Israeli-Indian alliance to take out Pakistani nuclear program goes back to 1982

By Wayne Madsen, Online Journal Contributing Writer

Amid the current propaganda blitz launched by the neocon Rupert Murdoch-owned Sky News and Wall Street Journal to hype an alleged Pakistan-based plot to launch Mumbai-style terrorist commando raids on targets in France, Germany, and Britain, WMR has discovered a CIA document from 1982 that warns of a joint Israeli-Indian operation to take out Pakistan's nuclear facilities.

France staged dubious evacuations of the Eiffel Tower and St. Michel and St. Lazare train stations in Paris, citing the “terrorist” threat from Pakistan. The Wall Street Journal, which, according to sources familiar with the management of the paper, maintains hiring practices that gives a preference to Jewish editors and reporters over non-Jews, reported that the CIA launched drone attacks in Pakistan in response to the spurious claims about imminent terror attacks in Europe planned in Pakistan.

The drone attacks in Pakistan come at the same time that the Pakistani military is pressuring the government in Islamabad to re-organize, a move that could lead to more strife and dissension in the country.

The Sky News report stated the attacks in Europe were being planned by “Al Qaeda” in Pakistan and it cited “unnamed counterterrorism and intelligence sources in Western governments” as its sources.

Clearly, the joint Israeli-Indian plan to militarily take out Pakistan's nuclear potential in 1982 has given way to a tripartite alliance of the CIA, Mossad, and the Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) to destabilize Pakistan to the point that it is declared a “failed” or “failing” state, leading to a joint U.S.-Israeli-Indian operation to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons and other nuclear materials.

The 1982 memo that predicted a joint Israeli-Indian military attack on Pakistan's nuclear facilities was sent from Hans Heymann, Jr., national intelligence officer at Large, to Harry S. Rowen, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The memo, dated December 22, 1982, and formerly classified Secret, listed two “Possible Future Contngencies,” the first stating: “Key Pakistani facilities are destroyed by Indian and/or Israeli attack. What political and military consequences would ensue for Indian relations with Islamic countries, the USSR, China, and the US?” Heymann was a former Soviet economic specialist for the Rand Corporation. Rowen ultimately went on to become a professor at the Hoover Institution and Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University. Rowen was also a colleague of neocon policy guru Albert Wohlstetter and Pentagon in situ neocon and agent-of-influence for Israel, Andy Marshall. .

~ more... ~

Global Strike command reaches full operational capability

Officials declared Air Force Global Strike Command to be at full operational capability Sept. 30, on schedule, and less than 14 months after its initial activation as a command.

To reach that milestone, the command accomplished more than 700 action items identified by the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force in 2009, when they chartered Global Strike Command to strengthen the nuclear enterprise by aligning all Air Force long-range nuclear-capable forces under a single command.

Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, the Global Strike Command commander, reported full operational capability status in a memorandum to the secretary and the chief of staff of the Air Force today.

Full operational capability status is the final step in any military unit's stand up. Air Force Global Strike Command is the first completely new major command the Air Force has activated in more than 27 years.

"Our successful stand up was possible because of the commitment, innovative spirit, and sheer hard work of Global Strike Command Airmen," General Klotz said.

"This talented team of professionals put in place all the functions of a major command while simultaneously executing those functions," he said. "This unique challenge was a lot like building an aircraft while actually flying it."

~ more... ~

Organizations as Breeding Grounds for Incompetence

From The 2010 Ig Nobel Prize Winners:

MANAGEMENT PRIZE: Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy, for demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random.
REFERENCE: “The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study,” Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo, Physica A, vol. 389, no. 3, February 2010, pp. 467-72.
WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo.


From The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study
Authors: Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, Cesare Garofalo
(Submitted on 2 Jul 2009 (v1), last revised 29 Oct 2009 (this version, v3))

Abstract: In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be summarized as follows: {\it 'Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence'}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level, usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence.

~ more... ~

People & Power - White Power USA

People & Power looks at America's neo-Nazis. Is the US heading toward a future of greater diversity and racial tolerance, or of racially-motivated violence and separation?

