The Raymond Davis murders — American empire comes unhinged
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/18/syed-zaidi-raymond-davis-an-american-tweetie-bird/
By Dr. Zaidi for Veterans Today, Feb 18, 2011
Duff and Gates noticed that a great many of the supposed aid projects that were claimed to be German were actually manned by Western and Israeli Jews. The Pakistanis couldn’t tell the difference, but these Americans obviously could. The private armies run by contractors such as Xe (the new name for Blackwater), it turns out, are under Zionist control. The effort to break up nuclear-armed Muslim Pakistan is most of all a Zionist project.
As Christopher Bollyn has pointed out, the main aim of the American war effort in Afghanistan, brought about by the Zionist-engineered 9/11 event, is for the benefit of ostensibly Israeli-owned (and ultimately Rothschild-et -al-controlled and -owned) gas, mineral and heroin interests in Central Asia.
The late Richard “Holbrooke” (hiding behind an olde Englishe name his father was not born to) turns out to have been a relative of the Rothschilds. And his replacement is one Mr Grossman, who will no doubt prove to link to the same networks. The Raymond Davis incident points to the unhinging of American, really Zionist, empire, in this zone as much as in the Arab world.
Since Obama and Hilary are, like 99% of American politicians, totally the creatures of Zionists, it comes as no surprise that they are going all out to try to keep a lid on this incident. Both have put their prestige on the line in support of the absurd claim that Davis must be given diplomatic immunity under the Vienna conventions. The State Department conveyed through an American TV channel a threat to expel the Pakistani ambassador. Now they are threatening to cut off US aid.
It’s not working.
America does have the support of Pakistani president Zardari — no wonder: they probably helped him murder his wife to make a claim for the presidency, and they helped get all the cases against him dropped so that the Swiss would release his massive accounts. Zardari has sacked — thus making a hero of — the foreign minister for opposing the release of Davis.
But there is not that much more within his power to do. If he did get close to getting Davis freed, the army would once more take over the country. Meanwhile, with or without the help of the latest American / Israeli torture technology, Davis is reported to be singing like Tweetie.
Stay tuned.
* Dave Lindorff – The Deepening Mystery of Raymond Davis and Two Slain Pakistani Motorcyclists
* Dave Lindorff – US Terror Campaign in Pakistan? What was Raymond Davis Shooting for in Lahore?
* Yasmeen Ali – US Misinformation: International Law is Clear that Diplomatic Immunity is Not Absolute
* Rai Muhammad Saleh Azam — Diplomatic Immunity and the Raymond Davis Case
* Murtaza Haider — [Hilary Clinton is] Balancing parking tickets against murders
* ‘Davis’ is the missing link to US support for ‘TTP’ terror in Pakistan
About the Author: Syed Zaidi is a retired professor of philosophy, University of Delhi, Delhi, India.
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
7 comments:
This post is in two parts once again, as apparently it is too long to go through in one:
New York Times lectures Pakistan on nukes - omits Israeli nukes
by Michael Hoffman | Feb. 21, 2011
This column is online with additional research links:
http://tinyurl.com/6lbz7od
Here is more of the same — the insufferable Talmudic double-standard
which the NY Times, in its Zionist exceptionalism, regularly undertakes
when self-righteously lecturing Muslims about their alleged moral
failings and ethical lapses, in this case, in the realm of nuclear
weapons. Pay attention, little Muslims, as the Times imparts to you its
superior morality out of Animal Farm: Pakistani nukes bad, Israeli nukes
invisible!
The lead editorial in the New York Times:
"..experts say, it (Pakistan) has already manufactured enough fuel for
40 to 100 additional weapons. That means Pakistan...could soon possess
the world's fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia,
France and China but ahead of Britain and India. Washington and Moscow,
with thousands of nuclear weapons each, still have the most weapons by
far, but at least they are making serious reductions."
—"Pakistan's Nuclear Folly," NY Times Editorial, Feb. 20, 2011 (emphasis
supplied).
