Geopolitical thread

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 10 Sep 2009 01:31

Indo-Tajikistan Relation on a convergence course
Quaisar Alam

Tajikistan is on a high prism of India’s foreign policy radar for quite sometimes. With India heralding its presence globally, strategically, economically, and diplomatically, the resonance is bound to reflect on the geo-strategic continental shift. Yes, Indo-Tajikistan Relation is on a convergence course!

The current visit of Indian President Pratibha Devising Patil to Tajikistan on September 6 provides a rare backdrop to pin our thoughts on India’s perception to regional security issues in South and Central Asia. The area is caught in the vortex of security threats and security challenges that may emerge episodic but are formative. The major threat to regional stability originates from Afghanistan-Central Asia border in the sphere of drug traffickers and radical extremists besides, commonality on a host of issues underlining between India and Tajikistan.

<snip>

Issues of Bilateral Interest

During the visit, Mrs.Patil will hold talks with the Tajik leadership on a number of issues including efforts to tackle terrorism and participate in the country’s Independence Day celebrations. Akil Akilov, the Prime Minister of Tajikistan received Mrs Patil and was accorded a ceremonial welcome on her arrival in Dushanbe. This is the maiden visit for any Indian President to Tajikistan. She will have discussions with her Tajik counterpart Emomali Rakhmon, the Prime Minister, the speaker of the Parliament Sadullo Khairullayev.

The talks, which will figure prominently during the talks in Dushanbe with Tajik leadership, will be of bilateral significance as well as on the developmental modes in the whole of Central Asia and the world, aimed at consolidating the ties in economic and political spheres. Though, no bilateral official documents are hoped to be signed during the current visit.

Defence and Security

There are warm relations between India and Tajikistan regarding defence and security. India and Tajikistan enjoy a close strategic relationship and Tajikistan plays host to India’s first overseas military air base. Both countries are fighting tremendous problems over the issues of terrorism and Taliban resurgence along with the international coalition forces. New Delhi has a well-established and clearly stated policy over the issue of fighting terrorism. Needless to underscore, India has been a victim of terrorism for quite a longer period, be they external security, cross terrorism or internal thereat. Precisely on that assumption, the consistent effort of New Delhi’s foreign policy related to North east, Kashmir or Naxalites, or terrorism and violence of any sort, India is along with international community regarding combating terrorism.

Independence Day

It’s a great honour for India as Tajikistan has accorded Indian dignitary whereby the President of India would be the special guest in the Independence Day celebrations in Dushanbe. International analyst believes that India has great stakes in this part of the world in the changing dynamics of the global paradigm shift. The joint efforts of the two countries India and Tajikistan would make concerted efforts against extremism and terrorism. This would greatly contribute to peace and stability in the region.

Analysis

In near future, as Washington, political engagement of the Taliban grows traction; U.S will definitely hope New Delhi to maintain a low-key affair. Since India’s communication of Tajikistan is also linked with Af-Pak policy of Obama administration, so, India may have common factors confronting with a regional security paradigm with contradictory tendencies.

Obviously, there is a need to keep the lines of communication open with Pakistan, name it composite dialogue, consultations, or exchange of views, come what may we have no options but ‘sense the urgency of the needs of the region.’ A saving grace is that, in retrospect, India rejected any Indian military deployment in Afghanistan which could have bearing in Tajikistan, though sections of our strategic community rooted for some adventure in geo-political frontiers. Finally, one hopes the current visit of Indian President will have far reaching ramifications on the bilateral discourse between India and Tajikistan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2009 01:43

K> Santhanam wrote a book on the importance of Tajikstan

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Sep 2009 14:08

Franco-Brazilian ties secured through security arms deals.Will India do the same with the MMRCA and helo deals?

"The idea is to forge more multilateral ties as a "counterbalance to U.S. hegemony" in the sphere of the military as well as trade, the analyst said."

http://www.ipseurope.org/news/news.php? ... :15&key2=1

BRAZIL-FRANCE: ARMS DEAL STRENGTHENS MULTIPOLAR FOCUS

Fabiana Frayssinet
RIO DE JANEIRO (IPS) - With the announcement of a multi-billion-dollar military technology-sharing deal with France, Brazil is projecting itself as a future regional military supplier, while sending out a clear signal about the multipolar focus of its foreign policy.

The choice of scenario for what they described as a "strategic alliance" could not have been more symbolic for presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Against a soundtrack of military marches, the two leaders clinched their latest agreement in the Brazilian capital on Sept. 7 ? Independence Day in Brazil.

Their meeting formalised the accords reached in December, on Sarkozy's first visit, when the Brazilian government announced that it would buy five submarines from France - including Latin America's first nuclear-powered submarine ? to be built at a new shipyard in Itaguai in the southeastern state of Rio de Janeiro.

Also announced on that occasion was the purchase of 50 French EC-725 transport helicopters, to be jointly assembled at the Helibras factory in Itajubá in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais. The EC-725 Cougars are made by Eurocopter - a subsidiary of European aerospace giant EADS ? which holds a 45 percent stake in Brazil's Helibras.

Also confirmed Monday was a final element in the agreements, estimated to be worth around 12.5 billion dollars: the start of negotiations for the sale to Brazil of 36 Rafale combat jets made by French firm Dassault Aviation, which could be finalised in October, according to a joint communiqué issued by the two governments.

The announcement indicated that fierce lobbying by Sweden's Saab, which hoped to sell Brazil its Gripen NG, and by the U.S. Boeing, which was pushing its F/A-18 Super Hornet, had fallen flat, putting an end to a lengthy contest that had dragged on since 1998, under the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2003).

In exchange for the Rafale fighters deal, estimated at four billion dollars, the French government promised to purchase 10 KC-390 military transport planes from Embraer, Brazil's national aircraft maker.

Brazil's main argument for choosing the French company was that unlike manufacturers from other countries ? like Germany in the case of the submarines and the U.S. in the case of the combat jets ? France not only offered the sales but the transfer of technology as well, according to Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.

"We decided to negotiate the purchase of the Rafale's because while the airplane is important to us, what is really important is having the technology to be able to build the plane," said Lula, standing next to his guest, Sarkozy.

According to professor of international relations Daniel Castelán, the transfer of technology will help make it possible for Brazil to live up to its aspiration of becoming a future military supplier not only for Latin America but for other regions as well.

Towards that end, the agreements with France will allow Brazil not only to build ? and to learn the secrets of making ? the military equipment, but also "to sell it jointly," as Sarkozy pointed out.

