Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

SalaamOne سلام   is   a nonprofit e-Forum to promote peace among humanity, through understanding and tolerance of religions, cul...

Corporate Media Keeps US Citizens in the Dark: CIA covert operations against Pakistan

For the third time in three years, a CIA station chief has been outed in Pakistan, a country where the CIA is running one of its largest covert operations. It’s a remarkable record of failure by the CIA, since each outing, which has required a replacement of the station chief position, causes a breakdown in the agency’s network of contacts in the country.

The full names of all three station chiefs have been published widely in Pakistan and India and all over the world via the Internet—though Americans getting their news exclusively from domestic mainstream media wouldn’t know, as those organizations have consistently blacked out the names.

The latest outing was the work of a major political organization, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI) and its founder, cricket star Imran Khan, who has been calling for an end to US drone strikes inside his country. Khan’s party came in second in Pakistan’s recent parliamentary election.

The PTI, angry that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has not demanded a halt to the US “targeted killing” of Pakistanis, filed a public complaint with police in late November.

Outed: Craig Osth

That complaint, called a “nomination letter,” identified as the alleged CIA station chief Craig Peters Osth, and said he was residing and working—illegally, if actually working as a spy and not a diplomat —in the US Embassy.

In the complaint, the PTI accused Osth of being responsible for a deadly November 21 drone strike inside Khan’s home district, which is outside the Pashtun tribal area to which such attacks have normally been confined. The letter also called for the arrest of CIA Director John Brennan, accusing him of “waging war against Pakistan.”

US drone strikes are hugely unpopular in Pakistan, as they are seen as violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and and because they have killed a large number of civilians, including women and many children.

The CIA has refused to confirm or deny Osth’s role in the Agency, or even if he is on its payroll. But in this case the CIA’s standard stonewalling rings especially hollow: this is not Osth’s first outing.

In 1999 he was identified as the CIA’s station chief in Brazil by a Brazilian magazine, Carta Capital. At the time, the issue was the CIA’s reported bugging of the private telephone of Brazil’s then-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Osth has turned up elsewhere too. A classified US State Department cable, published by WikiLeaks in 2011, lists him as being present at a high-level meeting in the US Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, in 2005. The meeting, which included Osth, the US ambassador, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggesting at least that Osth would have been the top CIA official in the country, concerned tactics to use against rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and US military support for the government’s war against that organization. Osth is listed in the cable as being with the ORA, the acronym for a shadowy “Office of Regional Affairs”—technically an office of the State Department, but known to function as a CIA cover.

Outed: Jonathan Banks

In 2010, another alleged CIA station chief in Pakistan, Jonathan Banks, was outed by anti-drone campaign activists, and was forced to leave the country. One reason for his hasty departure was that he reportedly began receiving death threats from militants after his name surfaced.

Outed: Mark Carlton

Seven months later, the name of Banks’ alleged replacement, Mark Carlton, was disclosed—reportedly by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI—to a Pakistani newspaper, The Nation. The CIA pulled him out of the country for what was said to be medical reasons.

Carlton was reportedly the CIA’s alleged station chief during the Seal Team 6 raid on the Abbottabad housing compound allegedly belonging to Osama Bin Laden—a deadly night-time assault that was conducted without any advance notice to Pakistan authorities.

Outed through his own actions: Raymond Davis

Carlton would also have been the Agency’s top man in country in early 2011 when CIA contractor Raymond Davis, a former Special Forces soldier, was arrested by Lahore police after fatally shooting two young men believed to have been tailing him for the ISI.

Davis, initially identified by the US as an “official” with the US Consulate in Lahore, claimed the men had tried to rob him, but Pakistani police charged him with murder, noting that he had fired into their backs through the front windshield of his car, with witnesses claiming at least one of the two had been fleeing at the time he was shot.

