Bilderberg.org

[CJ]

Today, BBC News finally turned the NWO crank handle....they actually started talking about a US strike on Iran....this on the main news. They even mentioned the use of bunker busting bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities buried deep under mountains....under natural convex granite rock formations which are further protected by concrete.

As I`ve pointed out before, the chances of success using a conventional warhead are "slim", so NWO nukes (micro nukes) are on the table. Mr Blair can`t wait, as its likely that UK special forces will be on the ground guiding them in....not much longer Mr Blair, you`ll get your sick-fix soon enough!

[marektysis]

BAd news... going on

As the former russian chief of staff is saying the american operation will take place on Iran with nukes in april, i heard that a third carrier will soon enter the Gulf...
and more...
+++++++++++++++
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17091.htm
Iran - Ready to attack
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
American preparations for invading Iran are complete
By Dan Plesch

02/16/07 "New Statesman" -- - American military operations for a
major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They
extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable
President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic
infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of
anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as
soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this
strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in
fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle
plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation
Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command,
has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran
Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft
carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post
9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's
notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the
USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at
sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore
Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes
hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq.
Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft
carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day
landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands
of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to
destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure
oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since
the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in
the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme
Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima,
are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these
forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with
the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing
villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs
at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No
marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the
navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles.
Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James
Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which
places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American
analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the
possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but
ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least
10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying
from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for
military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According
to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower
of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A
single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300
individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global
positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known
position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed
sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war
comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little
force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done
to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We,
and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the
bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies,
once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some
American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade
journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that
could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its
best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq,
facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it
is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the
temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a
disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired
terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population
opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate
the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is
already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most
intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery
into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy
war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute
have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal
Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been
ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress
of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting
in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to
convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-
rubble Iran.
----------
Dan Plesch is a research associate at the School of Oriental and
African Studies

Believe what you want....
Marek

[CJ]

The Times reports upto five US generals/admirals could resign if Bush attacks Iran. This makes some sort of false flag incident even more likely, an incident which can be traced back and blamed on Iran...will it be in the US, or Europe, maybe the Middle East, maybe all three in the usual standard syncronised NWO-al qaeda style.

[bip bip]

Page 1 of 2
Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains
By M K Bhadrakumar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html

[CJ]

A Senior Iranian military officer has gone missing....did he defect, or was he kidnapped by the NWO??

You may have read it before, but I`m going to bore you again with my theory. Don`t worry, I`ll keep it short.

The NWO expects and has likely calculated that Iran will deploy one or both of their externally aquired nukes on Israel....this being a NWO sacrifice and thus placing Iran and the wider Muslim world in the same guilt ridden rut as Germany and Japan are today.

Tesco heiress Dame Shirley Porter has already fled Isreal for the safety of London`s Mayfair...I wonder why?

In todays Times, I found this interesting article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1495080.ece

As we can see at the very end of this article. Israel`s rich have the opportunity and the "right" to panic build, personal nuclear shelters. But ordinary Israeli`s and the wider world must live with the NWO illusion, that there is no specific nuclear threat to Israel, at the moment....all this, just so the NWO and their media lackies can plaster your minds with "shock and awe" scams, like 9/11 and the Kuwait invasion...."oh dear, oh dear...we didn`t see that one coming...heck, it was just another one of those CIA INTELLIGENCE oversights"!!!

Until the BBC NWO dark forces changed the posting format on the BBC Radio 4 Today message boards, which is now one of TOTAL censorship, this theory had been posted there some two years ago....maybe my theory has now become a talking point in Israel...I do hope so. Being wrong is the best result for me. The cancelling of a NWO scam is what I`m after, second guessing them and getting the theory out early is the only way.

[Maximus]

POLITICS-US:
End of Cowboy Diplomacy, Part II?
Analysis by Jim Lobe
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36873

WASHINGTON, Mar 10 (IPS) - It was just nine months ago when Newsweek spoke for the conventional wisdom at that moment when it pronounced "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy".

