Saturday, August 18, 2012

HPC Are The US Govt And The Big Banks Quietly Preparing For An Imminent Financial Collapse?

Are The Government And The Big Banks Quietly Preparing For An Imminent Financial Collapse?

August 14, 2012

Something really strange appears to be happening.  All over the globe, governments and big banks are acting as if they are anticipating an imminent financial collapse.  Unfortunately, we are not privy to the quiet conversations that are taking place in corporate boardrooms and in the halls of power in places such as Washington D.C. and London, so all we can do is try to make sense of all the clues that are all around us.  Of course it is completely possible to misinterpret these clues, but sticking our heads in the sand is not going to do any good either.  

Last week, it was revealed that the U.S. government has been secretly directing five of the biggest banks in America "to develop plans for staving off collapse" for the last two years.  By itself, that wouldn't be that big of a deal.  But when you add that piece to the dozens of other clues of imminent financial collapse, a very troubling picture begins to emerge.  Over the past 12 months, hundreds of banking executives have been resigning, corporate insiders have been selling off enormous amounts of stock, and I have been personally told that a significant number of Wall Street bankers have been shopping for "prepper properties" in rural communities this summer.  

Meanwhile, there have been reports that the U.S. government has been stockpiling food and ammunition, and Barack Obama has been signing a whole bunch of executive orders that would potentially be implemented in the event of a major meltdown of society.  So what does all of this mean?  It could mean something or it could mean nothing.  What we do know is that a financial collapse is coming at some point.  Over the past 40 years, the total amount of all debt in the United States has grown from about 2 trillion dollars to nearly 55 trillion dollars.  That is a recipe for financial armageddon, and it is inevitable that this gigantic bubble of debt is going to burst at some point.

In normal times, the U.S. government does not tell major banks to "develop plans for staving off collapse". But according to a recent Reuters article, that is apparently exactly what has been happening….

U.S. regulators directed five of the country's biggest banks, including Bank of America Corp and Goldman Sachs Group Inc, to develop plans for staving off collapse if they faced serious problems, emphasizing that the banks could not count on government help.

The two-year-old program, which has been largely secret until now, is in addition to the "living wills" the banks crafted to help regulators dismantle them if they actually do fail. It shows how hard regulators are working to ensure that banks have plans for worst-case scenarios and can act rationally in times of distress.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that only five really big banks got such a warning? And why keep it secret from the American public? Does the federal government actually expect such a collapse to happen? If federal officials do expect a financial collapse to occur, they would not be the only ones.  An increasing number of very respected economists are speaking about the coming financial collapse as if there is a certain inevitability about it.

For example, check out the following quote from a recent Money Morning article….

Richard Duncan, formerly of the World Bank and chief economist at Blackhorse Asset Mgmt., says America's $16 trillion federal debt has escalated    into a "death spiral," as he told CNBC. And it could result in a depression so severe that he doesn't "think our civilization could survive it."

A former World Bank executive is warning that our civilization might not survive what is coming? That is pretty chilling. Economist Nouriel Roubini says that he believes that the coming crisis will be even worse than 2008….

"Worse because like 2008 you will have an economic and financial crisis but unlike 2008, you are running out of policy bullets. In 2008, you could cut rates; do QE1, QE2; you could do fiscal stimulus; you could backstop/ringfence/guarantee banks and everybody else. Today, more QEs are becoming less and less effective because the problems are of solvency not liquidity. Fiscal deficits are already so large and you cannot bail out the banks because 1) there is a political opposition to it; and 2) governments are near-insolvent – they cannot bailout themselves let alone their banks. The problem is that we are running out of policy rabbits to pull out of the hat!"

Across the pond, many European officials are echoing similar sentiments. What Nigel Farage told King World News the other day is very ominous….

Today MEP (Member European Parliament) Nigel Farage spoke with King World News about what he described as the possibility of, "a really dramatic banking collapse."  Farage also warned that central planners want to enslave and imprison people inside of a 'New Order,' and he described the situation as "horrifying."

The situation in Europe continues to get worse and worse.  The authorities in Europe have come out with "solution" after "solution", and yet unemployment continues to skyrocket and economic conditions in the EU have deteriorated very steadily over the past 12 months. If all of that was not bad enough, there are an increasing number of indications that Germany is actually considering leaving the euro. 

Needless to say, that would be a complete and total disaster for the rest of the eurozone. Of course there are any number of ways that the financial crisis in Europe could potentially play out. But all of the realistic scenarios would be very bad for the global economy. Meanwhile, our resources are dwindling, war in the Middle East could erupt at any moment and our planet is becoming increasingly unstable.  The following is from a recent article by Paul B. Farrell on….

Fasten your seat belts, soon we'll all be shocked out of denial. Some unpredictable black swan. A global wake-up call will trigger the Pentagon's prediction in Fortune a decade ago at the launch of the Iraq War: "By 2020 … an ancient pattern of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies is emerging … warfare defining human life."

It is almost as if a "perfect storm" is brewing. Of course the historic drought that is ravaging food production in the United States this summer is not helping matters either.  Another summer or two like this one and we could be looking at a return of Dust Bowl conditions. Anyone that is watching what is going on in the world and is not concerned at all about what is happening is simply being delusional. Recently, a "team of scientists, economists, and geopolitical analysts" examined the current state of the global economic system and the conclusions they reached were absolutely staggering….

One member of this team, Chris Martenson, a pathologist and former VP of a Fortune 300 company, explains their findings:

"We found an identical pattern in our debt, total credit market, and money supply that guarantees they're going to fail. This pattern is nearly the same as in any pyramid scheme, one that escalates exponentially fast before it collapses. Governments around the globe are chiefly responsible.

