Pervez Musharraf
Game Theory Warfare
January 6, 2010 by Jeff Gates · 7 Comments
Below is the third installment in a 5-part series regarding Pakistan.
The destabilization of Pakistan began with the December 2007 murder of Benazir Bhutto after Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazi biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that her return was “the only possible way we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.” That advice is consistent with how Israel wages game theory warfare. See:
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf signed his own political death warrant when he announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was essential to resolve conflicts in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Should Barack Obama concede the truth of that long-obvious fact, Zionist extremists may well ensure that his presidency is brought to an abrupt end.
In terms of game theory strategy, it came as no surprise to see the prominent media profile given five young American Muslims when they traveled to Pakistan this month while leaving behind a videotape explaining, “Muslims must do something.” That understandable reaction to emerging events helped fuel the plausibility of Pakistan as a haven for training what mainstream media in the U.S. promoted as “home-grown terrorists” posing an imminent threat to national security. See:
That game theory-predictable reaction emerged soon after President Obama, in effect, endorsed yet another major expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Meanwhile the Israel Lobby-dominated U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly (344 to 36) to condemn the Goldstone Report documenting dozens of Israeli war crimes against Muslims in Gaza.
The report by Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African Jewish jurist, also included evidence of ongoing crimes against humanity. Meanwhile our president remained silent, our U.N. Ambassador supported Israeli efforts to quash the report and our Secretary of State hurled insults at Islamabad.
War crimes and crimes against humanity are key components of the agent provocateur strategy required to ensure the extremism from which this enclave of Jewish extremists claims a need for protection. By providing that protection—with no mention of decades of serial provocations—the U.S. appears guilty by its association with Israel’s notoriously aggressive behavior.
The Way Forward
Pakistanis must acknowledge the obvious: we Americans have lost control over our government. Barack Obama is only the latest U.S. president to enable an agent provocateur strategy that allows Zionists to wage war in plain sight and, to date, with legal and political impunity.
Meanwhile the aggressor continues to portray itself as the perennial victim in need of ever more military assistance. After six decades of nonstop duplicity, our entangled alliance with Jewish religious fanatics has transformed the U.S. into the world’s greatest threat to peace due to our “special relationship” with a brutal enclave of game theory war-planners.
The Ashkenazi dominance of U.S. media ensures that the common source of this geopolitical manipulation remains unknown to Americans though it is widely understood abroad. We need help—from outside the U.S.—to grasp a disturbing fact: the same Zionist operatives who deceived us to invade Iraq for Greater Israel also induced us to pile on debt and debase our currency while profiting on our foreseeable decline.
Americans do not yet grasp that the real risk to national security is an enemy within. The greatest threat to this transnational criminal syndicate is two-fold: transparency and stability. Their continued success relies on sustained chaos, serial mass murders and well-timed crises.
Transparency may emerge from the ongoing Iraq Inquiry in the U.K. Testimony taken by that high profile panel heightens the risk that Israel, not Islam, will be exposed as the global center of terrorism. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair could face war crime charges for his complicity in using false pretenses to order British forces to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Stability also poses a risk. With stability, Americans may realize that the phony intelligence deployed to induce our invasion of Iraq came from a common source with a common motivation. Americans know that something fundamental is amiss.
Ordinary Americans are hurting. A long-deceived U.S. public is looking for answers to how their nation was reduced to such a perilous condition—financially, militarily and diplomatically. How were we transformed from prosperous leaders of the post-WWII era into a global pariah flirting with insecurity and instability while teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?
With access to the real facts, Americans will realize that the real enemy is lodged deep inside our government. And deep inside our own manipulated beliefs about who is friend and who is foe. The true enemy is not the high-profile “assets” (the Clintons, G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, et.al.) but those low-profile operatives who produced their political careers and positioned them for high office as pliable and reliable policy makers.
The stunning subterfuge by which the “Coalition of the Willing” was induced to wage a war for Greater Israel may first work its way to clarity in the U.K. Tony Blair has already conceded that, absent the success of the phony intelligence on WMD, he “would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat.”
With 1.3 million Iraqis dead from war-related causes, a war crimes tribunal must be part of the remedy so that never again is duplicity allowed to operate on such a scale. In game theory terms, the cost of complicity in such conduct must be explicit, severe and foreseeable.
Expect Another Crisis
The risk of exposure, in turn, increases the strategic necessity for yet another well-timed crisis, with Pakistan a vulnerable target for the next regime change. When Americans gain access to the unvarnished facts, we will insist on regime change here. That process will accelerate as voters grasp that this corruption lies deeply imbedded inside both major U.S. political parties as proven by Barack Obama’s rapid ascendancy to the presidency.
At present, ordinary Americans simply do not know the scope of the current criminality. Americans are not stupid; we’re just badly misinformed—and purposefully so. Our system of informed choice steadily atrophied as a transnational criminal syndicate steadily gained dominance in mainstream media. The depth of this corruption suggests the potential for a dramatic change in U.S. politics as Americans identify its common source.
The U.S. and Pakistan share a common enemy in those who are adept at displacing facts with what a targeted population can be deceived to believe. To prevail in this sophisticated form of Information Age warfare, we must fight as allies to rid our nations from the influence of those who would have us hate each other in order to advance their extremist agenda.
As Americans and Pakistanis learn how modern-day warfare is waged in plain sight—by way of deception—they will see for themselves the source of this treachery. With that knowledge will come the resolve required to prevail. See:
Beliefs: The Power Behind Unending War
Next in the series: The Israel/India Alliance
Pervez Musharraf
Is Israel Pre-Staging War with Iran?