"The fact that the submarines and helicopters are being built in Brazilian territory signals a strategy of producing for South America in the future," Castelán, a researcher at the South American Political Observatory (OPSA) and a professor at the private Candido Mendes University, said in an interview with IPS.

Fernando Gabeira, a federal lawmaker for the Green Party (PV) and a member of the congressional commissions on foreign relations and defence, reached a similar conclusion.

"Brazil could have bought the American fighters, but not their technology, because that would have depended on authorisation by the U.S. Congress," Gabeira told IPS.

"The French understood that, and offered all of the technology so that Brazil could also produce the planes or submarines," he added.

However, Gabeira also remarked that "Brazil has the aim of becoming a producer of military equipment, but where are the wars" that would justify such a major upgrading of Brazil's own military capabilities? He pointed out that besides the planes, helicopters and submarines, South America's giant also has a fleet of warships.

Lula, on the other hand, believes the answer lies in the "new independence" that the discovery of enormous oil reserves will offer this country, set to become one of the world's top oil producers.

According to the president, the new investments in the defence industry are justified by "a question of sovereignty," to defend two important areas in this country of 190 million people: the Amazon rainforest and an 800-sq-km area of offshore oil reserves in the Atlantic ocean, off of Brazil's southeast coast, which hold an estimated 50 to 80 billion barrels of crude, found seven km below the surface of the ocean.

The oilfields, which were discovered in 2007 and have not yet been explored, lie beneath a layer of salt up to two-km thick. According to government projections, they could represent up to six times the country's proven reserves of 14 billion barrels.

Lula pointed out that oil has long been a motive for wars and conflicts. To avoid them, he said, although his government puts a priority on peace, it is also laying the foundations to make Brazil a "world power" within 15 or 20 years.

According to Gabeira, that aim reflects "a continuation of the policy of the military (who governed Brazil from 1964 to 1985) to make this country a major power, but now in a totally different world, where wars are not waged the way they used to be."

In his view, "Brazil should strengthen its role as a 'soft power' rather than seeking to become a 'hard power'." He admitted, however, that this is still not an easy argument to make in this country.

The alliance between Brazil and France has already begun to bear fruit for Brasilia at the international level. Sarkozy reaffirmed Paris's support for Brazil's aspiration to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and in the Group of Eight (G8) most powerful countries, which he said was "fair."

But Castelán said that besides the aim of strengthening Brazil's defence industry, the alliance with France should be considered part of a broader foreign policy strategy guided by "a strong multipolar focus on the part of the Lula administration."

That "strategic vision," he said, is based on the "search for military and defence cooperation not just with the United States," at a time when the Brazilian Foreign Ministry has complained about the increase in the U.S. military presence in Colombia, which is lending the U.S. armed forces seven military bases.

The idea is to forge more multilateral ties as a "counterbalance to U.S. hegemony" in the sphere of the military as well as trade, the analyst said. (END)

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Sep 2009 18:10

Great news!

GM to Sell Opel to Magna

This will increase Russo-German cooperation more than ever! The Atlanticists will now increasingly be on the back foot.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Sep 2009 18:15

Venezuela recognizes Georgia rebel regions: reports

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Thursday said he was recognizing the pro-Russian rebel regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, a boost to Moscow's campaign for their international acceptance.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 10 Sep 2009 23:32

It has commented earlier (correctly) that he seeds of the WWII were sown in WWI.
If we look at what the three major villains of the 20th century (as portrayed by western writers) were doing in WWI, Hitler was a corporal in the German army, Stalin was robbing banks in the Causcasus for the bolshevik cause, and Lenin was in exile in Switzerland.

Churchill OTOH was a key decision maker even during the years preceding WWI and played a key role as the first lord of admiralty of the royal navy in appropriating the dreadnoughts being built in British shipyards for the Ottoman navy (He was 17 years older than Hitler). He played a key role in bringing misery and death upon hundreds of thousands of British, ANZAC, Indian, and other allied soldiers in the Dardanelles fiasco. He also came from a wealthy and well connected family and this gave him key access to decision making bodies very early in his life unlike Hitler, Lenin or Stalin.

Lidell Hart, the noted military historian interviewed many German generals after WWII and asked them about Hitler’s intentions for WWII. The reply was that Hitler never wanted a two front war. Even the old German army guard like Rundstedt conceded this.

If Churchill had accepted Hitler’s overtures after Dunkirk, Hitler could have been freed up to counter the hated enemy of the capitalist system….Bolshevik Russia. This is what Chamberlain was doing (as repeated by Buchanan – he is probably the most misunderstood western statesman). The western powers could not been sucked into the war and their rule over the colonies could have been extended by many more years.

Western(American) statesman like George Keenan and other copycat writers lionize Churchill and equate Stalin to Hitler as Churchill actively acquiesced in the transfer of power and influence to the US without realizing the long term harmful impact it has had on the influence of the western powers over their colonies. This is what Buchanan is lamenting about. The effects are being felt now within global economic meltdown accelerating the flow of influence from the west to the east.

There are couple of other questions. Who was responsible for the misery and deaths of tens of millions of people in the 20th century. People are fixated on WWII in Europe only when answering this question while disregarding the millions of Asians killed due to famines and population exchanges. Millions more died in WWI. Hitler and Stalin were not responsible for those deaths.

Western thinkers alternate between Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin in appropriating the blame while absolving Churchill as he helped in keeping the power within the anglo-saxon circles.
Suggested reading:
1. History of WWII (Lidell Hart)
2. German General Talk (Lidell Hart)
3. Other side of the Hill (Lidell Hart)
4. Dreadnoughts (Peter Massie)
5. Castles of Steel (Peter Massie)
6. Memoirs of WWII (Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill)
7. The unnecessary War (Pat Buchanan)
8. Hitler and Stalin (George Keenan)

The best way to arrive at your own conclusion is to read different sources to understand the inside story of what actually happened on the ground. There are two ways to do this.
1. Read books written very close to the actual event.
2. A few sentences may give more info than the entire volume. Key is to find this info in the whole tome

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2009 23:47

X-post...

Le Figaro, France

One More Effort, Mr. Obama

By Gaëtan de Capèle

While the rest of the world is setting to work to clean the Augean stables and sweep away the old order, the U.S. – where the catastrophe originated – is stalling and dragging its feet.

Translated By Merl Storr

4 September 2009
Edited by Louis Standish
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)

Nicolas Sarkozy has been mocked greatly during the past year for his crusade against the excesses of the financial sector, which in his view have led the world to the edge of the abyss. Media pundits made fun of his “posturing,” which seemed to be about handing over a few convenient scapegoats to the court of public opinion, the better to hide politicians’ own failings in the run up to the crisis, not to mention their inability to resolve it. Sarkozy’s attacks on the extravagant earnings of market high-flyers; his denunciation of a financial sector, which is over-inflated and out of control; his assaults on the tax havens which provide safe refuge for fraudsters and a base of operations for shady dealing: all were dismissed as “hot air” in financial circles and among the opposition, who were secure in the belief that business would be booming again once the storm had blown over.