"And what's really disturbing about these findings is that the pattern isn't limited to our economy. We found the same catastrophic pattern in our energy, food, and water systems as well."

According to Martenson: "These systems could all implode at the same time. Food, water, energy, money. Everything."

Hmmmm – it sounds like they have been reading The Economic Collapse Blog. The truth is that a massive worldwide financial collapse is coming. It is inevitable, and it is going to be extremely painful.


Guess who is going to need a bailout right after Spain?  The Italian economy is the 8th largest economy on the entire planet and right now it is being absolutely overwhelmed by a tsunami of debt.  In an attempt to address this problem, Italy is going down the exact same path that Greece, Portugal and Spain have gone.  And so far, we are seeing the exact same results that we have seen in those other countries.  Austerity causes economic growth to slow down, and that causes unemployment to soar.  When unemployment rises, tax revenues go down and you end up missing your original deficit reduction targets so you have to implement even more austerity measures.  It is a vicious cycle that we have seen play out again and again in Greece over the past five years.  But unlike Greece, Italy is way too large to be completely bailed out.  The truth is that there are only 7 economies on the entire globe that are larger than the Italian economy.  Plus, keep in mind that the 12th largest economy in the world, Spain, is also on the verge of formally requesting a bailout.  (Read More....)

A nightmarish global food crisis is coming.  Even though about a billion people around the planet currently live on the edge of starvation, those of us that live in the wealthy western nations still have more than enough food to eat.  But it will not always be that way.  With each passing year, the global population goes up while global supplies of fresh water go down.  And you need lots of water to grow food.  The "breadbaskets" of the world, the United States and Russia, are currently experiencing horrible droughts that scientists tell us are part of a long-term trend.  In fact, some are projecting that the United States will soon see the return of Dust Bowl conditions.  So what will the rest of the world do when the topsoil in the heartland of the biggest food exporter on the globe dries up and blows away?  Just remember what happened back in 2007 and 2008.  Food prices rose rapidly and it sparked massive food riots in more than two dozen different nations.  So what will things look like when there is a very serious shortage of food around the globe?

On Thursday, the price of corn hit another brand new record high of $8.28 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade.

Unfortunately, (Read More....)

One economic theory states that we can never have deflation in a long term economy. For prices to deflate would be contrary to the built-in safeguards put forth by the government agencies. The main cause of a deflation would have to be a massive withdrawal of money from the banking system. As long as the money is insured, that is unlikely to happen. I tend to agree with that theory. It is unlikely that prices will go down long term as long as people have confidence in having their money in the banks.

One of the safeguards put into effect in the 30s depended on the negotiation of wages. No one group of wages, but all American Manufacturing was based on Union wages. Inflation and wage increases went hand in hand all through the 50s and to some extent through the 60s. Nonunion people normally could do a "me too" on the backs of Union worker's negotiations. If a Union member negotiated a contract for $10 an hour plus benefits, companies tended to pay the nonunion worker just a little less. But to remain competitive in attracting people, they had to match the wages fairly close.

In that kind of atmosphere it was natural for more and more money to be printed as wages increased at a rate of at least 4.5 percent per year. You can go to almost any book on Finance and Appraisal in the Real Estate Industry for a practical guide (Read More....)