Davis was jailed without bail pending trial, but the murder charge was dropped to assault and he was then pardoned by the court as part of a Sharia-law deal: the US, through a Pakistan government intermediary, quietly paid a reported $2.3 million in restitution to his victims’ families (including the family of a distraught young woman, the bride of one of the slain men, who had committed suicide by drinking poison after learning of her husband’s death) in return for his release from jail and permission to leave the country. Davis also paid a $20,000 fine for weapons violations, under the same Sharia deal.

At the time of Davis’s arrest, police discovered in his vehicle hundreds of rounds of high-power and armor-piercing “killer” bullets, night-vision equipment, a telescope, multiple cell phones, makeup and various disguises.

He also had a camera whose memory chip allegedly contained photos of mosques, churches and religious schools, including a Montessori school—this at a time that the country was suffering a wave of sectarian terrorist bombings of such targets. His cell phones reportedly held records of calls to top leaders of various terrorist organizations in the country.

When he was booked, Davis insisted he (like Osth in Brazil) was with the ORA, and that he therefore had diplomatic immunity. It was a dubious claim—as spies do not have diplomatic status. But he initially had the backing of both President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who publicly made the assertion, later proven false, that he was a “consular employee.”

Local police and prosecutors never had bought the US immunity claim and, based upon his marksmanship, his weapons and spy devices and his actions, suspected Davis of overseeing what they said was a wide-ranging terror campaign of bombings aimed at heightening religious tensions.

Davis’s CIA activities were never fully explained, thanks to the deal struck by the US with the Lahore court and the central government (though Washington was ultimately forced to admit Davis was a contract worker for the CIA .) But Pakistani intelligence reportedly suspected the CIA of running a “clandestine network of American and Pakistani intelligence agents” under Carlton and his predecessor Banks, without the knowledge of and beyond the control of ISI or the Pakistan national government.

As part of the Davis case settlement, the CIA was reportedly required to pull dozens of its agents out of Pakistan.

Honor Among Spies

Normally, the cloak-and-dagger world of international spying operates in accordance with a certain “honor among thieves” code. Each country typically knows the top spies from other countries who are operating out of their home countries’ embassies, using diplomatic cover.

This was common practice during the Cold War, and is still accepted practice today. Normally, too, countries don’t blow the identity of other countries’ station chiefs. When problems arise, such officers typically leave quietly, making outings rare.

Why has Pakistan yanked the covers off three alleged CIA station chiefs in so many years? Is it in response to the US extra-legal drone killing program and what it views as other overzealous covert activities inside Pakistan?

In the murky arena of spy-vs.-spy, it’s hard to establish anything definitively, and in Pakistan, things can be even more murky. Some elements of the Pakistani government and military establishment seem to back US actions in the country, perhaps wanting the US military and economic aid offered in return for granting access to the CIA and turning a blind eye to the drone attacks. But for whatever reason, it seems that Pakistan’s powerful ISI is fighting back against American incursions on Pakistani soil by disrupting the US intelligence apparatus there.
------------------------------------------------------
  1. Video: American Raymond Davis' police interview after shooting two Pakistanis dead - Telegraph

    www.telegraph.co.uk › ... › Asia › Pakistan

    Feb 10, 2011
    American diplomat, Raymond Davis, being interviewed by police over the killings which have caused a ...
  2. ------------------------------------------------------
US News Blackout

Whatever the domestic and international politics it is transparently evident that there is widespread Pakistani frustration and anger over the CIA’s in-country operation — at least to everyone but Americans.

US media organizations, from the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press to CNN and the major broadcast networks, have dutifully refrained from mentioning the names of the outed station chiefs, leaving that kind of journalism to the likes of FireDogLake, the media review Extra! and TCBH! Such reticence seems curious, indeed. Both the Times and the Post, after all, had no hesitation about publishing the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent outed in 2003 by Vice President Dick Cheney and his deputy I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, in retaliation for her husband’s efforts to block President Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. And her outing reportedly led to the exposure of many of her contacts, particularly in the Middle East, where they were undoubtedly put at great risk.

