Wise Up Journal
by Gabriel O’Hara
Obama administration including his vice president Joe Biden has been briefed on a new U.S. propaganda report that unambiguously sets up Pakistan as massive terrorist threat greater than the propaganda threat of Iraq. An article from the Guardian below discusses some of the U.S. report that contains a large dose of fearmongering. Extracts from the report follows. When reading the report remember that fearmongering is a crucial support structure of warmongering.
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
US report predicts nuclear or biological attack by 2013
The six-month inquiry singles out Pakistan as one of the likeliest sources of such an attack
A congressional investigation into weapons of mass destruction today offered a chilling prediction of terrorists mounting an attack using biological or nuclear weapons within the next five years.
The six-month inquiry singles out Pakistan as one of the likeliest sources of such an attack. The target could be the US or some other part of the world.
The report, by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, concludes that “unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013”.
It adds that “terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon”.
President George Bush welcomed the report, saying the threat posed was the greatest facing the US and was “dangerously real”. He said that after the 9/11 attacks, he had put in place policies tackling the threat and he was leaving a good foundation for his successor.
The incoming Barack Obama administration, which is to make proliferation of weapons of mass destruction a priority, was briefed on Capitol Hill today about the findings in the 132-page report.
The report concludes the risk from biological or nuclear weapons is higher than sceptical foreign policy and defence analysts have suggested.
It points to Pakistan, both at the state level and among stateless groups, as one of the areas of most concern.
Talent told the press conference in Washington today: “It is the epicentre of a lot of these dangers.” He said the report had been drawn up before the Mumbai attacks.
Fearmongering needed for public support
Knowledge Driven Revolution
What if the legions of experts are just white coated propagandists?
“Atomic and political scientists from Harvard University and MIT meeting in November 1975 concluded that an atomic war will certainly occur before the year 2000. This, they believed, could only be prevented by the decision of all nation-states to surrender their sovereignty to an authoritarian world government, a possibility they viewed as unlikely.” – RIO: Reshaping the International Order, 1976 (p46)
Extracts of the report from the U.S. Government website “Prevent WMD” – Target Pakistan
Pakistan is an ally, but there is a grave danger it could also be an unwitting source of a terrorist attack on the United States—possibly using weapons of mass destruction. The Commission urges the next administration and Congress to pay particular attention to Pakistan, as it is the geographic crossroads for terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.Indeed, the border provinces of Pakistan today are a safe haven, if not the safe haven, for al Qaeda.
Indeed, a 2007 Foreign Policy Magazine poll of 117 nongovernmental terrorism experts found that 74 percent consider Pakistan the country most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists in the next three to ﬁve years. Pakistan is a nuclear-weapon country; it gained this status through the illicit work of a nationalist Islamic scientist, A.Q. Khan. He was the father of Pakistan’s “Islamic bomb” and the purveyor of sensitive nuclear technology across the Middle East and Asia—to Libya, North Korea, and perhaps other countries.
Though most U.S. and Pakistani ofﬁcials assert that these weapons and their components are safe from inside or outside theft, the risk that radical Islamists—al Qaeda or Taliban—may gain access to nuclear material is real. Should the Pakistani government become weaker, and the Pakistani nuclear arsenal grow, that risk will increase. With each new facility, military or civilian, comes added security concerns.
In October 2008, on the heels of the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, China agreed to build two nuclear power plants in Pakistan. This deal—especially if it does not contain mechanisms to prevent nuclear material from being transferred from the new civilian plants to military facilities—signals a nascent nuclear arms race in Asia.
The risk of a WMD attack being planned and executed from Pakistan’s northwest frontier area is growing, as that area continues to function as a safe haven for al Qaeda.
Pakistan has biological research laboratories that pos-sess stocks of dangerous pathogens, some of which may not be adequately secured.
9/11 Commission’s comment that “it is hard to overstate the importance of Pakistan in the struggle against Islamist terrorism” is obvious. The difference today is that the situation is urgent.
Resurrecting Russia as “a global proliferation concern” in the 21st century war of terror
“There can be no coherent, effective security strategy to reduce nuclear dangers that does not take into account Russia — its strengths,weaknesses, aims, and ambitions.” — Senator Sam Nunn
It is safe to say that over the past decade the post-Soviet promise of a democratic Russia has not materialized, and concerns about how Russia is exercising its interests in eastern Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union are increasing.
Russia’s former bioweapons scientists and inadequately secured collections of highly dangerous pathogens remain a global proliferation concern.
Active terrorism/fearmongering of the public is even better to support warmongering and the loss of domestic rights.
ACTION: As a priority of the next administration, the Secretary of Homeland Security should release a set of recommendations on which citizens can act to improve preparedness against potential WMD attacks. Such recommendations could range from following the Red Cross disaster preparedness guidelines to encouraging their workplaces and children’s schools to prepare emergency plans.
citizens might convince a terrorist organization that pursuing such an attack was not worth the effort and thus deter it.
The Department of Homeland Security, through its Ready.gov program, has sought to outline steps that Americans can take to pre-pare for potential attacks. The recommendations to purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape were roundly ridiculed, and in this critical ﬁrst engagement with the public DHS lost credibility.
Now, more than seven years since the 9/11 attacks, the public has also grown complacent. The next administration has a chance to reengage the public in establishing a culture of preparedness. Within the ﬁrst six months, the next Secretary of Homeland Security, building on the wide range of knowledge located in think tanks, state and local governments, universities, and other centers of expertise, should release a set of clear and speciﬁc actions that citizens can take to improve their preparedness for WMD attacks.
Obama’s change of battlefield a change we can believe in because he told us
In this video Barack Obama says: “It’s time for us to withdraw some, ugh, our combat troops out of Iraq and deploy them here in Afghanistan…. The Unites States has to take a regional approach to the problem…. Just as we can’t be myopic and only focus on Iraq we also can’t think that we can solve the security problems here in Afghanistan without engaging the Pakistan government.”