That was a serious misjudgment. The world is changing, and the letter to the Swedish presidency of the European Union, co-signed by Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and, most significantly, Gordon Brown, has set the final seal on the end of an era. We surely never thought we’d see the day when the guardian of the temple of the city himself would demand in writing “binding rules” to control bankers’ pay, forbid the payment of guaranteed bonuses, discourage speculation by placing new restrictions on financial institutions and close down institutions that pose a systemic risk to the banking sector, among other things. This is not just a reform of the global financial system – it’s a revolution.

Britain’s extraordinary conversion to the hard line maintained by Paris and Berlin will be presented to the rest of the EU in a few days time. All of these proposals will then be discussed at the G20 Pittsburgh Summit at the end of September. All that’s needed now is the support of Barack Obama, and the project to place financial capitalism on a moral footing will be underway.

The financial sector itself has expressed a desire for such a moral footing – but it has to be said that it doesn’t seem to be in much of a hurry about it. Even as we are preparing to celebrate, if that’s the word, the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which the start of an earthquake that almost destroyed the global banking system, Wall Street is already falling back into its old habits. After shelling out billions of dollars to save the banks, Washington has failed to react to the return of exorbitant bonuses, much to the incredulity of the American people. While the rest of the world is setting to work to clean the Augean stables and sweep away the old order, the U.S. – where the catastrophe originated – is stalling and dragging its feet.

Barack Obama was elected at the height of the financial crisis, and has never minced his words about the disasters caused by a financial sector gone mad. Will he refuse to accept the moral responsibility which history has placed on his shoulders? With three weeks to go to the Pittsburgh Summit, Europe is not going to give him the option.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 10 Sep 2009 23:52

There are indications that Hitler was an agent of elites who control the US and most of Europe. Indeed, it seems that Hitler was in England in 1912-13, undergoing training in demagoguery. This was revealed in a book by Hitler's sister-in-law, Bridget Hitler

I am skeptical on this claim or it’s impact even if true. By the same logic, Lenin can be called a German agent in WWI. Without German support, Lenin could not have been inserted into Russia and overthrow the Czar.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Sep 2009 00:02

Paris 1919 - Very important book to read the details of the negotiation after the WWI

Check out what Indian representatives were doing when the negotiations were going on.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 11 Sep 2009 02:41

I remember an article by Richard Perle claiming Churchill to be the first neo-con.

The belligerent approach of the neo-cons on the combating Islamism is very similar to the approach of Churchill towards Hitler.

Paleo-cons like Buchanan advocating hands off approach and pushing for US withdrawal from Afghania and ME….and he is the one who indirectly holds British policies of WWII responsible for west’s decline.

Is it possible that the different approaches of Churchill/Chamberlain in the 1930s are being replayed out in the present era again wrt to the policy towards Islamism???

Again: this could be the origin of the split in the anglo-saxon camp towards Pakistan that Ramana was referring to in another thread.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Sep 2009 02:50

Paul wrote:
Again: this could be the origin of the split in the anglo-saxon camp towards Pakistan that Ramana was referring to in another thread.

There is always the split. This dialectic method of foreign policy has always been practiced by the British with a strategy of Balance of power.

It is now more sophisticated.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2009 03:59

Its is eight years since 9/11 attacks on continental US. In the following years a lot has changed and affected the US in many ways.We examine the changes and impacts in various areas.

External aspects

The prompt intervention in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban as a direct consequence of the 9/11 attack on continental US. However the area was not pacified and the Taliban allowed to seek shelter in Pakistan. The aftermath showed that the terrorists were trained by Pakistan and funded by Saudi Arabia. The Iraq war against Saddam Hussein was launched without completing the task in Afghanistan. This led to the Taliban retreating and settling in lawless border areas of Pakistan and radicalizing the latter’s already challenged society. This has the direct effect of destabilizing the fragile Pakistani state.. The entire war on terror turned out to be wasteful farce as it ignored the real origins of terror and funding : Pakistan and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Iraq intervention succeeded in dislodging Saddam Hussein and his Baath regime but it led to the great instability in Iraq among the various factions in the country> There is constant tension among the various groups and general break down of law and order. The US war in Iraq also drained the US economy and most of it was recycled back to US contractors. Frustrated with the insurgency the US adopted brutal methods and subjected the prisoners to well documented practices at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The Taliban prisoners were subjected to similar methods at Guantanamo Bay prison.
In addition the US designated as Axis of Evil those countries that were not toeing their line. Of these Syria, Libya, Iran all are in the Middle East and the fourth North Korea is in East Asia. All pursued nuclear programs and of them North Korea has tested nuclear weapons twice in this period. All these showed the diminishing goodwill and moral compass of the US and the erosion of US political power.

Internal Aspects

The US internal response to the 9/11 attack was a total overhaul of the internal security apparatus. A new Department of Homeland Security was created merging the various diverse agencies already in existence. Airline travel restrictions on passengers were imposed to prevent future airplane hijacks and are accepted without protests by the populations a necessary security measures. A whole range of new legislation was passed which overturns the traditional notions of individual liberty that were the founding ethos of the nation. The DHA smacks of similar institutions in totalitarian states. The local police reacts with excessive zeal on suspicious acts and a low level of paranoia has been allowed to express itself. There were many instances of ‘old’ ladies giving vent to their xenophobic fears of the immigrants in planes. Coupled with the economic meltdown and the consequent employment losses this factor will be more overt in the future unless the economy recovers.