February 27, 2009 by Jeff Gates · 1 Comment
Is Israel Pre-Staging War with Iran?
credited to Savannah Red
Visitors to the Criminal State website know how well-timed crises are deployed by those skilled at displacing facts with what people can be induced to believe. Thus the use of staged crises linked to fixed intelligence as a way to influence decision-makers. That behavior was on display when policy-makers were persuaded to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 9/11—buttressed by an induced belief in Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, mobile biological weapons laboratories, meetings in Prague, and so forth.
Fast-emerging events suggest pre-staging meant to make an attack on Iran appear reasonable, even desirable. Agent provocateur operations require the staging of collateral events to induce the intended main event. Does that suggest the US and the EU should expect another crisis on the scale of 9/11 as a means to catalyze that attack?
Throughout history, dedicated groups have seen their beliefs manipulated to serve the interests of others. Thus the need to consider the possibility that seemingly unrelated incidents are being staged to create a critical mass of opinion in support of war with Iran.
Consider the cumulative impact of incidents over the past 14 months:
• December 2007 saw the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that Bhutto’s return to Pakistan was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.” President Pervez Musharraf had earlier announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was the key to solving conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• During her two terms as prime minister, Bhutto funded the Taliban as a means to wield influence in Afghanistan and catalyze conflicts in Kashmir, fueling tension with India. Meanwhile Israel allied with India and sent an emergency shipment of artillery shells during Islamabad’s armed conflict with New Delhi over the Kirpal region of Kashmir.
• In August 2008, General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Israel to lead an assault on South Ossetia backed with Israeli arms and training. That crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) committed to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.
• The murder of Benazir Bhutto facilitated the replacement of Musharaff with Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s notoriously corrupt husband.
• In late November 2008, a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India’s financial center, renewed fears of nuclear tension between India and Pakistan. When the attackers struck a hostel run by an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from Brooklyn, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced from Tel Aviv: “Our world is under attack.” By early December, Israeli journalists urged that we “fortify the security of Jewish institutions worldwide.”
As “India’s 9/11” was proven to originate from Pakistan’s western tribal region, Zardari announced an agreement with the Taliban to allow Islamic (Sharia) law to govern a large swath of the North West Frontier Province where Al Qaeda leaders have free rein. With anti-Americanism on the rise, Islamabad’s capitulation to Islamic extremists endangered U.S. interests and made U.S. allies more vulnerable, including member countries of the EU.
With the Taliban and Al Qaeda allowed to operate freely in a nuclear-armed nation, Tel Aviv gained traction for its claim that a nuclear Tehran poses an “existential threat.” With the increased political clout gained by a nationalist-religious coalition in Israel’s February 10th elections, any chance of resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict became remote.
That political development is destined to fuel more Islamic extremism and gain more traction for those marketing the “global war on terrorism.” As Tzipi Livni argued in the aftermath of the murderous assault on Mumbai: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.”
In Barack Obama’s first presidential press conference, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas asked which nation in the Middle East has nuclear weapons. Side-stepping any mention of Israel, Obama spoke instead of the need for nuclear non-proliferation. As Islamic extremists were portrayed as gaining access to nuclear weapons, the case for Israeli compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty lost ground. With tensions heightened between a nuclear India and extremist-riddled Pakistan, the case for a global war on “Islamo” fascism gained ground—along with the thematic Clash of Civilizations.
Meanwhile Israel’s brutal incursion into Gaza—staged between Christmas and the Obama inaugural—drew criticism worldwide as Israeli troops killed more than 1,300 Palestinians. Student activists at Hampshire College, a leader in ending apartheid in South Africa, urged the College to divest its interest in companies complicit in Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
Harvard-Zionist law professor Alan Dershowitz portrayed the students as a “rabidly anti-Israel group” and “anti-Semitic.” That same day the Jerusalem Post cited Martin Luther King for the premise that to be “anti-Zionist” is “anti-Semitism.” Those statements followed an announcement that Israel had formed “an army of bloggers” to combat anti-Zionist websites.
Questions that can only be answered by future events include the following:
• Were the murders in Mumbai a form of geopolitical misdirection that served both the tactical goals of the Muslim attackers and the strategic goals of the Jewish state?
• When Bhutto’s murder, Musharraf’s removal, and the attack on Mumbai drew Pakistani forces to the border of India—and away from its western tribal region—did the response to those incidents heighten the risk of nuclear-armed extremism?
• As another extremist government gains influence in Tel Aviv, will these incidents be cited to again postpone settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict?
• Is Israel’s four-decade delay in ending the occupation of Palestine—despite repeated assurances it will do so—part of Tel Aviv’s agent provocateur strategy?
• Was Israel’s preemptive Six-Day War (in 1967) the provocation required to pre-stage the region-wide outrage now directed at the U.S. due to this entangled alliance?
In retrospect, each of these incidents advanced the Zionist state’s expansionist goals for Greater Israel. Is it possible that these murderous events trace their agent provocateur origins to a common source: those marketing the next main event—war with Iran?
Was the public’s intuitive grasp of this recurring behavior accurately reflected in an October 2003 poll of 7,500 people in EU member nations? That 15-country survey found that Israel is viewed EU-wide as the top threat to world peace. Is terrorism a tool limited to Islamo-fascists? Or is it also a means of geopolitical manipulation deployed from the shadows by what Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt described as “Jewish fascists”?
February 18, 2009