The Robot - Endhiran Official Exclusive Trailer

ASHATH PRODUCTIONZ:

Endhiran Official Exclusive Trailer [HD] (2 mins 40 secs)

Endhiran (Tamil: எந்திரன்) is a forthcoming Tamil science fiction film directed by S. Shankar. The film features Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai in the lead roles with A. R. Rahman working on background score and soundtrack. Produced by Kalanidhi Maran, the film is expected to be a multiple-record breaker: it is currently being made on the highest ever film budget in Indian cinema and is also confirmed to see the largest film release in the world.

Directed by S. Shankar
Produced by Kalanidhi Maran
Hansraj Saxena
Written by S. Shankar
V. Balakumaran
Sujatha Rangarajan
Starring Rajinikanth
Aishwarya Rai
Danny Denzongpa
Music by A. R. Rahman
Cinematography R. Rathnavelu
Editing by Anthony Gonsalves
Studio Sun Pictures
Distributed by Sun Pictures
HBO Films
Release date(s) 3 September 2010
Country India
Language Tamil
Budget Rs. 190 crores

ASHATH PRODUCTIONZ

Beyond Voting

THE LIMITS OF ELECTORAL POLITICS

Roughly speaking we can distinguish five degrees of “government”:

        (1) Unrestricted freedom
        (2) Direct democracy
        (3) Delegate democracy
        (4) Representative democracy
        (5) Overt minority dictatorship

The present society oscillates between (4) and (5), i.e. between overt minority rule and covert minority rule camouflaged by a facade of token
democracy. A liberated society would eliminate (4) and (5) and would progressively reduce the need for (2) and (3). . . .

In representative democracy people abdicate their power to elected officials. The candidates' stated policies are limited to a few vague generalities, and once they are elected there is little control over their actual decisions on hundreds of issues — apart from the feeble threat of changing one's vote, a few years later, to some equally uncontrollable rival politician. Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for bribes and campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of the mass media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are almost as ignorant and powerless as the general public regarding many important matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and independent secret agencies. Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the real rulers in “democratic” regimes, the tiny minority who own or control virtually everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people don't even know who they are. . . .

In itself, voting is of no great significance one way or the other (those who make a big deal about refusing to vote are only revealing their own fetishism). The problem is that it tends to lull people into relying on others to act for them, distracting them from more significant possibilities. A few people who take some creative initiative (think of the first civil rights sit-ins) may ultimately have a far greater effect than if they had put their energy into campaigning for lesser-evil politicians. At best, legislators rarely do more than what they have been forced to do by popular movements. A conservative regime under pressure from independent radical movements often concedes more than a liberal regime that knows it can count on radical support. (The Vietnam war, for example, was not ended by electing antiwar politicians, but because there was so much pressure from so many different directions that the prowar president Nixon was forced to withdraw.) If people invariably rally to lesser evils, all the rulers have to do in any situation that threatens their power is to conjure up a threat of some greater evil.

Even in the rare case when a “radical” politician has a realistic chance of winning an election, all the tedious campaign efforts of thousands of people may go down the drain in one day because of some trivial scandal discovered in his (or her) personal life, or because he inadvertently says something intelligent. If he manages to avoid these pitfalls and it looks like he might win, he tends to evade controversial issues for fear of antagonizing swing voters. If he actually gets elected he is almost never in a position to implement the reforms he has promised, except perhaps after years of wheeling and dealing with his new colleagues; which gives him a good excuse to see his first priority as making whatever compromises are necessary to keep himself in office indefinitely. Hobnobbing with the rich and powerful, he develops new interests and new tastes, which he justifies by telling himself that he deserves a few perks after all his years of working for good causes. Worst of all, if he does eventually manage to get a few “progressive” measures passed, this exceptional and usually trivial success is held up as evidence of the value of relying on electoral politics, luring many more people into wasting their energy on similar campaigns to come.

As one of the May 1968 graffiti put it, “It's painful to submit to our bosses; it's even more stupid to choose them!”

[Excerpts from Ken Knabb's The Joy of Revolution]


SOME CLARIFICATIONS (2008 version)

My intention in circulating these observations is not to discourage you from voting or campaigning, but to encourage you to go further.

Like many other people, I am delighted to see the Republicans collapsing into well-deserved ignominy, with the likelihood of the Democrats recapturing the presidency and increasing their majorities in Congress. Hopefully the latter will discontinue or at least mitigate some of the more insane policies of the current administration (some of which, such as climate change and ecological devastation, threaten to become irreversible).