Shahzad Afzal


Tuesday, August 14, 2012

America's first choice - Iran or Pakistan

America's first choice - Iran or Pakistan
Asif Haroon Raja
America and its allies are persecuting and bleeding the Muslims for over a decade. Notwithstanding its imperialistic designs and penchant to harm Muslims interests, the Muslim states themselves are also responsible for the sorry state of affairs within the Muslim world. Notwithstanding all out support of the US and the west to Israel in its creation and build up, Arab states are also responsible for turning tiny sized Israel into most powerful state of the region because of their disunity and submissiveness to USA. Palestinian issue has lingered on for 65 years because of the deplorable state of affairs within the Arab world. Mullah Omar's regime wouldn't have crumbled that easily had Pakistan not ditched its neighbor and sided with the invader. The whole world including the Muslim world backed the invasion. Saddam Hussain's regime was brought down in May 2003 because the Shias and Kurds in Iraq had joined hands with the aggressors and all the Arab neighbors had supported the aggressors while Iran looked the other way.
Uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt named as Arab Spring were instigated by CIA-Mosad and executed by Qatar to reshape Middle East and muster wider acceptance for apartheid Israel. It is a different matter that later events spun out of control of the schemers and Islamic parties took over. Few hundred anti-Qaddafi runaway Libyans residing in USA aided by CIA and NATO airpower ousted Qaddafi from power and killed him in 2011. Syria is currently in the firing line and the opponents of President Assad misled by foreign powers are striving hard to bring down his regime. So far 25000 Syrians have died in the infighting but Assad with 12% Alawite minority is defiant and wants to continue ruling 83% Sunni population. But for Russian and Chinese intervention, by now the US would have obtained UNSC sanction to authorize NATO to step in and assist the opposing forces in Syria and then form a government of its choice.
Two other Muslim countries, Iran and Pakistan in the firing line are awaiting their turn. Lot of groundwork has already been done by USA and its allies to soften up the targeted countries from within through covert war. Reformist Party in Iran is sponsored by USA but despite receiving millions of dollars during the last two elections, it couldn't defeat Ahmadinejad run ruling party which has struck deep roots among the masses because of its anti-US and anti-Israel stance. Although Iran has been sufficiently isolated and put under harsh sanctions and now attempts are being made to block its oil exports so as to force it to abandon its nuclear program perceived to be geared towards making a nuclear bomb, Ahmadinejad is continuing to defy US-EU blackmailing tactics. Oil, geo-strategic location, effective leadership and resilient youth are assets which enable Iran to withstand external pressures. It is in a position to choke Strait of Hormuz through which one-third of oil flows to Europe. It has powerful guided missiles that can hit Israel with ease. 
The situation in Pakistan is not so bright. One of the best ways to break a nation is to install a corrupt and incompetent government. The US has successfully achieved this objective in Pakistan. The present government installed by USA in 2008 is at the beck and call of Washington. The sole interest of the NRO cleansed rulers is to prolong their stay in power and to keep filling their coffers with ill-gotten money. For the attainment of these selfish interests they have sold their souls and put national interests at stake. They are fighting the judiciary tooth and nail to preserve their looted wealth. They have damaged and humiliated Pakistan in a way which neither India nor Israel could do militarily. Their massive corruption, nepotism and lavish lifestyle have devastated the economic, ideological, industrial, social and political structure of Pakistan. Above all, there is no dearth of fifth columnists and snakes in the grass.
Regrettably, the US has found out the solution to destroy a Muslim atomic power through corrupt democracy in Pakistan. Within four years we stand nowhere. The US and India under the garb of friendship have been ruthlessly bashing Pakistan on the media plane and through covert and drone wars but our dishonest leaders continue to appease the bashers. After destabilizing FATA and Balochistan and creating lawlessness in Karachi, and after resorting to water terrorism by building series of dams on our rivers to dry up Pakistan, India with the willing connivance of our rulers is now poised to wage an economic war to cripple our economy. It has opened up her border for Pakistani industrialists who are already depressed because of prolonged load shedding and are shifting to Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh. India will be most convenient place for them to restart business. One can now see and understand why and how cleverly our energy crisis has been used as a weapon against us. It is essentially because of our morally bankrupt leadership that our nuclear deterrence has almost been compromised.
Although both Iran and Pakistan are ripe for foreign intervention, it cannot be predicted at this stage which country the US will choose to strike first. Apparently Iran seems to be priority target because of certain compelling reasons. Israel is becoming itchy and desperate and is putting massive pressure on USA to strike Iran's nuclear sites before it acquires weaponized nuclear capability. It knows that Tehran has speeded up its covert program despite string of sanctions and pressures. The US is reluctant since till recent its forces were heavily involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is still in a precarious situation owing to Afghanistan which has gone out of its control. Its economy is not getting stabilized and expenditure on war on terror is too weighty.
The Americans would not like opening of another war front. Rather, they want early termination of war on terror and return of soldiers who are getting killed almost daily. NATO countries are also wary of the war and have announced their intentions of pulling out of Afghanistan much before the cutout date of December 2014. Europe itself is going through serious economic crisis. In case Iran decides to close Hormuz, it will have crippling impact on the economy of Europe. Given the oil stakes of Russia and China in Iran, US-Israeli intrusion may trigger world war. Although conflict is in the interest of USA since it helps in running its war industry, however, after its bitter experience in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the US would refrain from employing its combat troops in any future conflict zone. It would prefer to achieve its objectives by using covert means supplemented by drones, airpower, psychological and cyber warfare.
The fight back by resistance forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has not only drained the economy of USA but also upset its grandiose future plans to harness the resources of the Muslim world and micro-manage global affairs in accordance with its own whims. Afghan resistance has proved too costly since few thousand ill-equipped Taliban have rolled the honor and prestige of the sole super power claiming to be invincible in the dust. It is pulling out without defeating the Taliban and without arriving at a political settlement. Its hopes are pinned on India and ANA that the two would be able to keep the Taliban at bay after the departure of ISAF but judging from the ground realities, the assumption seems farfetched. Even the safe withdrawal of ISAF and its heavy baggage has become a big challenge.
These lurking fears and anxieties of USA are proving to be blessing in disguise for Pakistan and may prove helpful since it is the only country that can help a great deal in surmounting these formidable challenges in 2014. Other reasons why Pakistan may not be preferred over Iran is that it acts as the best bridge for Afghanistan and Central Asia and also provides deepwater seaport facility at Gawadar. Unstable Pakistan will hamper the withdrawal of ISAF as well as future commercial activities through the envisaged energy corridor.
Irrespective of the compulsions of USA, it cannot be denied that Pakistan is a target and not an ally of USA and sooner than later its turn will come. No amount of sacrifices rendered by Pakistan will satisfy USA. Nuclear Pakistan and that too having germs of defiance and brimming with anti-Indo-US-Israel extremist forces is unacceptable to the adversarial trio. Hence the apparent thawing of our relations with the US that had reached a breaking point must not mislead us into believing that the US has genuinely become friendly and cancelled its hidden objective to denuclearize Pakistan. Signing of Indo-Afghanistan and US-Afghanistan strategic partnership accords and recent demand by Afghan Parliament asking the US to attack Pakistan are ominous signs. Our western front will certainly get activated in any future Indo-Pak war. India has enhanced the scope of its Cold Start doctrine from eight to sixteen tactical objectives on our eastern front.
Although Gen Shameem Wynne is very confident that our nuclear arsenal is in safe hands and no harm can come to it, however, I am sure he at the inter service level and Gen Ashfaq Kayani at Army level must have worked out contingencies to deal with dangerous twin threat scenario backed by USA and Israel which is no more an illusion but a reality. I suggest this hypothesis should be played up in ongoing war game Azm-e-Nao IV to assess our response actions.   
The writer is a retired Brig, a columnist, a defence analyst and author of several books. Email:         

Shahzad Afzal


Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Drone Attacks Only Create More Enemies for the US

Drone Attacks Only Create More Enemies for the United States.