The phrase signaled the apparent victory -- at last -- of the State Department-led "realist" wing over hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld in gaining control over the foreign policy of President George W. Bush.

One month later, however, war broke out between Lebanon's Hezbollah and Israel, and the hawks, particularly neo-conservatives around Cheney and Rumsfeld, enjoyed a strong resurgence.

Bush not only spurned the pleas of Washington's European and Arab allies to press the Jewish state for a ceasefire, but his top Middle East aide, Elliott Abrams, reportedly encouraged it to expand the war into Syria, much to the horror of both his State Department colleagues and his Israeli interlocutors.

Now, one Democratic election landslide later -- not to mention Rumsfeld's departure, and the longest-running record of sustained low public approval ratings for any U.S. president in more than 50 years -- conventional wisdom has again concluded that the realists have finally taken the reins of power.

That such an assessment coincided with Tuesday's felony conviction by a jury of Cheney's former chief of staff and the most powerful neo-conservative in Bush's first term, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for lying to federal investigators was probably not entirely coincidental given the "cloud", as chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald described it, that it cast once again over the vice president's office.

That the case -- which, at its heart, involved the lengths to which Cheney's office and the White House went to discredit critics who charged that the administration's hawks had manipulated intelligence to rally the country behind the 2003 Iraq invasion -- seems likely to soon become the subject of Congressional hearings will almost certainly darken that cloud.

Even before Libby's conviction, however, the notion that the realists had finally triumphed was growing here.

"Diplomacy Could Define End of Bush's Terms: Pragmatism Colors Policy, Experts Say," headlined a story last week in USA Today, while on the same day, the New York Times ran an analysis titled "Pragmatism in Diplomacy" about recent moves by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to engage North Korea, Iran and Syria.

"White House Foreign Policy Has Shifted," noted a front-page Los Angeles Times article this week which asserted that recent moves reflect "...the ascendancy of Rice and her State Department team over hawks once led by (Cheney and Rumsfeld)."

"Bush Shows New Willingness to Reverse Course" ran another headline earlier this week in the Washington Post, while one of the newspaper's columnists, David Ignatius, argued that Bush has apparently embraced the recommendations of the bipartisan, realist-led Iraq Study Group (ISG) in a piece titled "After the Rock, Diplomacy". In another column titled "'What has Happened to Dick Cheney"', Jim Hoagland suggested that the vice president has been effectively marginalised by Rice who "has won full agreement and support from the president on strategic goals and methods she and her diplomats are pursuing."

While Hoagland himself indicated that view remains to be confirmed by events, the evidence that power has indeed shifted to the realists has become increasingly persuasive in just the last month, if only because the hawks, such as Cheney favourite and former U.N. Amb. John Bolton and his colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), are expressing growing distress at the changing balance of power.

The most dramatic sign of the realist ascendancy to date was last month's accord between North Korea and the U.S. by which Washington agreed to begin normalising relations and resume the supply of fuel oil in exchange for Pyongyang's shutdown of its plutonium processing plant and the return of international inspectors.

The deal, which resembles a 1994 bilateral accord repudiated by Bush early in his term -- albeit within the framework of a regional agreement involving South Korea, Japan, China and Russia -- marked a sharp reversal of the administration's stance. It was cleared by Bush after a direct appeal from Rice, who reportedly circumvented the normal inter-agency process.

At the same time, the State Department's tacit support for Saudi Arabia's efforts to midwife a Palestinian government of national unity last month in Mecca -- a deal that infuriated the hawks and Abrams, in particular -- has been seen by some analysts here as demonstrating a new flexibility that would have been inconceivable just a few months ago.

But what has gotten the most attention to date was Rice's announcement at the end of last month that Washington will participate in at least two regional meetings convened by the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that will also include Syria and Iran. The first takes place this weekend in Baghdad, and the second, in which Rice herself will take part, early next month either in Istanbul or Cairo.