Financial crisis

The financial markets meltdown in 2008 was attributed to the sub-prime mortgage market souring due to borrowers being unable to pay. The real roots of the problem were the boom in real estate market after the tech market collapse in 2000 which drove the players to invest in real estate. This led to the real estate boom particularly in the very states that are suffering from the housing market doldrums: California, Nevada, Florida. The boom caused the house prices to rise above the affordability index of the people. The Federal Reserve lowered the interest rates to cushion the stock markets down turn and this move was used to finance the boom in real estate. New mortgage instruments like sub-prime mortgages were created to enable more people to participate in the real estate sector and increased the housing demand. Fears of market heating up led to the feds under Ben Bernanke raise interest rate from 2006 onwards and these fuelled the sub-prime mortgage crisis as people were unable to pay the rising mortgages. All these came to a head in the liquidity crisis of the Lehman Bros the primary market creator of the mortgage based securities. Instead of bailing out Lehman Bros., the govt. chose to ignore the fallout and ended up with a domino effect. This led to banks and auto finance companies all failing. The irony of the crisis is that it took the entire Western banking system down as Europe was affected by the crisis in US. And the moral authority to preach fiscal discipline to third world countries is also gone. On the domestic political front the crisis was triggered during the Republican administrations which are supposed to be more fiscal conservatives. And the bailout packages in the aftermath that were presented were more like Democratic proposals. The international impact of this crisis was the emergence of G-2 that is US and Peoples Republic of China as the two largest economies and conjoined together as debtor-debtee nations. This will have foreign policy implications in future as PRC determines how they will recover their investments. The large economic stimulus packages in the European nations have enabled them to recover already.

Obama Election

In November 2008 the US elected Barak Obama as President for change. In fact he got better international cheer than in his own country. He has already taken steps to correct the battered image of US in the world. He has taken active measures to rein in the excesses of the business community but they are still not adequate. One of the active measures has been to have a direct role in foreign policy with the State Department taking a secondary role. He has shut down the prisons and is working to recover the moral authority for the government apparatus by shutting down the G’ Bay prison and prosecuting prisoner abuses excesses. The danger here is that the US zeal to escape culpability will reduce the ascendency of the West and damage the very idea of the West as a child of Enlightenment. The one tool that is still in US control is spread of religion under the guise of freedom of religion. All other tools have been blunted or weakened.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 11 Sep 2009 05:06

Paul wrote:Again: this could be the origin of the split in the anglo-saxon camp towards Pakistan that Ramana was referring to in another thread.

USA and europe are parts of same coin. The divide is about 'approach'(of neo-cons). Not the ultimate aim(destroying non-Christ faiths).

See what NATO soldiers are doing in Afghanistan. Is there a split?

Before Afghan war there was split in Anglo-saxons but later, they came together to loot and butcher Afghans. That characterises the Anglo-saxons.

We need to understand psychology of Anglo-saxons. Fundamentals of racism and drive for colonial rules are still same.

There is thread for analysis of psychology of Indians. Why there is none for analysis of psychology of Anglo-saxons, Russians and Chinese? Picture is incomplete.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Sep 2009 05:28

Whether neo-con or paleo-con, I think of them all as ethno-cons.
Blood is thicker than water.

Jewish conservatives in the West want maximum focus against Islam, while Catholic conservatives in the West want Islam as an ally against the Russians. Protestant conservatives are a little more split, with some preferring a war against Islam, and others preferring a libertarian isolationist approach.

I would prefer Islamic fundamentalism to be crushed in our region, but meanwhile I don't mind seeing it flourish in Turkey to keep the Europeans on the back foot. Otherwise the Europeans, particularly the Catholics and other Atlanticists, will continue to make common cause with Islam, in order to fight their hated Russian enemies. They would of course conversely want to see Islamofascism rise in SouthAsia, to use as dagger against the Russian underbelly.

The Germans helped to massively bankroll the EU initiative, in order to unify Europe and avoid seeing themselves caught in the squeezeplay of power politics and rivalry in the region. Europeans weary of war and wary of being tread upon by global giants, economic or military, immediately flocked to the EU's clarion call. Opponents of European Unification like the British Tories, quickly found themselves marginalized and sidelined by the tide of pro-EU sentiment sweeping the continent.
But now that the Germans have economically worn themselves out by underwriting EU's overexpansion, while having to face power politics from others like France, Britain, and even Poland, the Germans then now feel tempted towards a 'Look East' policy to pursue some common interests with Russia.

Until now, the small Eastern European nations have looked across the Atlantic towards the US as their ultimate guarantor, even while exhorting Islamic militancy against the Russians to weaken them.
The Russians have now consolidated their own position to rebuff these ambitious Pak-like Mouse-That-Roared scrappers. But Germany's transition to a 'Look East' policy towards Russia represents the dropping of the other shoe, and threatens to catch these rats in a pincer, between a hammer and an anvil.

Between the power of the German manufacturing industry and Russian natural resource wealth, a powerful economic juggernaut could be built that would sideline the has-been rivals of Europe, while the US also teeters under the weight of its own economic house of cards, due to a long run of fiscal profligacy thanks to the Wilsonian Atlanticist policymaking. While the Americans flounder, the Germans have the opportunity to forge a vital new economic partnership with nearby giant Russia - a relationship that would be more equal and stable than that between Japan and China. Compared to the iron-handed Beijing leadership who are constantly deflecting domestic opposition by stoking up nationalism and friction with their neighbors, the Russians are actually pretty docile. While the Chinese have not and probably will not ever forgive the Japanese for WW2, the Russians have made peace with the Germans and are actually courting them. The Chinese, on the other hand, merely seem to tolerate Japan, and aren't going out of their way to befriend them - the Chinese consider themselves to be the most civilized and the Japanese as the barbarians.

Let the gathering Russo-German partnership flourish, as it will keep the Atlanticists on the back foot, and worrying in an equal-equal way as much about Germany as about Russia. This will distract them from their current love affair with Taliban, and may also force them to look towards Turkey, which is an option they've given scant attention to thusfar - Gates of Vienna and all that.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Sep 2009 08:01

Paul wrote:
There are indications that Hitler was an agent of elites who control the US and most of Europe. Indeed, it seems that Hitler was in England in 1912-13, undergoing training in demagoguery. This was revealed in a book by Hitler's sister-in-law, Bridget Hitler
I am skeptical on this claim or it’s impact even if true. By the same logic, Lenin can be called a German agent in WWI. Without German support, Lenin could not have been inserted into Russia and overthrow the Czar.

Actually, Lenin was funded by Max Warburg from Germany. The Warburg clan is close to the Schiffs and Rothschilds.

Some further information (from "None dare call it conspiracy" by Allen and Abraham. http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/Art ... NoneDare04)

The year is 1917. The Allies are fighting the Central Powers. The Allies include Russia, the British Commonwealth, France and by April 1917, the United States. in March of 1917, purposeful planners set in motion the forces to compel Czar Nicholas II to abdicate. He did so under pressure from the Allies after severe riots in the Czarist capitol of Petrograd, riots that were caused by the breakdowns in the transportation system which cut the city off from food supplies and led to the closing of factories.