By Eric Margolis

August 05, 2012 "
Information Clearing House" --  WASHINGTON – I was visiting Pakistan's ambassador to the United States when the phone on his desk rang.

"The hot line," he said. "Sorry I have to take this call."

As he listened, his face grew darker and darker. Finally, he banged down the phone and exploded: "Another US drone attack that killed a score of our people. We were never warned the attack was coming. We are supposed to be US allies!"

This strongly pro-American ambassador was wrong. While the US hails Pakistan as a key non-NATO ally, the US treats it like a militarily occupied country. The government in Islamabad is left to observe increasing drone attacks and CIA ground operation with deepening embarrassment and helplessness.

Average Pakistanis have no doubt about what's happening. Most believe their nation was more or less occupied by the US after the 2001 attacks on the US.

The Pakistani leader who allowed this to happen, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has admitted that the US put a gun to his head and demanded he allow the US to use Pakistan's army, air bases, ports, intelligence service, logistics, and air space – or face war. Musharraf quickly caved in to the US ultimatum, something a tough predecessor, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, would have surely rejected.

As US drone attacks intensify in Pakistan's tribal belt and inside Afghanistan, the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, which was engineered into power by Washington and sustained by US dollars, keeps imploring the US to halt the attacks that are enraging Pakistanis. Senior Pakistani diplomats have been warning that the drone strikes that have so far killed 2,500-3,000, mostly civilians, are fuelling extremist groups in Pakistan and humiliating its armed forces.

No one in Washington is listening. Islamabad's attempted to show some independence by halting US-NATO truck convoys from Karachi to Afghanistan for seven months after a deadly US air attack last November that killed 25 Pakistani soldiers.

But the blockade was recently lifted after $1 billion of American aid to Islamabad was unfrozen. The dollars are flowing again – many of them right back out into Swiss, Dubai or Singapore bank accounts.

Anti-American feelings in Pakistan have been soaring. Some polls show over 90% of respondents expressing hatred or anger against the US. These public sentiments have been worsened by more loose talk by Republicans in Washington about seizing Pakistan's nuclear weapons, making Pakistan's province of Baluchistan a separate state, or putting Pakistan on America's terrorist list.

There are even rumbles from the far right and pro-Israel neocons about attacking Pakistan. America's failing war in Afghanistan is being blamed on the Pakistan-backed Haqqani group which is also ironical since during my days in Afghanistan in the 1980's, Haqqani was a favorite of CIA.

Washington's not so discreet threats of punishment have abated for the moment thanks to the mess in Syria and rising threat of war against Iran. But Pakistan remains a potent generator for anti-American jihadist sentiment, and for rising anti-Muslim sentiment in America.

Ironically, the US went to war in Afghanistan to supposedly punish anti-American groups, yet now ends up creating ten times more enemies in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the truck craziness has reared its head again. Supply trucks for US and NATO forces are backed up at Pakistani border crossing points because supposedly because of security threats.

Trucking supplies into northern Afghanistan via the Black Sea, Russia, and Central Asia has been costing the US $100 million monthly at a time when 44 million Americans live below the poverty level. Flying supplies and munitions from the US to Afghanistan costs ten times more than ground transport.

On top of this, Taliban and its allies are annoyed that the truck convoys have stopped. Why? Because they were being paid off millions more of baksheesh by the US to let the convoys pass.

Talks this past week in Washington between CIA chief David Petraeus and Pakistan's new intelligence director, Lt. Gen. Zahir ul-Islam were said to be cordial but not 6discernably productive. Nor were talks between top Pakistani and US generals. Diplomats seem to have dropped out of the picture.

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia.
Shahzad Afzal


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The U.S.A 88, Pakistan 149, Israel 150

We're Number 88! We're Number 88! US Ranked Low on Global Peace Index

2012 Global Peace Index shows slightly more peaceful world from 2009

- Common Dreams staff

The just released 2012 Global Peace Index (GPI) from the Institute for Economics and Peace shows that the world has become slightly more peaceful over the last two years, with Iceland ranking as the most peaceful country and Somalia ranking as the least peaceful place. The U.S. ranks 88 of 158.Click on the image to use the interactive map. (Image: Global Peace Index)

The index takes into account factors including jailed population, political instability, conflicts fought and military expenditure.

"What comes across dramatically in this year's results and the six year trends is a shift in global priorities. Nations have become externally more peaceful as they compete through economic, rather than military means. The results for Sub Saharan Africa as a whole are particularly striking – regional wars have waned as the African Union strives to develop economic and political integration." said Steve Killelea, founder and Executive Chairman of the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

"Peacefulness has returned to approximately the levels seen in 2007, but while external measures of peacefulness have improved, there has been a rise in internal conflict. This is particularly noticeable in the rise in fatalities from terrorist acts which have more than trebled since 2003," states Killelea.

The findings also highlight the fact that peace has an economic advantage. The IEP estimates that global peace in 2011 would have had an economic benefit of $9 trillion.

