funneled through Lebanon and possibly Turkey and Jordan. It will be interesting to see if the Turks participate. Far more interesting will be seeing whether this works. Syrian intelligence has penetrated its Sunni opposition effectively for decades. Mounting a secret campaign against the regime would be difficult, and its success by no means assured. Still, that is the next move.

But it is not the last move. To put Iran back into its box, something must be done about the Iraqi political situation. Given the U.S. withdrawal, Washington has little influence there. All of the relationships the United States built were predicated on American power protecting the relationships. With the Americans gone, the foundation of those relationships dissolves. And even with Syria, the balance of power is shifting.

The United States has three choices. Accept the evolution and try to live with what emerges. Attempt to make a deal with Iran — a very painful and costly one. Or go to war. The first assumes Washington can live with what emerges. The second depends on whether Iran is interested in dealing with the United States. The third depends on having enough power to wage a war and to absorb Iran’s retaliatory strikes, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. All are dubious, so toppling al Assad is critical. It changes the game and the momentum. But even that is enormously difficult and laden with risks.

We are now in the final act of Iraq, and it is even more painful than imagined. Laying this alongside the European crisis makes the idea of a systemic crisis in the global system very real.


George Friedman is the CEO and chief intelligence officer of Stratfor, a private intelligence company located in Austin, TX.

Denying the ‘Libyan Blue Gold’ to African nations

Ghadaffi is killed; not to grab the tons of Gold that he possessed, nor the Libyan Dinar which had threatened the Euro and Dollar currencies and neither for his stark known defiance toward WEST but he is murdered that he was a major obstacle in paving the way in order to lay hands on the ‘Libyan Blue Gold’ by the West. Libyan Blue Gold is an Under Ground flowing River in the deserts which was built by Ghadaffi with the plan to irrigate and bring a life in the entire African lands for producing the bumper food crops in Africa which would alleviate the poverty of Hungry African masses. Water and Food remains the subject matter of Doctrine of future wars that west plans to exercise control over targeted African nations and keep them in their fold.

Ghadaffi is quoted by English Pravda saying; “Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called “capitalism”, but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer.”

THE BRUTAL MURDER of Muammar Gaddafi by Zionist-owned Libyan insurgents is an example of what happens to political leaders who defy international bankers.

Muammar Gaddafi was a great man who loved his people! Nelson Mandela called Muammar Qadhafi “one of the 20th century’s greatest freedom fighters”, and insisted the eventual collapse of the apartheid system owed much to Qadhafi and Libyan support. Mandela said that, “in the darkest moments of our struggle, when our backs were to the wall, Muammar Qadhafi stood with us.”
Ghadaffi may be seen a dictator but it may not be said that he was less or a worst dictator than all the other dictators presently ruling the Arab world.

The man was simply singled out and eliminated that he had said no to the dictates set by the West for the ‘Arab Dictators Club’ designed so, where Saudi King is placed to head them all.

But let not be mislead by Western Corporate Media giving this heinous act of Murder of Ghadaffi some dictatorial colour of his and patch it on Islam to malign it as some common practice in Muslim world where deposing and killing of rulers remains the norms.

YouTube Video: ‘Zionist Murder Of Muammar Gaddafi’ is worth watching.





Against the corporate greed social inequities and other
disparities that OccupyWallStreet campaign is launched in United States; the spin
masters of targeted greedy corporate orgs, if they posses some mettle; Come
what may; by using Corporate Media tool at hand; will certainly hijack this
movement to silence it

Zardari Net work may not be an Exception

The ‘Hegemonic Show of US Neocons’ goes on in our region; where lately, US finds Pakistan making too loud noises. One could also see that how the inflictions and test-n-trails of Pakistan as a labour of love with US have continuously been unfolding to make Pakistan bleed.
‘History shows that no one could be a better US proxy in Arab world than Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But this business of his; cost him his country as well as a show trial and gallows awaited him at the end to silence him as first hand witness for good.
Musharraf was called as ‘our man in Pakistan’ but his fate was not any different from Saddam Hussein. Iraq was taken from Saddam Hussein by force, where as Musharraf handed over his regime to the US selected Zardari on a plate but he could not save himself and ended up in a humiliating exile to live a vegetative life. It is not very far that in the present scenario, ‘Zardari net work’ too would also meet their end not very different.
And there should be no doubt in our minds that US has her desire that like ‘Black widow spider’ or ‘praying mantis’ who kill and eat up their males as a toast in mating rituals; likewise Pakistan the firsthand courtship witness- to the colossal US Defeat in Afghanistan—is eventually defanged and preferably silenced for good.
Henry Kissinger describes his best when he says; ‘there are no permanent friends or foes with US; it is only permanent interests’.


