Many years into the so called "War Against Terror", Pakistan has by now become quite used to threats. Pakistan has got the capability by now to differentiate between a THREAT and a bluff. These threats and bluffs started right from the independence of this state when Nehru threatened Pakistan on 14th August, 1947. Some people are of the opinion that Shaheed-e-Millat Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated due to his working on a plan for a confederation with Afghanistan. Later on, Kruschev (Russia) threatened Islamabad of severe consequences if the United States of Zionism's headquarter near Peshawar was not removed immediately. It was threatened by President Johnson when General Ayyub Khan closed down the U.S.Z base. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger threatened Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for pursuing a Nuclear Program. Pervez Musharraf was threatened with being “bombed to the stone age” if the Pakistan Government didn't accept the seven points. Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan with deadly consequences without clarifying what that threat meant. Now there are revelations (from not very reliable Indian sources) that the United States of Zionism wants to bomb 150 sites in Pakistan. Still they wonder, why there is ANTI-AMERICANISM in Pakistan. They have been spending billions of dollars on their mindless gigantic media drones named GEO, EXPRESS, SAMAA, ARY, INDUS, HUM and more to "help reconstruct good image of the American Nation amongst Pakistanis" but to no avail.
Undoubtedly, the White House will never take responsibility of these threats however the latest "hot pursuit" strikes by NATO this week have given a new meaning to these threats.
“The Obama administration has always been clear that the path to winning the war in Afghanistan goes through Pakistan. But if Bob Woodward’s new book is accurate, the White House considers its war effort much more dependent on the success and survival of Pakistan’s civilian government than was previously known".
Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy Magazine discusses the Obama tilt towards Pakistan.
Bob Woodward’s market jittering book entitled “Obama’s Wars” sheds new light on the Zionist Puppet Obama's administration’s vast outreach to the Pakistani civilian government led by Puppet Asif Ali Zardari. It paints a picture of an administration working hard to court the Pakistanis while remaining somewhat confused about Pakistani thinking on a range of issues.
|Obama Wars by Bob WoodWard|
One of the more interesting details in the advanced reports of Bob Woodward’s “Obama’s Wars” is that Washington had prepared a “retribution plan” in the event of a major attack on the United States which is traced back to Pakistan.
- “Some locations might be outdated, but there would be no concern, under the plan, for who might be living there now. The retribution plan called for a brutal punishing attack on at least 150 or more associated camps”
- The United States has a secret “retribution” plan to bomb more than 150 terror camps in Pakistan in the event of another major terrorist attack originating from that country.
This shocking disclosure about the "All bets off" policy of the Globalist Cartel sitting in Washington, towards an ostensibly dubious ally in the war on terror is contained in Bob Woodward’s opus ”Obama’s Wars” which details an evolving U.S.Z approach in the region.
The plan pre-dates the new Puppet Obama's presidency, going back to the old Puppet Bush's White House, but elements of policy, aimed at wiping out terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, is evident in the current administration’s ruthless bombing by unmanned drones of the so called "terrorist targets" inside Pakistan, which far surpasses the Bush approach in terms of frequency and intensity.
|The Bomber Drone on Kabul Airport|
The U.S.Z threat also puts in great context, the secretary of state Hillary Clinton's dire warning to Islamabad earlier this year that there would be severe consequences for Pakistan if another 9/11-type attack were traced back to that country.
|The Dragon Surveillance Drone is being used to intercept satellite communication phones used by Talibans|
According to Woodward:
Then President Bush did not see much difference between 9/11 and 26/11; a foundation of his presidency was zero tolerance for terrorists and their enablers and he was extremely proud of the hard-line doctrine.
Although plans for punitive strikes against Pakistan was initially linked to another 9/11 type attack on U.S, it evidently evolved after the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, when Bush asked his aides for contingency plans for dealing with Pakistan.
He called his national security team into the Oval Office and told his advisers, “You guys get planning and do what you have to do to prevent a war between Pakistan and India.” The order suggests that the U.S would undertake the bombing to prevent India from retaliating against Pakistan leading possibly to an all-out war.
“This is like 9/11, he (Bush) said, The United States military did not have “war” plans for an invasion of Pakistan. Instead, it had and continues to have one of the most sensitive and secret of all military contingencies, what military officials call a “retribution plan” in the event of another 9/11-like attack.”
In fact, such is the anger within the United States administration about Pakistan’s cunning and double-faced approach that the plan calls for a no-holds-barred approach. “Some locations might be outdated, but there would be no concern, under the plan, for who might be living there now. The retribution plan called for a brutal punishing attack on at least 150 or more associated camps”.
So how did Pakistan escape the wrath of U.S.Z’s “zero tolerance” policy? According to Woodward:
CIA intelligence with 48 hours of the attack showed no direct ISI link. Bush himself called Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to tell him that the new Pakistani government was not involved in the attack.