* * *

Video uploaded by Vision of Humanity with highlights of the 2012 Global Peace Index

* * *

10 Most Peaceful Countries

Source: 2012 Global Peace Index








New Zealand
















10 Least Peaceful Countries

Source: 2012 Global Peace Index












Dem. Republic of Congo




North Korea


Central African Republic






* * *

Global Peace Index: Key Findings

  • Iceland is the most peaceful country for the second successive year
  • Syria tumbles by the largest margin, dropping over 30 places to 147th position.
  • Somalia remains the world's least peaceful nation for the second year running.
  • End of civil war sees Sri Lanka as biggest riser, leaping nearly 30 places
  • If the world had been completely peaceful in 2011, the economic benefit would have been an estimated US $9 trillion

Dr. S. Akhtar Ehtisham
(607) 776-3336
P.O. Box 469,
Bath NY 14810
All religions try to take over the establishment and if they fail, they collaborate with it, be it feudal or capitalist.

Shahzad Afzal


Wednesday, June 13, 2012

NATO will exit Afghanistan as Soviets did, through Central Asia

NATO signs deals with Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan to truck its military supplies from Afghan war out through Central Asia, giving it options instead of closed Pakistan route.

By Scott Baldauf, Staff writer / June 5, 2012

NATO may not know the final result of its intervention in Afghanistan, but it now has an exit plan. And the exit will take place through Central Asia, the same route the Soviet troops took after their withdrawal in 1988 and 1989.

As relations worsen between the United States andPakistan, NATO has signed deals with Uzbekistan,Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan (see map here) to move out the tons of equipment that must be withdrawn by 2014, when NATO makes its final exit from Afghanistan.

Speaking with Agence France-Presse news agency,NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussensaid that NATO now considers Central Asia and its Russian-built roads to be the most expedient route out of Afghanistan.  

"These agreements will give us a range of new options and the robust and flexible transport network we need," Mr. Rasmussen said.

Tarnished by more than a decade of war, mutual recriminations, and foreign policy goals that are increasingly at odds, the US-Pakistani relationship now has reached a nadir. From the early post 9/11 days, when NATO received 90 percent of its supplies for the Afghan war through the Pakistani port of Karachi, now Pakistan has cut off NATO's old supply routes. Last November, Pakistan banned NATO's use of Pakistani territory after NATO planes mistakenly bombed a Pakistani post, killing 24 Pakistani soldiers.

For Pakistan, the NATO bombing was the last straw, following the violation of its territorial sovereignty last year when US Navy SEALs captured and killed Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.

Pakistani officials complain that Washington simply cannot grasp the difficulty of reining in popular Islamist militant groups in a country that sees itself constantly under threat from outside. Washington fails to see the threat that Pakistan's larger rival, India, poses to Pakistan's very existence, and fails to understand how angry Pakistani citizens become after each successive aerial attack over their territory. For its part, Washington has come to see Pakistan as an unreliable ally, a country where the Pakistani military maintains ties with the very groups that attack US troops on Afghan soil, where America's biggest enemy, Mr. bin Laden, was taking up residence in a military garrison town.

NATO and Pakistan could still patch things up. Pakistan has been hinting lately that there is still room for dialogue, with Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar suggesting that the US simply needed to apologize for the November bombing of its troops.

"For us in Pakistan ... the most popular thing to do right now is to not move on NATO supply routes at all. It is to close them forever," Ms. Khar told AFP in an interview. "If I were a political adviser to the prime minister, this is what I would advise him to do. But I'm not advising him to do that ... because what is at stake is much more important for Pakistan than just winning an election."

Khar may not want to wait for an apology, given America's current election season. President Obamaseems disinclined, to say the least, and his Republican rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – whose campaign strategy is to attack Mr. Obama as weak on national defense – is about as likely to push for a NATO apology as he is to push for gun control.

So in the meantime, NATO is looking north, and expanding its options.

Trucking out tanks, artillery pieces, and other military devices that were designed specifically to destroy theSoviet Union, on a route through the former Soviet states themselves, is not only rich with irony, it is also quite expensive. The cost of the northern supply routeis nearly double that of the Pakistani route, but at least it's cheaper than flying all that equipment out by air, which costs the US military $14,000 per ton.

Shahzad Afzal


Thursday, April 5, 2012

Separatist Movement in Pakistan and Iran

The Soros and Rockefeller Networks Financially Support the Separatist Movement in Pakistan and Iran

Author : Hendrajit - Executive Director of Global Future Institute (GFI)

Several international funding connected with George Soros and Rockefeller dynasty  have been actively involved in provoking the separatist movement Baluchistan, southwest's Pakistan province, and the possible insurgency conducted by the other ethnic minority groups in Kurdish minority, Baluch and Arab. The George Soros funded groups and think-thank consist of Human Right Watch, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ford Foundation.


The agent that seems to be instructed to run that clandestine operation is  Selig Harrison, from Center for International Policy, a think-thank financially funded by Soros' Open Society Institute. 

The first signal over an active involvement o the Soros networks in supporting a separatist group in Pakistan is an activity conducted by Human Right Watch portraying the latest spat of violence in Pakistan's southwest Baluchistan province as the result of Pakistani government brutality. The reports emanating from HRW have been compiled by USZ State Department mouthpiece Radio Free Europe Radio (RFERL) and published in Foreign Policy Magazine. In identical form to the propaganda campaigns being conducted by the nefarious, corporate-serving USZ State Department in nations across the planet, we see yet another concerted effort to play on the emotions of the liberal-progressives that line the majority of the West's NGO networks.

And at the same time, the State Deaprtmen mouthpiece Radio Free Europe has claimed that he Baluchistan minority is waging the latest in a long series of armed insurrections against Pakistan's Islamabad government, the latest of which is claimed to have started in 2004. The report also describes how the Baluchi minority can be found on the other side of Pakistan's border in Iran as well. In Iran, the Baluchi are claimed to also be subjected to "oppression."