But where were Lenin and Trotsky when all this was taking place? Lenin was in Switzerland and had been in Western Europe since 1905 when he was exiled for trying to topple the Czar in the abortive Communist revolution of that year. Trotsky also was in exile, a reporter for a Communist newspaper on the lower east side of New York City. The Bolsheviks were not a visible political force at the time the Czar abdicated. And they came to power not because the downtrodden masses of Russia called them back, but because very powerful men in Europe and the United States sent them in.

Lenin was sent across Europe-at-war on the famous "sealed train." With him, Lenin took some $5 to $6 million in gold. The whole thing was arranged by the German high command and Max Warburg, through another very wealthy and lifelong socialist by the name of Alexander Helphand alias "Parvus."

When Trotsky left New York aboard the S.S. Christiania, on March 27, 1917, with his entourage of 275 revolutionaries, the first port of call was Halifax, Nova Scotia. There the Canadians grabbed Trotsky and his money and impounded them both. This was a very logical thing for the Canadian government to do for Trotsky had said many times that if he were successful in coming to power in Russia he would immediately stop what he called the "imperialist war" and sue for a separate peace with Germany. This would free millions of German troops for transfer from the Eastern front to the Western front where they could kill Canadians. So Trotsky cooled his heels in a Canadian prison-for five days.

Then all of a sudden the British (through future Kuhn, Loeb partner Sir William Wiseman) and the United States (through none other than the ubiquitous "Colonel" House) pressured the Canadian government. And, despite the fact we were now in the war, said, in so many words, "Let Trotsky go." Thus, with an American passport, Trotsky went back to meet Lenin. They joined up, and, by November, through bribery, cunning, brutality and deception, they were able (not to bring the masses rallying to their cause but) to hire enough thugs and make enough deals to impose out of the gun barrel what Lenin called "all power to the Soviets." The Communists came to power by seizing a mere handful of key cities. In fact, practically the whole Bolshevik Revolution took place in one city -- Petrograd. It was as if the whole United States became Communist because a Communist-led mob seized Washington, D.C. It was years before the Soviets solidified power throughout Russia.

The Germans, on the face of it, had a plausible excuse for financing Lenin and Trotsky. The two Germans most responsible for the financing of Lenin were Max Warburg and a displaced Russian named Alexander Helphand. They could claim that they were serving their country's cause by helping and financing Lenin. However, these two German "patriots" neglected to mention to the Kaiser their plan to foment a Communist revolution in Russia.

The picture takes on another dimension when you consider that the brother of Max Warburg was Paul Warburg, prime mover in establishing the Federal Reserve System and who from his position on the Federal Reserve Board of Directors, played a key role in financing the American war effort. (When news leaked out in American papers about brother Max running the German finances, Paul resigned from his Federal Reserve post without a whimper.) From here on the plot sickens.

For the father-in-law of Max Warburg's brother, Felix, was Jacob Schiff, senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Paul and Felix Warburg, you will recall, were also partners in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. while Max ran the Rothschild-allied family bank of Frankfurt.) Jacob Schiff also helped finance Leon Trotsky. According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949:

"Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." (See Chart 6.)

One of the best sources of information on the financing of the Bolshevik Revolution is "Czarism and the Revolution" by an important White Russian General named Arsene de Goulevitch who was founder in France of the Union of Oppressed Peoples. In this volume, written in French and subsequently translated into English, de Goulevitch notes:

"The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause...

De Goulevitch continues:

"The important part played by the wealthy American banker, Jacob Schiff, in the events in Russia, though as yet only partially revealed, is no longer a secret."

source: http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/Art ... NoneDare04

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Sep 2009 08:09

Paul wrote:
There are indications that Hitler was an agent of elites who control the US and most of Europe. Indeed, it seems that Hitler was in England in 1912-13, undergoing training in demagoguery. This was revealed in a book by Hitler's sister-in-law, Bridget Hitler
I am skeptical on this claim or it’s impact even if true. By the same logic, Lenin can be called a German agent in WWI. Without German support, Lenin could not have been inserted into Russia and overthrow the Czar.

Another important data point is the book "Wall Street and the rise of Hitler" by Anthony Sutton. One needs join the dots from multiple sources. Hitler's sister-in-law is only a small piece of the jigsaw.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Sep 2009 08:31

This film has a huge amount of information on the origins of Adolf Hitler:

The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9518563654#

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Sep 2009 08:37

^^^ This is the sort of information that might unfortunately cause Takleef to some folks. But we would be remiss in our duties if we failed to take note of the historical context of current geopolitical trends.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 11 Sep 2009 10:38

The first step on the road to anti-Semitism is to believe in this entity called 'the Jews' that plans and acts as one.

Its like mapping out everyone who was a Brahmin and using the data to argue that Indian history is the result of a Brahmin conspiracy

Communities may be well placed in terms of education to allow its members to succeed in many different fields, but to argue that what these individuals do is part of some larger plan - that's usually the product of envy and prejudice.

Paul,

- It was the French who had long urged Britain to issue the guarantees that extended to Poland in March 1939, and Chamberlain (not Churchill who had been in the political wilderness for 16 years at that point) finally chose to along with that. France as a hybrid Maritime-Continental had always cared about Eastern Europe in a way Britain traditionally had not.

- It was Hitler's decision to issue the order to begin preparation for the invasion Poland in May of 1939, fully aware that this would lead to conflict with France and Britain.

The sheer lunacy of this is what prompted the highest echelons of the German army general staff (Gen. Brauchitsch, Gen. Halder, etc) led to plan a coup against Hitler and the Party. Their internal divisions led to hesitations and thus repeated failures, the most famous of course was Op Valkyrie on 20 July 1944. German historians like Joachim Fest have extensively documented the senior German Army officer corps antipathy to Hitler after they learned of his war plans in 1938 - the major reason why Hitler stopped listening to professional military advice.

- It was Hitler's choice in the earliest days of October 1939 (Directive Number Six) as Poland was being subdued to escalate the war in the West, and end the 'Phoney War' or Sitzkrieg by invading France via Belgium and the Netherlands.

So in other words the only reason Hitler ended up with a two front war was because he over-confidant enough to start something he couldn't finish - i.e. open the Western Front.

Why did Hitler assume he could defeat Britain and France in 1939 and dictate terms to them? His generals were not at all confidant about beating the far less modern Polish forces in time (given limits on German fuel, food and ammunition stocks) let alone the West, particularly given American willingness to supply the Britain and France but not Germany.

Hitler's lame argument was that even though Germany was not ready itself for a war, Germany's window of opportunity would close soon given that Britain had begun to re-arm in 1938. It was a desperate gamble to act and maximise gains before the scales tipped, just like the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbour in 1941.

Madness all around.