Has Pakistan started making too loud noises?

All the US proxies they carry a sell by date and Pakistan seems to have spent that time.

The US-Pak relationship where Pakistan has taken US in friendship but for the US obnoxious and cannibalistic behavior is finding itself frustrated, left high and dry and even its survival seems to be at stake.

This reminds me the unusual courtship tale of ‘Black widow spider’ and of ‘Chinese mantis’ bug as how their courtship rituals are termed.

The praying ‘Black widow spider’ known for its hourglass shape and ‘mantis’ have got the cannibalistic tendencies observed in their mating behavior offered by the females. It is rare that praying mantis mating ends with the male flying off, unharmed.

During the mating; the female mantis beheads her lover. The praying mantis brain is located in his head which controls inhibition, while a ganglion in the abdomen controls the motions of copulation. Absent his head, a male praying mantis will lose all his inhibitions and consummate his relationship with wild abandon.

To satiate her thirst and hunger; for certain, a slow moving and deliberate predator like the praying mantis is not going to pass up an easy meal which ends in consuming of his male partner altogether.

It was all a male mantis for making unfortunate choice of a hungry female for a mate; he is surely going to be toast once they have mated.

The tale of US relation of courtship with Pakistan as US proxy is that of unfortunate mate; who is destined to be consumed as mantis female meal at the end.

The common Pakistanis think that why US must threaten to attack them? How can US forget all the sacrifices made by Pakistan? How more lows this partner may go? Well one must not be surprised that all the predators like ‘mantis’ and ‘Black widows spiders’ carry an instinct of cannibalization which is in their nature. The bad name that world thinks that US has always earned after each adventure of her is just for her instinctive macabre behaviors of a savage arrogant exterminator that US bears.

Long time ago; Henry Kissinger described his best when he said; ‘there are no permanent friends or foe with US; it is only permanent interests’.

All the proxies and mercenaries have got their ‘sell by dates’. President Musharraf who opted to board the US wagon in 2001 was not an exception to this. Musharraf having already been declared as spent cartridge was dictated to hand over the rein of his country to (late) Miss Benazir Bhutto, who was duly groomed by US to be implanted as new proxy in the theatre. But for the fate of her; her demise plucked her away from the scene too early. Whereas her demise was felt a great loss of an able daughter of Pakistan; seemingly the US Grand plan was also seen gone bit awry and she left many more ditches for President Musharraf to cross. One major planned job was to hand over the reins of power to a substitute of Miss Benazir Bhutto while he himself would stay in power. The one who is selected should also act as US proxy.

But Musharraf was unable to cross this last ditch so easily and to take his secure exit route while also clinging to his power. It depended; how trust worthy and credible the substitute, so installed on adhoc basis was?

At the end we got; Zardari; who is every inch a khawwari in his entirety for this country.
History shows that no one could be a better US proxy in Arab world than Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But this business of his; cost him his country as well as a show trial and gallows awaited him at the end to silence him for good.

The ‘Hegemonic Show of US Neocons’ goes on in our region, one could also see that how the inflictions and test-n-trails written for the Pakistani nation on the horizon have continuously been unfolding.

Musharraf was not an exception and it ended in his exile; neither in the present scenario Pakistan would be. There should be no doubt in our minds that US desires that like ‘Black widow spider’ or ‘mantis’ the firsthand witness to the tales of their courtship and the colossal US failures in Afghanistan— Pakistan be seen defanged or silenced for good.

But to their horror, evidently US finds this proxy Pakistan started making too loud noises.



APC: ‘All pains Cure’-or- ‘Allah Peh Chor’

In the face of declaration of all out American war against Pakistan; PM Yousaf Raza Gilani calls for an All party Conference -APC on 29 September 2011 at PM house to build up national consensus as how to deal with this critical situation.

Let’s see whether outcome of this APC becomes an ‘All Pains Cure’ for Pakistan


It turns out to be ‘Allah Peh Chor’ and business runs as usual.