The principle aim of such propaganda condemning the use of violence and repression in Baluchistan is to provoke the emotions of what they called liberal-progressives that line the majority of the West's NGO networks. 

In reality, several sources said through that the unrest in Baluchistan on both the Pakistani and Iranian sides of the border, has been the subject of US' planning, organizing, funding, and outright calls to arm the Baluchi minority to literally take over the province and carve it out of Pakistan's sovereign territory – not for "democracy" or "human rights" but for the expressed purpose of derailing China's investments and logistical networks built in cooperation with the Islamabad government.

According the facts researched by Global Future Institute, In regards to Iran, a 2009 report titled, "Which Path to Persia?" from the Brookings Institution, a Fortune 500-funded (page 19 of PDF) USZ think tank, talked of arming Iran's Baluchi minority and having them wage war against the government in Tehran. The following passage also makes mention of the Kurdish minority currently running amok between Iran, Iraq, and now Syria's borders.

Broking Institution is a kind of think-thank under the auspice of the US State Departmen, is financially funded by among other things, Fortune 500. It strategic agenda is to support several separatist movements like ethnic minority in Pakistan and Iran. Quite understandable if those research institutes focused their attention of financially assisting the Kurdish minority in Irak, Iran and Syria. 

Thus, the United States of Zionism could opt to work primarily with various unhappy Iranian ethnic groups (Kurds, Baluch, Arabs, and so on) who have fought the regime at various periods since the revolution. A coalition of ethnic opposition movements, particularly if combined with dissident Persians, would pose a serious threat to regime stability. In addition, the unrest the groups themselves create could weaken the regime at home. At the least, the regime would have to divert resources to putting down the rebellions. At most, the unrest might discredit the regime overtime, weakening its position vis-à-vis its rivals." 

One of the principle agent behind the Soros Foundation is Selig Harrison, from Center for International Policy. Harrison's February 2011 piece, "Free Baluchistan," calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces. 

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis." He begins by stating, "China's expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States of Zionism should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar."

The role played by Harrison deserves special attention. At the International Conference on Free Baluchistan, Harrison makes incessant calls for "international intervention" on behalf of the Baluchi opposition. Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France. 

And at the other international conference on Baluchistan, Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at these "Balochistan International Conferences" and frequently reiterates his calls for a "An independent Baluchistan." With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation.

Active participations shown by Harrison through international forums, is possible because of  financial support given by Ford Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Institute and Rockefeller's Family and Associates to Harrison's research study Center for International Policy. Or Eiva's flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function-funded by oil giants Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America and Shell International.  

Whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva's flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by oil giants Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International.  


My dear Baluchees!  Not only Baluchistan but whole Pakistan is yours.
Struggle to save it  from the enemies and convert it into a Real Islamic State.
God bless Pakistan.
Nayyer Shakeb Khan
Director Information,

Shahzad Afzal


Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Long Live American Democracy, Long Live Islamic (So Called) States!!!

In December 2009, Yemen's air force claimed it had killed 30 suspected al-Qaeda operatives during an airstrike on a training camp in the southern Abyan province.

This version of events was circulated around the world but when Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye managed to get to the scene, the remains of the missiles he found were clearly marked 'Made in the  USA'. And among the dead were 14 women and 21 children.

Shaye's subsequent report incriminated the US in a military operation in which they had been so keen to deny any involvement. Yemen dismissed the report and the US refused to comment - and Shaye became a marked man. He was accused of being an al-Qaeda operative and has been behind bars ever since.

Last month, the Yemeni government pardoned Shaye and was about to release him. But it took just one phone call from the US president urging them to reconsider, and the government backtracked.

Shaye remains locked up. 

Shahzad Afzal


Saturday, February 4, 2012

Washington's enemy is not "terrorism" but the principle of free speech and voices of conscience

In The Assange Case We Are All Suspects Now

Washington's enemy is not "terrorism" but the principle of free speech and voices of conscience within its militarist state. 