The extent of the irrational risk taking can only be explained in the extent of frustration and anxiety over the ability to secure and maintain global great power status over the long term through a long steady climb. Hitler's (and for that matter Wilhelm II's) egotism and impetuousness should be contrasted with Bismarck's insight and patience.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Sep 2009 12:05

What Thatcher and Gorbachev really thought when the Berlin Wall came down
Leaked Kremlin documents show that history makes fools of us, especially our leadersMichael Binyon

History looks far less heroic when you find out how it happens. The fall of the Berlin Wall is one of those monumental events that heralded the collapse of communism, the end of the Cold War and the reunification not only of Germany but of a Europe split for 40 years by Soviet tanks.

As we look back 20 years, we think of it as an event planned, plotted and controlled by statesmen, generals and diplomats. In fact, it was a spontaneous and chaotic reaction to events that no one — in the Stasi headquarters, in Western governments or in the Kremlin — foresaw or knew how to handle.

I was in West Berlin at the time. I remember the tensions, the rumours, the wild excitement, the dash across no man’s land of ecstatic East Berliners. I saw the bewildered faces of the Stasi border guards who stood around uneasily under the Brandenburg Gate while hundreds of West Berliners danced atop the Wall. And I remember wondering what on earth they made of it over on that side. And, what, miles away in the chilly east, could the Kremlin possibly be thinking.

Now we know. The Kremlin was utterly bemused. It had long lost control of events, largely because Mikhail Gorbachev had refused to step in. Six days before the Wall fell the Politburo was floundering to keep up. Things were changing by the hour. Half a million demonstrators were preparing to gather on the streets of Berlin, the KGB chief announced. Would Egon Krenz, the new East German party boss, survive, Mr Gorbachev wondered. And if East Germany collapsed, how could he explain this to ordinary Russians? How could Moscow keep the country going without help from Bonn?

BACKGROUND
Mitterrand warned Thatcher on united Germany
Gorbachev: The man who changed the world
The Berlin Wall: My part in its downfall

Eduard Shevardnadze, the reforming Foreign Minister, came up with the best idea. Why don’t we take down the Wall ourselves? His KGB colleague quickly saw an objection: it would be difficult for the East Germans, who put up the Wall, if we then tore it down. And Mr Gorbachev saw another problem: without the Wall, West Germany would buy up the East lock, stock and barrel.

He also pointed to another difficulty: other Western leaders didn’t want reunification. They couldn’t say so, as this was Nato policy. Instead, they were trying to manoeuvre the Kremlin into vetoing the idea, he told his colleagues.

He should know. Two months earlier Margaret Thatcher had arrived in the Kremlin on a mission: to halt reunification. She trusted Mr Gorbachev. She trusted him to keep her secrets. She asked him to stop the tape recorders and the notetakers. Then she began. “The reunification of Germany is not in the interests of Britain and Western Europe,” she said. Forget what you have heard or read in Nato communiqués. “We don’t want a united Germany.” It would lead to a change in Europe’s postwar borders. “We cannot allow that, because such development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security.”

Unfortunately for her, the notetakers did not forget what she said. They performed a service to history. We now know that 1989 was almost as traumatic for the West as it was for the East.

Mrs Thatcher and François Mitterrand could not understand what the Russians were up to. The French especially were horrified. Why had Moscow not done anything to prevent the prospect of a united Germany? Mitterrand and the French Establishment, Mr Gorbachev’s colleagues reported, were having nightmares. One, Jacques Attali, even said that he would go and live on Mars if unification occurred.

But Mr Gorbachev was determined not to fall back on the old response of a wounded Russian bear. He was not going to send in the troops to prop up the old communist dinosaurs. He thought Eric Honecker, East Germany’s unbending autocrat, an “arsehole”. And he naively believed that, if Russia were to allow the demonstrators to overthrow the old dictators, the peoples of Eastern Europe would be grateful.

His naivety is understandable. Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident who first obtained some of the key Kremlin documents, said the problem was that the Soviet leadership never really knew what the masses thought. There was no free press, the bosses believed their own propaganda and the KGB only reported what they thought the Kremlin wanted to hear.

When it all turned out differently, the response in Russia was as chaotic and bewildered as it was across the Continent. Events were driving the crowds on to the streets. And communist parties were left with no response, no plan and no authority.

That is what worried Mrs Thatcher most. She was all for freedom. But she liked order, she liked predictability and she liked institutions such as Nato, in which Britain could play a commanding role. The deal at Yalta was that Russia had its sphere of influence and the Western allies had theirs. And that deal had provided — at least for the West — 40 years of stability and prosperity.

The deal had not brought prosperity to the East. And Mr Gorbachev was committed to change. He knew that Moscow could no longer afford to prop up its deeply indebted allies. He had no time for the rigidities of East Germany, the brutalities of Ceausescu in Romania or the corruption of Zhivkov’s Bulgaria. A deep streak of humanity comes through in the picture of Mr Gorbachev revealed in these records. The man who grew up in Stalin’s Russia was determined to end the Stalinism in his own backyard.

He and his colleagues were flattered by the enthusiasm with which he was greeted abroad (“in contrast to the worthless treatment he gets from his own people”, a Politburo aide noted in his diary). The Kremlin must have been amazed at the shouts of “Gorby, Gorby” that rang out throughout East Berlin at the fateful 40th anniversary cebebration. Moscow probably thought it could have it both ways: earn the gratitude of the East by liberalising the system and the gratitude of the West for promoting democracy and human rights. In fact, it reaped only mistrust and suspicion from the leaders on both sides.

It all changed after the Wall came down. Gorbachev began to get cold feet. He was furious at what he saw as triumphalism in the West, especially in Bonn. He complained that America was trying to force “Western values” on the Warsaw Pact. He savaged Helmut Kohl, the German Chancellor, for pushing the pace on reunification. Things were moving too fast for him as well as Mrs Thatcher. But that’s history. Events have a chaos and a momentum that no one can control.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 829716.ece

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 11 Sep 2009 12:55

I have always wondered Gorbachev role in the break up of USSR, the collapse of Communism and the adulation he reaped from the West.

Can anyone give the details of the compulsions or links that forced him to act the way he did?

Then, of course, came Yeltsin who was more interested in vodka and Russia went into a tailspin and as a backlash to the utter confusion, people like Putin surfaced and I believe, he is trying to return to the Stalinist ways. I read, possibly in the Telegraph that Stalin is being restored as a hero of Russia and Stalin icons are back in Moscow's metros!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Sep 2009 13:26

Johann wrote:The first step on the road to anti-Semitism is to believe in this entity called 'the Jews' that plans and acts as one.

