56% of Pakistan's population would love destabilization of Pakistan because they are tired of being ruled by Punjabis. They are tired of Ethnic Cleansing Army Operations against them just like East Pakistanis had faced in 1971.
If you love Punjabistan, I am sorry, Pakistan so much, why don't you move there?
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> ------ Forwarded message ----------
> From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@...>
> Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:43 AM
> Subject: RE: Pakistan: Destabilization and invasion long planned
> To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@...>
>
>
> Balkanization of Pakistan, i.e. dividing the country into a number of
> mutually hostile states, along with re-drawing the map of the Middle
> East, is a long-known pet theme of Mossad, RAW and the US Neocons. The
> recently built Gwadar port certainly has added a new dimension and urgency
> to their plot. According to credible suspicions, they are now trying to
> shift the epicentre of their present wars from Afghanistan to Pakistan,
> starting with low-intensity war, with the aim of dismantling
> Pakistan's nuclear facilities as well as Balkanizing the country and
> weakening China in the region by weakening or destroying its all weather
> friend Pakistan.
>
> The question is: Will Obama admin yield to the scheme, in their mad rush to
> contain China? It, however, is not going to be easy for Obama Admin, as they
> might find Pakistan to be in the same block with China, Iran and Turkey
> (potentially the third most powerful country in Europe within the next ten
> years or so) with Russia leaning to the block. Again, losing Pakistan as a
> strategic partner may weaken the US position both in the Middle East and
> South Asia, indeed in South East Asia too, for, with India-alone as
> strategic partner, the US would be isolated in the region, as Australia and
> Japan would not matter much. On the other hand, India doesn't
> have full commitment to the US, as they also have commitments to BRICS, the
> EU and, especially, Russia.
>
> But, the US is a war monger and war mongers are war mongers, they always
> play with fire. Besides, one of the main planks of the US foreign policy is
> permanent war or continuous war for the promotion of their military
> industrial complex and their general imperialist objectives of
> domination and plunder of other countries throughout the world. Thus, one
> cannot be over cautious or over confident about the US policies or their
> intentions.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:59:57 +0600
> Subject: Pakistan: Destabilization and invasion long planned
> From: bdmailer@...
> To:
>
>
> *Pakistan: Destabilization and invasion long planned*
> by Tony Cartalucci
>
> Bangkok, Thailand May 11, 2011 - In a 2007 article from the London Guardian
> titled, "Bush handed blueprint to seize Pakistan's nuclear
> arsenal<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/01/pakistan.iraq>,"
> it is stated that fears of destabilization inside Pakistan might prompt the
> United States to occupy Islamabad and the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, and
> Baluchistan in an attempt to secure Pakistan's nuclear warheads. Behind this
> report<http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/other/Kagan_OHanlon_07.pdf>is
> Fredrick Kagan, brother of the equally sloven Robert Kagan of the
> Foreign
> Policy Initiative <http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/staff>, yet another
> contrived, corporate fueled warmongering think-tank.
> Fredrick Kagan sits within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI's board
> of trustees <http://www.aei.org/docLib/2010-Annual-Report.pdf> represents a
> wide variety of corporate-financier interests including those of the
> notorious Carlyle Group, State Farm, American Express, and Kohlberg Kravis
> Roberts & Co (also of the CFR). War criminal Dick Cheney also acts as a
> trustee. Joining Kagan as members of AEI's "research staff" are warmongers
> Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and Paul Wolfowitz.
>
> While the sense of self-importance these degenerates shower upon themselves
> may seem comical, with titles like "senior fellow" and "resident scholar,"
> the fact that their "policy research" usually becomes corporate subsidized
> "policy reality" and subsequently the American people's unending nightmare,
> is enough reason to keep tabs on them. For instance Fredrick Kagan was
> supposedly the architect behind the US troop surge in Iraq. And while we may
> kid ourselves that with Obama taking office the agenda of these supposed
> Neo-Conservatives is sidelined, Paul Wolfowitz' plan to overthrow the
> nations of the Middle
> East<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/globalists-coming-full-circle.html>,
> now being fully executed with US-funded
> revolutions<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/official-arab-spring-subversion-us.html>,
> probably couldn't have been done without the veil of "left-cover."
>
> Kagan's report regarding Pakistan's partial occupation and the seizure of
> its nuclear arsenal is founded on what may first appear to be a reasonable
> concern; the fear of Pakistan collapsing and its nuclear arsenal falling
> into the wrong hands. According to Kagan's narrative, Islamic extremists
> seizing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal pose as much a threat today as "Soviet
> tanks" once did.