The omission of "Israel" from the list is arrogant and brazen; the
unwritten undercurrent being that the Judaic possession of nuclear
weapons exists in such a vastly higher moral dimension of survival and
security concerns with regard to the welfare of superior Israeli human
beings, as to be off-limits to editorial consideration, journalistic
scrutiny or analogies to other nations' WMD. It is an axiom: God's Holy
People must possess the bomb, while, for unholy Pakistanis to do so in
anything other than token amounts, is "folly."
The Times, in finger-pointing at Pakistan's possession of weapons of
mass destruction, enumerates the world's nuclear powers (Russia, France,
China, Britain and India), while the unmentionable power in possession
of those weapons is rendered invisible. This outrageous omission, which
demonstrates the degree to which Zionist ideologues operate the Times
under a patina of liberal universalism, is in keeping with official
policy of the "State of Israel," which decrees that Israeli nuclear
possession is disputed, and should neither be confirmed nor denied by
the media.
Second part:
Questions for the New York Times:
How many nuclear weapons are there in the Israeli arsenal? Have they
increased in recent years? Are the Israelis determined to gain
additional nuclear weapons? If so, is this determination any kind of
"folly" or cause for concern? What are the Israelis doing with the
advanced, nuclear-powered submarine Germany donated to them? Are the
Israelis under any obligation to reduce their nuclear stockpile, or is
the "existential threat" posed by "militant Islam" a sufficient alibi
for having no limits? How does the New York Times rank the Israeli
nuclear weapon stockpile: sixth-largest, fourth-largest, third-largest?
Under what onerous conditions of repression is Mordechai Vanunu — the
Judaic nuclear technician and convert to Christianity, who was
imprisoned for 18 years for the "crime" of confirming the existence of
Israeli nuclear weapons -- living? Why, after all those years in prison,
does he still face police harassment and restrictions on his freedom of
expression in "the only democracy in the Middle East"?
I'll bet it is "anti-semitic" to ask these questions.
We should all just be good scouts and limit ourselves to worrying about
Pakistani nukes, while awaiting a signal from our high-caste commissars
in New York to indicate to us when (if ever) it would not be
"anti-semitic" to ask probing investigative questions about the
existential threat which the enormous Israeli and American nuclear
arsenals pose to sovereign Muslim nations, given the Israeli and
American record of invasion, and mass murder of civilians, in Lebanon,
Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza.
***
EXCELLENT! Now this is of extreme value and I wish to put this up on the blog. Can you email me at vatic2010@gmail.com and provide me with the state you are from. That way I can give you credit for contributing this great article of good information that adds to this article.
Thanks. This is what I have been trying to say all along. This is valueable to our readers. Thanks again.
Not to put too fine a point upon it, but I think you would be far better served if you began an active study in the works of the revisionist historian Michael A. Hoffman.
His works are top notch.
Ok, great, if you stick this out, we just might make it. First of all let me point out that you neglected to give me the courtesy and respect of an answer to my question to you about putting that up and asking you for the state you live in.
Second of all, you assumed which is a word that when split up makes an "ass u me". You do it all the time, but this is a good example. You assumed I have not read Michael Hoffman, when in ffact, if you had bothered to read the blog you would see his work posted on the site.
Madame, if you studied Michael Hoffman's work you'd know he doesn't believe in the concept of 'real jews'. The Twin pillars thing.
I could go on about the 'courtesy and respect' part, but you failed to extend the same to me several times. The failure of your understanding of what I was saying about the underground vampire scene and lifestyle was enough. And I know well enough why you ask what state I live in. This is beginning to bore me.
Better you simply give credit where credit is due -- to Michael A. Hoffman.
You know, I am not going to ban you so you might as well quit trying. I know you work toward that goal everywhere you go, as you once told me, but I won't do it. So, go ahead and act out, we both know what your doing and we both know your not interested in any kind of mutually beneficial and sharing relationship.
You are a combatant seeking a battle, and you go on the attack right away like every post this past week that you do, and I believe I will let you battle yourself from now on. I will respond when you show courtesy and evidence to your out there assertions. OK??? When you start the attack mode on automatic, I will simply disappear and ignore you. Fair??? Good. I am glad we have gotten that straightened out.
Post a Comment