Its like mapping out everyone who was a Brahmin and using the data to argue that Indian history is the result of a Brahmin conspiracy

Communities may be well placed in terms of education to allow its members to succeed in many different fields, but to argue that what these individuals do is part of some larger plan - that's usually the product of envy and prejudice.

Nowhere have I made the implication you are suggesting. Let us distinguish between elites and the commoners. Examine the historical evidence without fear or favour or bias.

If the Jewish Chronicle says "so many Jews are Bolshevists" and that "the ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with Judaism", will one say that the Jewish Chronicle is anti-semetic?

When discussing a political phenomenon, it is always useful to go to the apex, the individuals who are doing the funding and planning. Also, if there is an ideology involved (such as Islam or Communism), then examine what the ideology says, and see what role the ideology plays in the actions being taken on the ground.

It's correct to examine the role of individuals, and to critique ideologies, but not to make generalizations about entire ethnic groups.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Sep 2009 17:49

The Judaic identity has been constructed and reconstructed many times by both those call themselves Jews as well as non-Jews. This was done for political and military aims. But we have to accept the historical connections of "Judaism" to a variety of European identities, and more imprtantly as a kind of key node between ME and Europe. Hence the tug of war over "Juadism" and the "Jews". Many concrete socio-economic conditions made the "Jews" what they became. But it is important to note, that such socio-economic conditions have also destroyed communities and identities - while it reshaped and strengthened the "Jewish" identity towards achieving intellectual and financial clout.

From the Indian viewpoint, where we see consistently, that Muslim majority countries are usually hostile to the non-Muslim aspect of Bharat, or at best neutral, we should not say or discuss things that are hostile to the current nation of Israel. By deconstructing Israel or its founding motivations, we may indulge in historical "purity", but strategically alienate the only friendly nation we have in the ME. There is a lot of lessons to be learnt about how to make crucial leadership choices and leadership decisions in the national interest from Israel and its founding fathers. If even a fraction of such determination could be shown by our own founding fathers, the nation today would be on a different footing.

Yes they probably had a lot of support from various quarters within the then dominant Anglo-Saxon global empire, each such quarter pursuing different objectives and saw opportunities in promoting the line of the WJC. But credit should be given to people like Ben Gurion or Golda Meier (who supported Gurion in that crucial meeting for declaration of foundation - while her children were at the front) who seized the opportunity provided and took decisions that were by no means assured of positive foreseeable outcomes.

Bolsheviks or otherwise, it is quite reasonable to see that any resurgent "Jewish" identity seeking to re-establish a homeland of their own, would search for and get involved in any political movement that has some potential in future political bargaining. I do not see anything wrong or condemnable in that, since there are no absolute values in the world that can judge all - given that there is no consensus about values. Especially if I see that there are identities opposed to mine, who will never give up trying to destroy me and my culture - I have the right to drop even my own stated principles of fairness and justice in dealing with my destroyer.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Sep 2009 21:45

Well said brihaspatiji. I would like to have that x-posted in the ME thread and Indian Interests thread.....

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 12 Sep 2009 00:02

Pranav,

Not to worry, I'm not assuming that was what you said.

Its just that although the early Marxists and Bolsheviks were often Jewish, it can not be forgotten that they represented an isolated splinter of not only the Jewish community as a whole, and that they never led the Jewish community.

Its just that without the context of the diversity of Jewish responses to modernity in the West, it becomes easy to forget just how divided the Jewish community was. The secular Jew wasnt even regarded as Jewish anymore by traditional Jews.

There were many secular European Jews who were initially attracted to Marxism because it seemed like the best way option for peace, security and integration (particularly for Jews) by moving Europe (that's including Russia) beyond medieval religious and modern ethno-nationalist prejudices. They were often highly educated, but with few resources and from mdest backgrounds, struggling both against what they regarded as irrational Jewish traditions and cut off from their extended families, while simultaneously struggling with the prejudices of wider society and sometimes state. Unfortunately Marxism was soon infused with nationalism under Stalin with all of its old prejudices, and that dimmed the attraction of communism.

There were also many liberal Jews who rejected Marxism, prefering instead moderate nationalism, falling in the spectrum between social democrats and capitalists. Like the Marxists they embraced assimilation, but they weren't interested in class warfare, or the abolition of nation-states. These were the people who did their best to be good Germans, good Austrians, good Frenchmen, good Russians, etc. Some were secular, most followed Reform Judaism that looked a lot like Protestantism (not surprising since it came out of Germany). These were often the wealthiest Jews - people who had succeeded in business, in professional and public life and had acquired real status, and in some cases real envy. The Dreyfuss affair in France and the 1905 pogroms in Russia undermined the attraction, and the way Germany, France and Poland turned on their Jewish populations under the Nazis destroyed faith in national assimilation in continental Europe.

There were secular Jews, particularly in the Russian, and to a lesser extent the Austro-Hungarian Empires who gave up on Marxist revolution, gave up on national assimilation, and instead became Jewish nationalists. They often came from exactly the same backgrounds as the struggling lowe rmiddle class Jewish Marxists, but their leadership often came from secure, established liberals.

Then there were also many Jews who rejected the atheism of Marxism and Zionism, and had not moved to the big cities where comfortable middle/upper class assimilation seemed possible. They retained conservative religious practices and views - these were the actual Jewish community leaders for the most part.

They might be in the ghetto in cities, or out in the Jewish villages you found throughout Poland, the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine. These people were not much for political ideology, but rather the preservation of history, tradition and identity, mutual aid while making as decent a living as possible and surviving the disasters that had always periodically hit Jews since the beginning. Its these people who were the bulk of Jewish community, and whose survivors accepted Israel and America as the only safe places left to live.

The traditional Jewish community had always maintained a strong welfare network for the poor and the sick - it was one of the things that allowed Jews to survive in the many difficult times, and thrive after they passed.

Most secular and liberal Jews also valued that kind of mutual support and believed in a welfare state to support Jews and non-Jews alike, but that didn't make them proponents of Marxist class warfare, the export of revolution, enforced atheism, etc.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 Sep 2009 00:41

I have wondered if the Pathans/Pashtuns are Jews. They seem to have some similar customs and practices, which give superficial hints at a possible Jewish heritage.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Sep 2009 00:47

Sanjay M wrote:I have wondered if the Pathans/Pashtuns are Jews. They seem to have some similar customs and practices, which give superficial hints at a possible Jewish heritage.

Olaf Caroe is supposed to be the expert on Pashtuns/Pathans. Read his book which is at Internet archive site. And post follow up in the Pathans thread.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 12 Sep 2009 01:29

Sorry, according semitic origin to the Pakhtuns is similar to accepting the AIT theory. Caroe may have been good at strategy as far his historical knowledge goes, this is not true.