By John Pilger

February 01, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- T
his month's Supreme Court hearing in the Julian Assange case has profound meaning for the preservation of basic freedoms in western democracies.
This is Assange's final appeal against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct that were originally dismissed by the chief prosecutor in Stockholm and constitute no crime in Britain.
The consequences, if he loses, lie not in Sweden but in the shadows cast by America's descent into totalitarianism. In Sweden, he is at risk of being "temporarily surrendered" to the US, where his life has been threatened and he is accused of "aiding the enemy" with Bradley Manning, the young soldier accused of leaking evidence of US war crimes to WikiLeaks.
The connections between Manning and Assange have been concocted by a secret grand jury in Virginia that allowed no defence counsel or witnesses, and by a system of plea-bargaining that ensures a 90 per cent conviction rate. It is reminiscent of a Soviet show trial.
Moral choice
The Obama administration's determination to crush Assange is revealed in secret Australian government documents, released under Freedom of Information, which describe Washington's pursuit of WikiLeaks as "unprecedented". It is unprecedented because it subverts the First Amendment of the US constitution, which protects truth-tellers such as WikiLeaks.
In 2008 Barack Obama said, "Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." Obama has since prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers as all previous US presidents.
With US courts demanding to see the worldwide accounts of Twitter, Google and Yahoo, the threat to Assange, an Australian, extends to any internet user anywhere. Washington's enemy is not "terrorism" but the principle of free speech and voices of conscience within its militarist state and those journalists brave enough to tell their stories.
"How do you prosecute Julian Assange and not the New York Times?" a former administration official told Reuters.
The threat is well understood by the New York Times, which in 2010 published a selection of the WikiLeaks cables. The editor at the time, Bill Keller, boasted that he had sent the cables to the state department for vetting. His obeisance extended to his denial that WikiLeaks was a "partner" - which it was - and to personal attacks on Assange.
The message to all journalists was clear: do your job as it should be done and you are traitors; do your job as we say you should and you are journalists.
Much of the media's depiction of Bradley Manning illuminates this. The world's pre-eminent prisoner of conscience, Manning remained true to the Nuremberg principle that every soldier has the right to a "moral choice".
But according to the New York Times, he is weird or mad, a "geek". In an "exclusive investigation", the Guardian reported him as an "unstable" gay man who got "out of control" and who "wet himself" when he was "picked on".
Such psycho-hearsay serves to suppress the truth of the outrage Manning felt at the wanton killing in Iraq, his moral heroism and the criminal complicity of his military superiors. "I prefer a painful truth over any blissful fantasy," he reportedly said.
The treatment handed out to Assange is well documented, though not the duplicitous and cowardly behaviour of his own government. Australia remains a colony in all but name. Australian intelligence agencies are branches of the main office in Washington. The Australian military has played a regular role as US mercenary.
When Prime Minister Gough Whitlam tried to change this in 1975 and secure Australia's partial independence, he was dismissed by a governor general using archaic "reserve powers" who was revealed to have intelligence connections.
Don't explain
WikiLeaks has given Australians a rare glimpse of how their country is run. In 2010, leaked US cables disclosed that top government figures in the Labor Party coup that brought Julia Gillard to power were "protected" sources of the US embassy: what the CIA calls "assets". Kevin Rudd, the prime minister Gillard ousted, apparently had displeased Washington by being disobedient, even suggesting that Australian troops withdraw from Afghanistan.
In the wake of her portentous rise to power, Gillard attacked WikiLeaks's actions as "illegal" and her attorney general threatened to withdraw Assange's passport. Yet the Australian Federal Police reported that Assange and Wiki­Leaks had broken no law.
Freedom of Information files have since shown that Australian diplomats have colluded with the US in its pursuit of Assange. This is not unusual. The government of John Howard ignored the rule of law and conspired with the US to keep David Hicks, an Australian citizen, in Guantanamo Bay, where he was tortured.
Australia's principal intelligence organisation, Asio, is allowed to imprison refugees indefinitely without explanation, prosecution or appeal.
Every Australian citizen in grave difficulty overseas is said to have the right to diplomatic support. The denial of this to Assange, bar the perfunctory, is an unreported scandal.
Last September his London lawyer, Gareth Peirce, wrote to the Australian government warning that Assange's "personal safety and security has become at risk in circumstances that have become highly politically charged". Only when the Melbourne Age reported that she had received no response did a dissembling official letter turn up.
In November, Peirce and I briefed the Australian consul general in London, Ken Pascoe. One of Britain's most experienced human rights lawyers, Peirce told him she feared a unique miscarriage of justice if Assange was extradited and his government remained silent. The silence remains
John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."
This article was forst posted at
Shahzad Afzal


Tuesday, January 31, 2012

New "Mother of All Bombs" Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) to be used against Iran

January 28, 2012

US toothless against Iran rock: Pentagon seeks new superbomb

Having considered the toughness of the rock-hidden Iranian nuclear facilities, America's Nutcracker military command has decided to save jaw and develop a new conventional superbomb, since the US still plans to do the job in Iran without nukes.

Washington has once again reminded Tehran that it has the military capability to crack Iranian hard-target nuclear sites with conventional weapons, leaking to the Wall Street Journal plans to develop an even more effective bunker-buster bomb.

The American military is no longer in love with the most powerful non-nuclear weapon it possesses, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 13,600-kilogram mammoth capable of penetrating deep underground facilities.

The Pentagon paid around $330 million to Boeing to develop and produce 20 MOP bombs, specially developed to destroy bunkers in countries like Iran and North Korea.

Now, the Defense Department intends to spend another $82 million, to make those bombs even more effective.

An MOP is capable of penetrating 60 meters of reinforced concrete or 38 meters of hard rock, delivering 2,700 kg of explosives deep down, to reliably demolish anything manmade. Yet, in the case of Iran's Persian mountains, even this doesn't seem enough.

In hiding its nuclear work, Tehran clearly considered the experience of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad, who lost their research nuclear reactors in 1981 and 2007 respectively.

Iranians really had to turn into fairytale dwarves, digging deep into the mountains but with a very un-fairytale intention: not to find something precious, but to safely hide their nuclear program.

In our times, when bombing a sovereign state into Stone Age is an easy walk, as we see from Libya's example, such a precautionary measure does not appear superfluous.

But this is exactly what makes American generals nervous – they need 100% guarantees that the targets they cannot destroy do not exist, particularly in Iran.

For example, military experts are not sure an MOP can get to Iran's Fordow enrichment plant facility that has 60 meters of hard rock mountain above it.
At the moment, only a tactical nuclear weapon of several dozen kilotons could guarantee the site's elimination.

"Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off," an unnamed US military official is reported to have said.

But no, using nukes would set a precedent for all the other proud owners of atomic arms worldwide. Countries like China, North Korea and – God forbid – Russia would get a free hand to blindside America with nukes at the first breath of suspicion.

The last time the US used nuclear weapons against a civilian population was in Japan in 1945, and that fact is still well-remembered, and not just in Japan.

That is why today, the American military lays its hopes on conventional explosives with expanded capabilities, putting tactical nukes by for a rainy day.

And just in case you were wondering, none of the abovementioned has anything to do with Israel. Though Tel-Aviv has never tried out its almost proven nuclear arsenal on anybody, they rather like saber-rattling, saying they would protect the Jewish state at any cost – and preemptively.