>
> It's not terrorists, it's China
>
> What Kagan leaves out is the very source of this destabilization and
> America's overall grand strategy in the region. America's continued presence
> in Afghanistan as well as its increasingly aggressive "creep" over the
> Afghan-Pakistani border has been justified under the ambiguous and
> omnipresent threat of "terrorism." In reality, the true goal is to contain
> the rise of China and other emerging economies using the pretense of
> "terrorism." Destabilization via foreign-funded ethnic insurgencies, regime
> change via foreign-funded sedition, and a regional strategy of tension
> between power brokers in Beijing, New Delhi, and Islamabad have for years
> attempted to keep in check not just China and Pakistan's rise, but India's
> as well.
>
> This is not merely speculative conjecture. China itself has recently accused
> the United States of directly attempting to destabilize their
> nation<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/china-calls-it-western-plot.html>as
> well as using the pretense of "terrorism" as a means to hobble
> China's growing
> influence<http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/201156132839140238.html>.
> In an April 2011 Reuters
> report<http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/us-china-politics-crackdown-idUSTRE73B19E20110412?pageNumber=1>,
> it was stated that "a senior domestic security official, Chen Jiping, warned
> that "hostile Western forces" -- alarmed by the country's rise -- were
> marshalling human rights issues to attack Party control." Compounding
> China's accusations are open admissions by the US State Department itself
> declaring that tens of millions will be spent to help activists circumvent
> China's security
> networks<http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/us-in-new-push-to-break-china-internet.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>in
> an effort to undermine Beijing. This
> comes after it has been revealed that the entire "Arab Spring" was
> US-funded<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/official-arab-spring-subversion-us.html>
> .
>
> The issue of Pakistan in regards to China is not merely a figment of a
> paranoid Beijing's imagination, it is stated policy circulating throughout
> America's corporate-funded think-tanks. Selig
> Harrison<http://nationalinterest.org/profile/selig-s-harrison>of the
> Soros funded Center
> for International Policy <http://ciponline.org/aboutus.htm#funding> has
> published two pieces specifically calling for carving off of Pakistan's
> Baluchistan province<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/carving-up-pakistan.html>,
> not as part of a strategy to win the "War on Terror," but as a means to
> thwart growing relations between Islamabad and Beijing.
>
> In "Free Baluchistan<http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/free-baluchistan-4799>,"
> he explicitly 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."
>
> In a follow up article titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the
> Pakistanis<http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/chinese-cozy-up-pakistanis-5027>,"
> Harrison 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 repeats his call for meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what
> China is doing in Pakistan, the United States 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."
>
> <https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0raBs1yy2VvvuTe6mIte092HoSmJ9ACIjn0-V3gvxUUC020gGgFt8MUyiio79L9uiuRJxAS4uRy1Zs48sU6xH-41PmCiH72-xztzrb6Ib2F90YFEnr2vH-2HEs_50SlI6E0u82niwUaQ/s1600/PakistanMap1.png>Gwadar
> in the southwest serves as a Chinese port, the starting
> point for a logistical corridor through Pakistan and into Chinese
> territory. The plan is to plunge the entire nation into chaos and use
> US forces to systematically "help" restore order. (click to enlarge)
>
> The very suggestion of fomenting armed violence simply to derail sovereign
> relations between two foreign nations is scandalous and reveals the absolute
> depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It is quite
> clear that the "War on Terror" is but a pretense to pursue a policy of
> regional hegemony with the expressed goal of containing China. This in turn,
> is part of a greater strategy covered in the 2006 Strategic Studies
> Institute report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising
> Power across the Asian
> Littoral.<http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=721>"
> Throughout the report China's growing influence and various means to co-opt
> and contain it are discussed. SSI makes special note to mention engaging
> with all of China's neighbors in an effort to play them off against Beijing
> in order to maintain American preeminence throughout Asia.
>
> Destabilizing Pakistan
>
> In addition to the Gwadar port in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, China has
> also built dams, roads, and even nuclear power plants in the
> country<http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-09/rest-of-world/29524660_1_nuclear-aid-terror-groups-nuclear-power-plant>.
> China has also supplied Pakistan with a tremendous amount of military
> technology. The only cards America seems to have left in its hand to counter
> this growing relationship are threats of destabilization, the subsequent
> stripping of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan's Balkanization into
> smaller, ineffectual states.