While there may be Turkic sprinkling here and there, they are actually kinsmen to the Rajputs. Even TFTA Pakhtuns have accepted this in Pakis newspapers like the frontier post.

I have a link from Khyber watch which I had posted before…will try to find it.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 12 Sep 2009 03:03

Pashtuns have this dual theory of them being descendents of a tribe of Israelites & being Aryan at the same time. How you can be a semitc & aryaan simultaneously is something that I cannot comprehend. That said, Pashtuns have an oral tradition which indicates some kind of a link to the tribes of Israel. Their hooked acquiline noses, some clothing elements, and some variants of the menorah are present in their culture. Israeli researchers have recently commented that their is some merit to that claim. But they also claim Aryaan descent---the country name of Afghaanistan is from the word Ariana (or aryaan). Their national airlines is ariana airlines. Some 10% of pashtuns have green/blue eyes & blond/red hair. So there is some merit to that too. In the end it is unclear really.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Sep 2009 03:11

surinder wrote:Pashtuns have this dual theory of them being descendents of a tribe of Israelites & being Aryan at the same time. How you can be a semitc & aryaan simultaneously is something that I cannot comprehend. That said, Pashtuns have an oral tradition which indicates some kind of a link to the tribes of Israel.

The New age semitic religions are trying to bring in Aryan into their history so that they create a superior race

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Sep 2009 03:20

Thats not tribes of Israel but the tribes of Khwarazim or Persia. Hooked nose is a Persian trait. Some of the Israelites acquired that trait during the Persian captivity. ~ 70% of all Israelis are Khwarazimis aka Ashkenazis.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Sep 2009 03:23

At various times various geneticists have found commonalities with Eastern Iranian tribes, or Greeks, or even Jews. But commonalities do not straightaway indicate from which direction the genes were contributed. They can very well be part of "droppings" on the way to Eurasian steppes of the great migrations that started from India at the intensification of the last ice age beginning around 35000-45000 BCE. And the "Yedu" and the "Pani" could also be a remote dropping around the mediterranean. This can of course give genetic overlaps.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Sep 2009 03:29

Sanjay M wrote:I have wondered if the Pathans/Pashtuns are Jews. They seem to have some similar customs and practices, which give superficial hints at a possible Jewish heritage.

One theory says Jews are Pathans.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 12 Sep 2009 03:43

A variation of the TFTA theory that claims Pakis are the BA*STARDS of the Arabs and Turks.

Otherwise they would have to accept that they were formerly Hindus who were converted by the sword.

Not to be taken seriously.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Sep 2009 05:01

Thatcher's fight against German unity

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 12 Sep 2009 05:16

A Must see for anyone who thinks Al-qaeda was behind 9/11 -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9949942423#

That guy is a member of Japanese Parliament. Just see how evasive Japanese PM is to the evidences presented by him on 9/11 Commission report's fakedness.

Also, check the comments below this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smzZFmI5lt4&NR=1

Seems many people are now starting to realize that 9/11 was not an Al-qaeda's job. But something more of a joint job of (American army+anglo-saxon corporates).

1. There were heavy put-options trading in stock shares of United and American Arilines, on 6th, 7th and 8th September just before attacks. Clearly showing someone knew about the attacks and Japanese parliament member is quoting in Japanese parliament that Taleban or Al-Qaeda can't do such high value trades on american stock exchanges.

2. He also talks about 9/11 commission report doesn't tell about collapse of building or any part of forensic reasons for it. The firefighter's statement that he heard explosions in building were also omitted from the report.

Its interesting to note that during those times, if someone had put up this post about 9/11 being fake then, he would be banned from BRF. But today, things have changed so much. The whole world is realizing the neo-con agendas.

During those times around Jan. 2002, I knew the stories are fake and I was even banned from msn chatrooms for being 'absurd'.

In Feb. 2008, European parliament was shown a movie, "Zero" which is based on same evidences which were ignored by 9/11 Commission and it also showed several contradictions in FBI and 9/11 report statements on many counts. They didn't even investigate the building collapse and investigation was "stoppped" by a special order by Bush. People say investigations were not allowed to complete.

I must admire the japanese that despite being poodle of USA, they have courage to question the validity of 9/11 Commission report and even goto the point to mention,
"who was behind 9/11? Japanese Govt. should investigate on its own the real people behind 9/11. Since there are 20 Japanese dead in attacks." - Japanese parliament member.

I used to call Japanese poodles and rate them below Indians. But not anymore.

The last time an Indian politician(Vajpayee) said in parliament that 'USA has failed in war against terrorism', he was called up by Bush the same evening and he was made to take his statement back publicly in media.

Just imagine the horror and censorship Indian Govt. would take up if someone even mentions this in Indian media. What a useless bunch of west-apers.

Even today, 9/11 victim families are knocking the doors of American courts to resume and re-investigate the investigations but in vain because Americans justice system is not interested in going into details of 9/11 for some strange and unexplained reasons, even at requests of its victims.

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 12 Sep 2009 05:31

That Showing a movie in european parliament thing, I will take it with a pinch of salt. Europeans have no interest in killing the oil gains.

The movie was attended by only a few european parliament members. Looks more like usual exercise to paint europe as 'fair and independent' block in world affairs. They don't want to be seen as Western boys.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 Sep 2009 09:05

Gerard wrote:Thatcher's fight against German unity

Reunification will stretch even more eastward still. from Prussia to Russia, thanks to Global warming.
Even nature conspires against the Atlanticists now.

More beeb:

BBC

German ships blaze Arctic trail
German freighters in the North East Passage in a photo released by Beluga Shipping
The German freighters were accompanied by Russian icebreakers

Two German merchant ships are sailing from Asia to Europe via Russia's Arctic coast, having negotiated the once impassable North East Passage.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 12 Sep 2009 11:14

Johann wrote:Pranav,

Not to worry, I'm not assuming that was what you said.

Its just that although the early Marxists and Bolsheviks were often Jewish, it can not be forgotten that they represented an isolated splinter of not only the Jewish community as a whole, and that they never led the Jewish community.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, except that I don't regard elites like the Schiff, Warburg and Rothschild families as "isolated splinters" of the Jewish community.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 12 Sep 2009 11:33

vishwakarmaa wrote: The firefighter's statement that he heard explosions in building were also omitted from the report.

The person who was inside the building WTC7 who heard and saw those explosions died (undisclosed causes) just before the NIST Assessment...

--
If anyone interested search for "Barry Jennings". He gives a interview just after the Twin Tower Collapse.