Beyond that, I do not expect the Democratic politicians to accomplish anything very significant. Most of them are just as corrupt and compromised as the Republicans. Even if a few of them are honest and well-intentioned, they are all loyal servants of the ruling economic system, and they all ultimately function as cogwheels in the murderous political machine that serves to defend that system.

I have considerable respect and sympathy for the people who are campaigning for the Democratic Party while simultaneously trying to reinvigorate it and democratize it. There are elements of a real grassroots movement there, developing in tandem with the remarkable growth of the liberal-radical blogosphere over the last few years.

But imagine if that same immense amount of energy on the part of millions of people was put into more directly radical agitation, rather than (or in addition to) campaigning for rival millionaires. As a side effect, such agitation would put the reactionaries on the defensive and actually result in more “progressives” being elected. But more importantly, it would shift both the momentum and the terrain of the struggle.

If you put all your energy into trying to reassure swing voters that your candidate is “fully committed to fighting the War on Terror” but that he has regretfully concluded that we should withdraw from Iraq because “our efforts to promote democracy” there haven't been working, you may win a few votes but you have accomplished nothing in the way of political awareness.

In contrast, if you convince people that the war in Iraq is both evil and stupid, they will not only tend to vote for antiwar candidates, they are likely to start questioning other aspects of the social system. Which may lead to them to challenge that system in more concrete and participatory ways.

(If you want some examples, look at the rich variety of tactics used in France two years ago.)

The side that takes the initiative usually wins because it defines the terms of the struggle. If we accept the system's own terms and confine ourselves to defensively reacting to each new mess produced by it, we will never overcome it. We have to keep resisting particular evils, but we also have to recognize that the system will keep generating new evils until we put an end to it.

By all means vote if you feel like it. But don't stop there. Real social change requires participation, not representation.

BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
October 2008

 
SOME CLARIFICATIONS (2010 version)

My intention in circulating these observations is not to discourage you from voting or campaigning, but to encourage you to go further.

Two years ago, I wrote:

    Like many other people, I am delighted to see the Republicans collapsing into well-deserved ignominy, with the likelihood of the Democrats recapturing the presidency and increasing their majorities in Congress. Hopefully the latter will discontinue or at least mitigate some of the more insane policies of the current administration (some of which, such as climate change and ecological devastation, threaten to become irreversible). Beyond that, I do not expect the Democratic politicians to accomplish anything very significant. Most of them are just as corrupt and compromised as the Republicans. Even if a few of them are honest and well-intentioned, they are all loyal servants of the ruling economic system, and they all ultimately function as cogwheels in the murderous political machine that serves to defend that system.

I don't think I need to take back any of my words. The Democrats did indeed recapture the presidency and increase their majorities in Congress, but their accomplishments since then have been as pathetic as could be imagined. Some people will say that they are still better than the Republicans. But being better than a party of sociopathic demagogues and gullible ignoramuses is hardly much of an achievement. And being so lame that you risk getting defeated by such a party is an achievement of a wholly different order.

During the last two years we have seen the consequences of relying on political representatives to act for us. If the antiwar movement and other more or less progressive currents had put even a fraction of the immense amount of time and energy they invested in election campaigns into more directly radical agitation, the situation would be very different today. As a side effect, such agitation would actually have resulted in more liberals being elected. But more importantly, it would have shifted the momentum and the terrain of the struggle. The liberal politicians would have been under pressure to actually implement some significant changes (such as ending the wars and inaugurating free universal health care), which would have invigorated their base while putting the reactionary forces increasingly on the defensive. And that momentum shift might well have inspired even more radical actions and aspirations — not just protesting against this or that particular outrage, but calling into question the whole absurd and anachronistic social system.

The side that takes the initiative usually wins because it defines the terms of the struggle. If we accept the system's own terms and confine ourselves to defensively reacting to each new mess produced by it, we will never overcome it. We have to keep resisting particular evils, but we also have to recognize that the system will keep generating new evils until we put an end to it.

By all means vote if you feel like it. But don't stop there. Real social change requires participation, not representation.

BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
October 2010

~ BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS ~

We No Speak Americano ft. Cleary & Harding

Performed and choreographed by Suzanne Cleary & Peter Harding
Film by Jonny Reed
Music: Yolanda Be Cool & D Cup ft. Cleary & Harding