Her announcement confirmed the growing impression that Rice was indeed trying move the administration toward implementation of the recommendations of the ISG, which was chaired by former secretary of state and neo-conservative nemesis James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group called explicitly for Washington to engage Tehran and Damascus as part of a larger regional strategy that also include a renewed commitment to a credible Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Rice's announcement came while Cheney was out of the country. Significantly, White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted on the day after his return that U.S. participation did not did not constitute any change of policy and that, in any event, "there will not be bilateral talks between the United States and Iran, or the United States and Syria, within the context of these meetings."

But in another demonstration of the State Department's confidence, its spokesmen have been less categorical. While insisting that U.S. officials participating in the meetings will be focused on the main issue -- stabilising Iraq, -- they have also repeatedly refused to rule out talking directly with their Syrian and Iranian counterparts about "related" issues.

Moreover, the presence at these meetings of senior diplomats from the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- to be augmented by the Group of Eight foreign ministers in the second round -- increases the likelihood of broader discussions of the kind advocated by the ISG.

Meanwhile, realists have made other gains, beginning with the replacement of Rumsfeld by Robert Gates, who, until his nomination as defence secretary last November, served on the ISG and is believed to share its conclusions.

Gates and Rice -- and for that matter, the new directors of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Adm. John McConnell and Gen. Michael Hayden, respectively -- served on the National Security Council together under former President George H.W. Bush and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who, even more than Baker, is considered anathema by the neo-conservatives, particularly with respect to Middle East policy.

It has been Gates who, in contrast to Cheney's persistent mutterings that "all options are on the table", has been most insistent in recent weeks that Washington has no plans to attack Iran despite its big military build-up in the Gulf. In taking this stance, Gates is reportedly reflecting the views of the military brass, who, freed from Rumsfeld's bullying and contempt, have reportedly become far more outspoken in internal discussions about their opposition to any new military actions so long as U.S. forces remain bogged down in Iraq.

A report in the National Journal Friday that Gates is also moving to curb the ability of U.S. Special Forces to conduct covert operations in foreign countries, such as Iran, without Congressional oversight or CIA direction and to "dismantle" some of the intelligence programmes that helped pave the way to war in Iraq suggests that he is taking independent action to roll back some of Rumsfeld's most controversial innovations.

"Bob Gates is about to shut down a significant chunk of Vice President Cheney's intelligence eyes and ears -- and to some degree, an inappropriate ability to help drive covert actions," according to Steven Clemons, director of the American Strategy programme at the New America Foundation (NAF) here.

But while the realists are clearly ascendant, they are not yet dominant, particularly with respect to Middle East policy where they remain hostage to events in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and the occupied territories -- and to potential provocateurs -- that in many ways are increasingly beyond their control.

Cheney, whose office remains a neo-conservative stronghold, retains considerable influence, particularly in its coordination with like-minded colleagues in the White House on the National Security Council staff, notably Abrams and others in the Middle East bureau, and deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch.

And a big question lingers over Rice's own willingness to take risks in pursuing the realist agenda, and the ISG recommendations, in particular. Some observers note that she has been very careful to permit other actors -- Saudi Arabia and the Europeans in the case of both the Palestinians and Syria, the Iraqi government in the case of Iran -- to take the diplomatic lead, leaving her less vulnerable to attacks by the hawks.

"She understands that she has a very short leash," said Joshua Landis, a Levant expert at Oklahoma University. "She knows she can't get too far off the reservation."

Thus, while she replaced a neo-conservative hawk, Robert Joseph, with a realist in the key position of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, she also appointed Eliot Cohen, a dyed-in-the-wool neo-conservative who is considered close to both Abrams and Cheney, to a top advisory post, State Department Counselor. "It's always two steps forward, one step back with her," said one observer.

An even bigger question looms over Bush himself. While he has clearly given Rice a lot more room to manoeuvre than her predecessor Colin Powell could ever have imagined, particularly with respect to North Korea, his own views, especially on the Middle East, remain a subject of unceasing speculation among the capital's cogniscenti, hawks and realists alike.