Their fingers are apparently itching on the trigger switch, in forgetfulness that the country starting a war is not necessarily the one that finishes it.
Shahzad Afzal


Thursday, January 26, 2012

Cost of supplying Afghan War increases 600%

, DC Foreign Policy Examiner
January 19, 2012 

The cost of supplying the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan has increased 600% since Pakistan closed its borders in November, the Associated Press reported on Thursday.  

Using a Northern route to supply the Afghan War costs the United States $104 million dollars a month, an increase of $87 million from the $17 million it cost Washington when supplies were mainly sent through Pakistani territory, the AP report said.

Pakistan has refused to allow NATO supply convoys use its territory since a NATO airstrike killed 24 Pakistani troops last November. Pakistani political and military officials claimed that the killing of its troops was deliberate and refused to join a NATO investigation into the incident. Along with closing its border, Islamabad responded to the incident by forcing Washington to close down a base in Pakistan that it used to conduct drone strikes, as well as by refusing to attend an international conference on the future of Afghanistan held in Bonn, Germany in earlier December.

The NATO probe, which the Pentagon released in late December, said mistakes were made by both sides and that "inadequate coordination" and poor maps had led NATO air forces to mistakenly target the Pakistani soldiers. While expressing its "deepest regret" for the loss of life-and offering its "sincere condolences," to the Pakistani people, government and families of the soldiers that were killed- the Obama administration refused to apologize for the event. Pakistan rejected the conclusions of the report.

Since the November incident U.S.-Pakistani relations have reached their lowest point in the decades-long usually turbulent relationship. The United States has given Pakistan roughly $20 billion in foreign aid since 9/11. Recent reports, however, have cited unnamed U.S. and Pakistani officials saying they expect a more limited relationship in the future. On Wednesday, Pakistan refused to receive U.S. special envoy for AfPak issues, Marc Grossman, who was scheduled to visit Islamabad as part of a broader regional trip. Pakistani officials said Grossman's visit wasn't appropriate because they are currently revaluating their ties with Washington.

On Thursday an unnamed Pakistani official told Reuters his country intended to re-open supply routes to NATO, but would impose higher tariffs on the alliance. The official did not give a date for when the routes would actually be reopened.

Shahzad Afzal


Immunity in Switzerland procedure, MUST READ it plz.

Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) 
Bundeshaus West 
CH-3003 Bern 
Tel. +41 (0)31 322 21 11 
Fax +41 (0)31 324 90 47   
Immunity of holders of political office and of states:

 To enable them to exercise their office unhindered, heads of state enjoy full immunity against legal proceedings abroad. Heads of government and foreign ministers can also claim immunity when travelling abroad. In certain circumstances, this also applies to other members of government in the exercise of their duties.
Besides the personal immunity of officeholders, states and their property also enjoy immunity.
Immunity of holders of political office

While abroad, serving heads of state enjoy absolute immunity against criminal proceedings in all actions that otherwise would have been subject to the jurisdiction of these states. The immunity of heads of state is a principle embodied in customary international law.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, immunity is weakened in the following two cases:
When a state expressly waives the immunity of its head of state, the head of state cannot invoke immunity.
When a head of state leaves office, immunity no longer holds. A former head of state can claim immunity at most for actions undertaken in the exercise of official functions. If such a connection does not exist, the former head of state can be legally prosecuted.
Decision of the Federal Supreme Court in the Marcos case (115 Ib 496, p. 500) (fr) 
 Heads of state have no immunity in the case of war crimes. The statutes of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunals for for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda make provision for the fact that a defendant's official position for qualified war crimes, e.g. as head of state, does not relieve such person of criminal responsibility. 
The case of Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, revived the debate over the criminal responsibility of former heads of state for qualified crimes committed while in office. General Pinochet was held not to be immune from arrest for alleged acts of torture.
In contrast to criminal proceedings, there is less agreement on the immunity of heads of state with respect to offences under civil law. One body of legal doctrine holds that both the official actions and the private actions of heads of state enjoy immunity from civil law proceedings. Another body takes the view that immunity extends only to official, and not private, actions. 
Immunity of states and their property

In Europe, the European Convention on State Immunity of 16 May 1972 regulates protection of the property of foreign states. Non-member states of the Council of Europe may also accede to this convention. Very few states have ratified the convention. In Switzerland, the convention entered into force on 7 October 1982.
On 2 December 2004, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNO) adopted a universal convention on the jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. Switzerland will sign this convention.
Switzerland does not have a law that regulates the application of the immunity of states under international law. In accordance with the Federal Supreme Court, under certain conditions a foreign state can be summoned before a Swiss court. A distinction must be drawn between
whether the foreign state acted in the exercise of sovereign authority (sovereign act or act of state, "acta iure imperii") or
whether it acted as a subject of private law equal to a private person (legal transactions, "acta iure gestionis").
Only in the first case can the state claim jurisdictional immunity. In the second case, by contrast, the state can be summoned before a Swiss court, but only on condition that there is a connection between the civil legal relationship and Swiss territory.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland can also impose sanctions on the foreign state. What holds for jurisdictional immunity also holds in principle for immunity from measures of constraint: Measures of constraint may not be taken against assets and property intended for the performance of public functions.
A state can expressly waive its immunity from jurisdiction and constraint. Such a waiver can take place in various ways, either before a dispute materializes or ad hoc in a lawsuit.
Since 1918, the Federal Supreme Court has followed a restrictive line on the immunity of states.
Shahzad Afzal