If the goal in the Pakistani agent outings was to protect the agents’ safety, the implication would have to be that the US media are not afraid of what foreigners would do, but instead what American citizens might do—since Americans are the only ones who are being kept in the dark about who these people are.

One explanation for corporate journalism’s timidity might be the Espionage Act and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which make publication of classified documents or the identity of an undercover CIA agent a felony. After all, the Times and Postknew the Bush/Cheney administration wasn’t going to go after them for publicly identifying Plame as a CIA agent. The Bush administration, clearly, wanted her outed. But could they be sure the Obama administration would not use these repressive acts against them for publishing Osth’s name — even though it was already widely known? Given the Obama administration’s obsession with secrecy, and its prosecutorial zeal in going after security leaks, as absurd as it sounds, anything is possible.

As Jim Naureckas, editor of the media review magazine Extra!, put it in the latest case:,

Osth’s name is no longer a secret; not only did the Pakistani party put it up on the Internet, it’s been reported by numerous regional news outlets (e.g., The Hindu–11/27/13–an Indian paper that boasts a daily circulation of 1.5 million). What’s more, Osth was publicly identified as a leading CIA officer years ago…

He adds that keeping the name out of news reports in the US

…doesn’t make anyone any safer. But it does help bolster the cult of secrecy, which holds that information is to be kept from the citizenry on general principle.

Of course, Naureckas himself was at that point making sure Osth’s name was out in the US too.

ThisCantBeHappening! joins him and the publishers of FireDogLake in helping Americans to learn what the rest of the world knows, but what the mainstream US media is content to leave in the shadows of the National Security State.

By Dave Lindorff: A founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/20/pakistan-outs-three-us-cia-station-chiefs-in-three-years/

  1. Secrets of the CIA Full Documentary - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvTTFLW0AZA

    Feb 26, 2013 - Uploaded by SubscriptionFreeTV
    Secrets of the CIA reveals the truth about theCIA and how this organization is behind numerous terrorist ...

  2. Secrets of the CIA : Documentary on Spy Tactics, Secrets and Espionage - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvqojPY8Qo4

    Oct 1, 2013 - Uploaded by The New School
    Secrets of the CIA : Documentary on Spy Tactics, Secrets and Espionage . 2013 This documentary as well as ...

  3. CIA Agents Reveal "Secrets of the CIA" - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvRhUZnc7F0

    Dec 23, 2010 - Uploaded by WarCrime911
    Secrets of the CIA is a revealing 45-minute Turner Home Entertainment documentaryavailable for free ...

  4. REAL SPIES - FBI/CIA (documentary) - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTv3QrhGPC8

    Sep 6, 2013 - Uploaded by TheBigbang1001
    Real spies FBI CIA full documentary interviews secret agent 007 sniper government information history life ...

  5. CIA Documentary: Hiding Secrets | Military Channel - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=41y9bv7lxx8

    Jun 30, 2013 - Uploaded by SecretServiceDoc
    The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is one of the principal intelligence-gathering agencies of 
Related:
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

Indus valley civilisation of PEACE - Mohenjodaro


Excavated in the 1920s, the Indus valley civilisation was one of the most unique civilisations of the world. It remains an enigma to archaeologists and historians in terms of it being a widespread civilisation without any evidence of wars and conquest.

If it flourished as an empire, why is there no indication available from its monuments and artefacts? Unlike the findings from other great civilisations, there are also no palaces, temples, royal tombs, forts, or gardens found among the ruins.

In Harappa and Mohenjodaro, we find no war reliefs portraying powerful rulers like the Assyrians, where the kings are depicted trampling and skinning alive the bodies of their enemies and prisoners of war.