Just last week, for example, he hosted a "literary luncheon" in honour of Andrew Roberts, author of "History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900". In a recent interview, Roberts called on Bush to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan "for as long as it takes to achieve complete and final victory over Radical Islam... (and) not be afraid of threatening to widen the struggle to include foreign countries that aid and abet the insurgents (there)."

Other guests in attendance included some of the country's most hawkish neo-conservatives, such as Norman Podhoretz; Paul Gigot, the editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page; and AEI fellow Michael Novak.

"Roberts said that history would judge the president on whether he had prevented the nuclearisation of the Middle East," wrote Irwin Stelzer, another prominent neo-conservative, in The Weekly Standard.

As noted by the Financial Times in an article entitled "Four Years of Turmoil Put Pragmatists in Driving Seat" this week, the Eurasia Group, a consultancy firm, has advised its clients that it rates the chances of a U.S. and/or Israeli military attack on Iran before September 2008 at 60 percent. (END/2007)


Send your comments to the editor

[CJ]

Hi people, I have come across strong indications that big geopolitical things are going to happen soon. There is a very strong possibility that private military operations are in there final stages. Its not clear where these operations will take place. But Iran, Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe are high on the list. We could also include Russia.

One must remember that most private security companies operate at the corporate level, this being a cover for many of the killers in Iraq acting under Chaney`s orders.

As posted before, the US/NWO needs an ignition event of quite large proportions to justify a strike/invasion against Iran. I`m well aware that my aquiring of this information, might not be by chance and therefore could place me at risk by disclosing...disclosing by their design. To make it clear, I`m talking about people who MAKE THINGS HAPPEN, they never find a closed door, apart from the one`s they blow up....we wait and see.

[CJ]

In this paragraph, I point out that Russian support could be a ploy to make Iran feel over confident, and certainly this has been the case so far.

New reports suggest that Russian is with holding fuel for Iran`s Russian built nuclear reactor. Other reports claim that Russian nuclear technical support has been retracted!!

From which perspective should we view this situation?

Is this a genuine attempt by Russian to aid the NWO in its attempt to stop Iran`s nuclear program? If this were the case, wouldn`t this not represent a staggering u-turn in Russian policy? So I think not.

Russia could be pushing the Iranians away with one hand and pulling the NWO in with the other. This isolation could make Iran more likely to respond to extrenal attacks. Remember, the Jewish elite has been bending backwards to wrest power away from Putin and the Israeli state has been very busy limiting Russian influence in the region. Such as the assassination of Rafik Hariri with a micro nuke . This forcing the Syrians out of Lebanon.

If we believe the premise that Putin is operating outside the NWO, then Russia would welcome a NWO war against Iran and If I`m right, Iran will strike Israel...maybe with a nuke....game on!!

[CJ]

I don`t normally read The Sun newspaper...but with people visiting, a copy was left. A quick flik through and what did I find on page 17...

..."Beach Landing, Hurcules parks by Devon hotel"...to be exact Saunton Sands. Is this just normal practice, or are these crews gettting ready for Iran?

"The pictures were grabbed by former RAF officer Mark Fowler, 41, who was given SPECIAL permission to take them" (I`m sure he was).

So why was "Mark Fowler" given "special permission" to photograph an RAF Hucules landing on a "PUBLIC" beach?

Is this going to be a retrospective after some great mission, or war....are the SAS going to rescue the 15 sailors? Of course this is unlikely, but its a great laff toying with concepts...we wait and see!

[CJ]

http://www.rense.com/general75/bite.htm

I like the bit towards the end "smaller tactical nukes".....a tactical nuke is a tactical nuke....big enough to make a big mess, or by "smaller" do they mean "micro nuke"....about the size of a pack of fags...like those used on 9/11, Bali, Taba and the two in Jackarta (not a limited list).

The quoted General is real, but this leak could still be part of the posturing process. But as a lot of you know. I have been hankering for an Easter attack. This prediction sets out a limited strike and mentions hitting the political struture....