But the CIA later received reliable intelligence that the ISI was directly involved in the training for Mumbai. ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha flew to Washington later to admit that at least two retired Pakistani army officers who planned the Mumbai attack had ISI links “but this had not been an authorized ISI operation. It was rogue.”
“There may have been people associated with my organization who were associated with this,” Pasha argued. “That’s different from authority, direction and control.”
Obama Presidency’s evolving Af-Pak doctrine that is more Pak than Af.
In an ABC interview available on youtube, Woodward described how Obama was told of deep problems in the U.S.Z relationship with Pakistan at his very first intelligence briefing, likening it to a “cold shower” for the President coming just two days after his 2008 presidential victory.
Woodward writes further:
“Imagine the high of being elected on that Tuesday and they come in two days later and say, by the way, here are the secrets, and one of the secrets is Pakistan. We’re attacking with a top-secret, covert operation, the safe havens in Pakistan, but Pakistan is living a lie. And this is a theme throughout the whole Obama presidency: ‘How do you get control of Pakistan?’ “
Not very long after that, in an Oval Office meeting with Pakistan’s Puppet President Asif Ali Zardari, Obama bluntly tells him that his country has to get over its obsession with India. “We do not begrudge you being concerned about India”, Obama tells Zardari, "but we do not want to be part of arming you (Pakistan) against India, so let me be very clear about that.”
From all accounts, Puppet Zardari’s attempt to change Pakistan’s chronic pathology towards India has been thwarted by the country’s military.
Times of India.
Undoubtedly everyone remembers former Puppet Pervez Musharraf’s comment that Washington had threatened to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age if he did not cooperate after 9/11. But bombing a nuclear-armed country into a state of chaos, or indeed attempting to invade it, are unlikely policy options for the Neocon Zionists as they try to extract themselves from two unpopular wars while also fretting about neighbouring Iran’s own nuclear ambitions. Yet bombing "suspected al Qaeda camps" in the tribal belt could simply increase instability with further increased militancy. So where does that leave the United States of Zionism and its “retribution plan”? Where are the red lines that would demand an immediate and powerful U.S.Z reaction? Would it depend on the size of the attack, the intensity of public reaction, or electoral imperatives at the time? Does anyone know? Does Pakistan?
Josh Rogin describes the U.S.Z policy very differently than what the TOI reports said.
“According to Woodward’s account, the centrality of Pakistan was championed early on by Bruce Riedel, the Brookings scholar who was brought on as a key figure in the Obama administration’s March 2009 Afghanistan strategy review.”
“Obama, however, opted to pursue a less confrontational path. He concluded the central task would be convincing the Pakistani leadership to throw its lot in with the United States He said at the time of the initial strategy review in March 2009, “that we had to have a serious heart-to-heart with Pakistani civilian, military and intelligence leaders.”
Later that year, when making the decision to send an additional 30,000 “surge” troops to Afghanistan, The globalists sitting in Neocon knew that their plans to also expand the U.S.Z military presence in Pakistan and widen drone strikes would be a hard sell to the Pakistan's real decision making powers, keeping aside the Puppet Zardari and the Thief Ministers. In an attempt to sweeten the deal, the Puppet Obama framed the policy as a new “strategic partnership” with Pakistan, even tying the success of the U.S.Z mission in Afghanistan to the survival of the Puppet Zardari and the legacy of his deceased wife Benazir Bhutto.
Obama wrote in a letter to Zardari delivered by National Security Advisor Jim Jones and counter terrorism adviser John Brennan:
“I know that I am speaking to you on a personal level when I say that my commitment to ending the ability of these groups to strike at our families is as much about my family’s security as it is about yours”
Not very long ago, the Puppet Zardari was forced to tell the former U.S.Z Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad that he believed the United States of Zionism was involved in orchestrating attacks by the Pakistani Taliban against the Pakistani civilian government.
When Woodward sat down for his interview with Obama earlier this year, he asked the Zionist puppet if the situation was still that Pakistan is the centerpiece of the U.S.Z strategy. “It continues to this day”, Obama replied.
Bombing 150 sites in Pakistan would face colossal retribution towards the U.S.Z. Here are some possible scenarios.
- Pakistan would immediately terminate the NATO supply routes choking the war in Afghanistan.
- All overflights of U.S.Z planes and drones would be stopped.
- The U.S.Z would be evicted from the air bases on Pakistani territory.
- The Civilian Puppet Government that resists a forceful response to the U.S.Z would not be able to stand.
- Without a reasonable supply route, the U.S.Z would then have to end the war in Afghanistan.
- Pakistan would possibly end cooperation in the “War on Terror”.
- In the worst case scenario, the U.S.Z bases in the vicinity could be targeted (My personal favourite)
|Pakistan Army - Enemy's worst nightmare|
Pakistan Cyber Force