>
> In a 2009 article by Seymour Hersh titled, "Defending the
> Arsenal<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/16/091116fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all>,"
> much attention was given to the immense amount of suspicion and distrust
> Pakistan views America with. In particular, distrust is garnered over
> America's obsession with "defending" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Under the
> pretense of "helping" Pakistan if ever it fell into chaos, America has been
> trying to ascertain the location of Pakistan's nuclear weapons as well as
> the trigger assembles kept separate as a security measure.
>
> While America supposedly "fears" destabilization, concurrently, the effects
> of their war with the Taliban on the Afghan-Pakistan border has overtly
> stirred up instability inside Pakistan. At one point, Hersh describes
> Islamabad's request for predator drones to conduct the attacks themselves,
> which was denied. They then asked for America to at least pretend to have
> given the drones to Pakistan and give them Pakistani markings - this was
> also denied. In fact, it seems almost as if the war against the Taliban,
> especially the drone campaign, is being used specifically to stir up the
> Pashtun minority and aim them at Islamabad, just as Harrison had suggested
> the Baluchistan insurgents be used to carve off Pakistan's southwest coastal
> region.
>
> This brings us back to Fredrick Kagan's "blueprint," which is summed up in a
> New York Times piece co-authored with Brookings Institution's Michael
> O'Hanlon. Their article titled, "Pakistan's Collapse, Our
> Problem<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html>,"
> describes the complete collapse of the Pakistani government, overrun by
> "extremists." It goes on to describe "Pro-American moderates" within the
> Pakistani army in need of US forces to help them secure Islamabad and their
> nuclear arsenal. Several options are given for where the nuclear weapons
> could be stored safely, all of them involve US oversight. This would give
> the US an ideal geopolitical scenario that would permanently Balkanize the
> country along Pashtun, Baluchi, and other ethnic minority lines, and result
> in a permanent Western presence inside the country.
>
> The article then goes on to say larger military operations to take back
> Balkanized sections of the country could be undertaken, "If a holding
> operation in the nation's center was successful, we would probably then seek
> to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond
> propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by
> depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan's
> tribal and frontier regions."
>
> It should be noted that co-author Michael O'Hanlon also contributed to
> the "Which
> Path to Persia?<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html>"
> report which described how using foreign-funded armed insurgency,
> foreign-funded popular revolutions, co-opting members of the military, and
> covert military operations could be used to topple Iran's government. In
> Iran's case, this plan has already gone operational. In Pakistan's case it
> seems all but a foregone conclusion that it is at least being attempted.
>
> If Kagan's plan were executed after sufficient instability and justification
> had been created, China's holdings in Pakistan would be entirely eliminated,
> with Pakistan itself becoming a permanent extension of the unending US
> occupation of Afghanistan. This explains China's initial reaction to the "Bin
> Laden" hoax<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/final-word-on-bin-laden-hoax.html>.
> Immediately recognizing the unfolding implications, China rushed to
> Islamabad's defense<http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-03/china/29498615_1_pakistani-government-pakistan-government-zardari>calling
> for support from the international community for Islamabad. China
> also criticized America's
> intrusion<http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/141834/20110505/china-pakistan-us-osama.htm>into
> Pakistan's sovereign territory.
>
> The US raid incensed the Pakistani people, attempted to drive a wedge
> between the military and the government, as well as gave rhetorical leverage
> to the US over Islamabad and the Pakistani military. The suggestion by the
> US that "Bin Laden" had a support network inside Pakistan's
> military<http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=608331&vId=>appears
> to be an initial attempt to usher in some form of Kagan's
> "nuke-napping" invasion plan. With Beijing openly accusing the US of
> interfering in its internal affairs and with the "Arab Spring" quickly
> turning into regional warfare, there is no turning back for the globalists.
>
> The corporate-financier
> oligarchs<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html>and
> their many helping hands are a degenerate elite who have spent their
> entire lives sheltered from the consequences of their actions. It has always
> been the soldiers and the taxpayers who bore the brunt for their delusions
> of grandeur. To them, war is a cost-benefit analysis, and like their
> financial pyramid schemes that only get bigger and bigger, so too their
> gambles with our lives and treasure. It appears that they are quite willing
> to destabilize Pakistan, a nation with 170 million people, and risk war, a
> nuclear exchange, and a possible confrontation with China and Russia in the
> process.
> http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/globalists-pakistan-war-plan.html
>
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/