Reliefs discovered from Persepolis show Persians kings in court, to whom people from defeated nations pay homage and tribute. They prostrate before the king to show their obedience and loyalty. The kings come across as ruthless, brutal, and absolute despots. However, the Indus valley findings show no displays of power and glory.

In Mohenjodaro, the Great Bath is one of the best-known structures among the ruins and believed to have been used for religious rituals. There is also a great hall which probably served for gatherings of citizens. Instead of magnificent buildings depicting grandeur and power, Mohenjodaro appears to be a simple but well-planned town providing comfort and convenience to its people. The concept of hygiene appears as a unique element of the Indus valley culture.

According to the archaeological findings of Gregory Louis Possehl, the Indus valley people burnt their old cities and towns to plan new ones. This theory raises a number of questions as to how they acquired knowledge and technique of planning cities and where did they get the resources to build new cities. However, it is an interesting theory which requires further research and analysis.

There are number of lessons that we could learn from the Indus civilisation. One of the main characteristics of the civilisation was peace and we find its traces spread over a vast area from Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh in Pakistan to Gujarat in India without any traces of war and invasion.

It is remarkable that when its contemporary civilisations were engaged in war, bloodshed, plunder and destruction of cities, the people of Indus valley charmed the neighbouring areas with flourishing culture. Archaeologists found no signs of battlefields, nor bones and skeletons or weapons of dead soldiers. It appears that peace was a powerful tool which united people for their common interest. It was its uniqueness that it followed peace rather than war. As a result, the civilisation prospered socially and culturally.

The evidence testifies that class difference was not so wide. Even if there was a king, he was not absolute and brutal. We also find no hegemony of aristocracy. Consequently, there was no exploitation of workers like in Mesopotamian or Egyptian civilisations where thousands of labourers were forced to build temples and pyramids. The hard-earned revenue of peasants and artisans was spent on building these monuments.

In the Indus valley, traders were the most prosperous and economically active class who had commercial relations with Mesopotamia and other contemporary civilisations. Though they earned wealth as a profit, they never displayed it either in building great houses or to use it as power play. The rich classes seemed to be ethical and believed in simplicity.

The fact that no great temples were discovered in the Indus valley excavations shows that religious beliefs and rituals were simple. Perhaps a priestly class existed with no extensive spiritual power. It also seems that they settled political and social disputes by mutual discussion and understanding.

The cities of Indus valley show that the major concern of the ruling classes was to provide facilities and comfort to people. The rulers spent revenue to educate the people and provide them health facilities. The sewerage and drainage system and wide-open streets indicate a well-planned, hygienic environment.

In the light of the above, we must adopt peace instead of war as a policy to achieve political stability and economic prosperity. There is a need to adopt a simple lifestyle and not be carried away with ostentatious displays of wealth. Our people have a right to clean cities and healthcare facilities. Following the tradition of the Indus valley civilisation and adapting it to modern challenges, we could transform our society for the betterment of people.
By Mubarak Ali: http://www.dawn.com/news/1075637/past-present-once-upon-a-time-in-mohenjodaro
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

History of the fight for Irish independence

File:Warofindep.jpg
WARS of national liberation inspire history in a bardic register. The self-sacrificing heroism of a people in arms tends to drown out unwelcome noises off: dissidence, recalcitrance, apathy and cagey self-interest. By the same token, the humdrum underpinnings of military success are also filtered out. In his magisterial account of the Irish struggle for independence, Charles Townshend records the alarm of the Irish Republican Army in the spring of 1921 at the prevalence of nits, scabies and fungal infections among its soldiers. Orders were dispatched that company captains should stress the importance of hygiene and ensure that their men `change their socks regularly`. Surely this is too much information? Do we really need to be told that heroes, too, need clean socks? I think so, yes: bathos provides an effective counterweight to legend, Townshend`s deadpan command of detail easing the process bywhich a warrior mythology is transmuted into a realistic and humane narrative. Nonjudgmental, even-handed history, it transpires, need not inhibit dramatic storytelling.
Townshend`s subject is the tortuous road to Irish independence after the abortive Easter rising of 1916. Irish republicanism had been a fringe phenomenon in Irish politics before the outbreak of the first world war, and the obvious futility of the rising might have kept it on the margins had it not been for the execution of the rebellion`s leaders.

However, the martyrdoms of the few were to prove less significant than the general threat of conscription. In March 1918 the massive German offensive on the western front panicked the British government into introducing a military service bill for Ireland. Never mind that the chief secretary for Ireland, Henry Duke, feared that `we might as well recruit Germans`. Lloyd George`s coalition rushed the bill through parliament, and Duke resigned. Such was the storm the measure provoked in Ireland that it was eventually withdrawn, but not before it had worked its unintentional effect of further radicalising the Irish population.

The cack-handedness of the British government fatally weakened a parliamentary Irish party committed to home rule for Ireland within the UK. The general election at the end of the war in 1918 saw Irish constituencies fall overwhelmingly to therepublican separatists of Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein was an abstentionist party whose MPs were pledged to a boycott of Westminster. Instead the party`s MPs constituted themselves the Dail Eireann, the assembly of a self-proclaimed Irish republic. Ireland now witnessed a bloody and protracted tussle between two governments the UK and an Irish Republican `counter-state` each of which pretended to be the legitimate authority for the whole island, and attempted to govern as much of it as was practicable.

With no decisive outcome in sight, the British parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, which extended home rule government under the crown to two separate entities: to the six counties of Northern Ireland, which were predominantly Protestant, and to the other 26 counties of southern Ireland. While the election to the new Northern Irish parliament was seriously contested, resulting in a Unionist majority, in the south no other parties dared to stand against Sinn Fein, except in the four university seats.

The impasse could only be resolved by negotiation. The result was a treaty concluded late in 1921 between the UK and the secessionist Irish Republic. In a sense the medium was the message, for the treaty was an implicit acceptance by the British of a sovereign Irish nation. Yet the terms of the treaty which granted effective independence to the Irish Free State, though a freedom tempered by an oath of allegianceto the crown proved divisive.

Ratification of the treaty narrowly squeaked through the Dail; but large parts of the Irish Republican Army wanted to fight on, either to secure better terms from the British or, less realistically, to realise the blue-sky dream of the Republic.

The result was a civil war in 1922-3 between the proand anti-treaty wings of Irish nationalism. Townshend draws particular attention to the role of the Neutral IRA, which claimed a membership of 20,000 men who had not been actively involved in the civil war.

Their appeals for peace were ignored, not least by the pro-treaty government: crushing internal resistance provided compelling proof of the new state`s effective sovereignty. Eventually, the civil war spluttered to a halt, without formal closure. As Townshend remarks, there were `no negotiations, no truce terms: the Republic simply melted back into the realms of the imagination` An appreciation of such ironies and unexpected disjunctions disturbs the smooth unreflective flow of traditional prejudice.

As Ireland, north and south, enters a decade of combustible centenaries, Townshend`s magnificent, unflinching history of the fight for independence holds out the prospect -however slim it might sometimes seem for truth and reconciliation.

By Colin Kidd  -By arrangement with the Guardian
http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=22_12_2013_013_003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75

The Tipolar World Order

WHILE all politics is local, specific issues and events are also affected by the push and pull of global power politics. The bipolar world that emerged after the Second World War was in many ways simple: two powers — the US and the Soviet Union — controlling clear geographical areas with two different and mutually exclusive economic systems.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, this bipolar world gave way to the ‘unipolar moment’ — from 1989 to 2003 — when the US and its Western allies, dominated world politics and economics. This singular structure collapsed after America’s unilateral invasion of Iraq and the 2008 Western financial crisis.

Today, while policy and media attention is focused on several specific events and crises, such as Syria, North Korea and Ukraine, most of these events are being influenced by the interaction of the interests and priorities of three powers: America, China and Russia. The magnitude and scope of the power of each of these three centres is different and unequal.

America is no longer the world hegemon; but it remains the single most powerful nation. Its power flows from its primacy in the military, economic and technological spheres. Its ‘soft power’ and cultural influence is pervasive. The scope of its interests — geographic and sectoral — are extensive. Yet, it is also clear that the ‘power’ of the US and its allies is declining in relation to the rest of the world, especially a rising China and a revived Russia.

China — the Middle Kingdom — was the world’s most powerful and advanced civilisation for millennia. It is now on a trajectory to recover its place as the world’s largest economy within a decade. Its military power and role is growing rapidly. China’s new ‘confidence’ in dealing with other nations, near and far, is evident.

Yet, China’s major strategic concerns are either domestic — to preserve its hard-won reunification; or regional — to ensure that the nations on its periphery are friendly or at least non-hostile. Unlike the US, China does not propagate its ‘values’ to others and holds back from interfering in their internal affairs. This is both a strength and a weakness.

Russia’ power almost evaporated after the collapse of the former Soviet Union and during the Yeltsin era when Moscow largely adhered to US and Western political, economic and diplomatic priorities. Utilising the leverage provided by Russia’s oil and other natural resources, its nuclear and military capabilities and the disciplinary mechanisms of the Soviet state, President Vladimir Putin has successfully revived Moscow’s influence and role especially in Europe and Asia.

However, with an insufficiently developed economic and financial system, growing centrifugal forces, particularly in Muslim-majority regions, and a declining population, Russia’s rise may not be sustainable without major socio-economic reforms.

The tripolar world is similar to its bipolar predecessor in some ways. The US and Russia have ‘areas of influence’. The US leads the Anglo-Saxon countries, Europe, Japan, South Korea and much of Central and South America. Russia’s sphere is limited mainly to the CIS countries and Central Asia.

China, on the other hand, has no ‘formal’ allies. Pakistan comes closest to this definition. China’s influence is exercised largely through economic leverage which is considerable. But Beijing is increasingly willing to assert itself when its national or territorial interests are at stake, as in the maritime disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan.

Unlike the US-Soviet Cold War, today’s tripolar world is complex. Rivalry and proxy conflicts coexist with close interdependence and common interests.

Great power rivalry covers support for opposing sides in territorial and internal disputes, contest for natural resources, competition for markets, hostile arms development and deployments and ideological propagation.

Simultaneously, there are significant areas of common interest and interdependence: trade and finance, energy, natural resources, migration, climate change.

In the current power paradigm, there are at least a dozen emerging countries which possess the capacity to play an ‘independent’ power role in future. These are: India, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria and Kazakhstan.

At present, however, they are able to exercise influence only in conjunction with one or the other of the three principal world powers. But their future acquisition of the instruments of power, and their alignments, will determine whether today’s tripolar world will become multipolar or be reduced to bipolar rivalry between the US and China.

In this context, the fate of India’s aspirations for global power are particularly relevant. These aspirations have been badly dented in recent months as the challenges of poverty, a stratified society and endemic corruption accompanying its much heralded democratic governance become fully evident. It would appear that India’s independent great power role will be postponed at least for a decade or two.

Another major determinant will be the final resolution of the internal stresses and divisions within the Islamic world. These divisions are between the modernist and secular visions of Islamic elites versus the conservative and ‘Islamist’ preferences of their masses.

In some Muslim countries, this division has been accentuated and compounded by external (American) intervention and escalated to violence and terrorism — local, regional and global. Now, this modernist-conservative division is being further confounded by the growing conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam.

The Islamic world has the potential to emerge as a fourth ‘pole’ in the global power structure, but only if the internal divisions can be effectively addressed and overcome by Muslim leaders and their peoples.

BY; MUNIR AKRAM -The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1075668/the-tripolar-order
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75