....is this enough to make the Iranians hit Israel with their two nukes....isn`t our modern desperate world interesting.

I have no doubt that members of the 15 strong search party have GPS kit in their bodies.....and the SAS will perform a daring raid & rescue during the US strike....oh dear, is this Blair`s LEGACY?

Just covering all the bases.

[CJ]

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6258

Much of whats in the link above is old hat...mind you, this Russian designed and built "Sunburn" weapon is in a class of its own!!

The real reason why I`m so interested in this article, is the fact that its been published by Bloomberg and Mr Bloomberg is the mayor of New York and this happens to be a major center of elite Jewish power...

...please, please, no anti-semitic lables....I`m the one warning of a potential nuclear strike on Isreal.

Its the timing of this articles publication which is most interesting, when Gulf tensions are so high.

The sacrifice of an aging US nuclear carrier, which would cost a fortune to decommission....is this a decoy, or, are we running stright and true?

[rothschild desmarais]

Iranians are starting process to rationalize oil consumption.
For now, 40% of consumption needs to be bought on the market at 5 times the price locals pay.

The focus is now on smart cards, which would ration subsidised petrol to a few litres a week, with excess conmuption being paid at the cost of exports.

The rise expected in subsidised oil is not enough to slow excessive consumption, some economist say (the economist p.53, march 24 2007).

This could be an indication that markets are leaving iran to nato operatives.

Unless iran government does this last pragmatic step, they won't receive the backing they need to stop the invasion. So they might decide to nuke israel as a defensive step.

The inflation they don't tackle is leaving the regions much fragile, i like the idea of smart cards..but what else they should do?
_________________
If you want doha, you've got to give us tobin.

L'état devrait s'occuper d'aider les petites entreprises et le programme d'éducation des petites villes.

[Gambles]

check this article out


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55132

[rothschild desmarais]

For iran i would rather look at aggreement made with saudi arabia, turkey or pakistan. I'd say the lawyers revolt in pakistan, the no-warrant law enacted by mubarrak again and the address by turkish prime minister about iraki-kurdish not to get involved in kurdisho-turk politics.

Not to forget russian stopping the development of bushehr.

The main creditors still are chinese central bankers.

They need US consumption for a little more time, and when they won't need them..well the energy and food high price we live with, will be less of a problem.

For the subprime mortgage, underwriting software companies like mindbox, metavante, mortgage cadence and overture technologies are all in the process of improving, which could create safer markets to pay for the bankrupcies of individual investors who invested in subprime securities. Spain, england and island are all in a housing bubble but more prone to crash in 1 years, so they could prevent these from crashing and at the same time find investors a place more mature for them.
_________________
If you want doha, you've got to give us tobin.

L'état devrait s'occuper d'aider les petites entreprises et le programme d'éducation des petites villes.

[rothschild desmarais]

here's some views by bilderbergers about pakistan-afghanistan inter-ethnic war and islamism role in pushtunwali territories.

A less obscure struggle was launched in Islamabad on April 6th by a mullah named Abdul Aziz. He gave the government a month to close the capital's brothels and music shops, and tear down advertisements depicting women. He also declared sharia law within the high walls of his mosque and the adjoining madrassa. If the government were to respond with force, he promised it suicide-bombings. After hearing this sermon, Mr Aziz's followers, allegedly more than 10,000 bearded males and burqa-clad females, set fire in the street to a pyre of music videos and CDs extracted from local traders. The mosque, Lal Masjid, on the roof of which these young zealots can be seen practising martial moves with staves, is barely a mile from Pakistan's supreme court, parliament building and the headquarters of the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI).

In south waziristan, the fighting may signal a definitive end to the army's own effort to purge the foreign militants. It has deployed 80,000 troops to the tribal areas, of whom some 700 have been killed. Seen locally as an invading army, this has inspired fanatical resistance, undermined the civil administration in Waziristan, and helped spread Taliban rule outside the tribal areas and into the NWFP itself. In the districts of Tank and Bannu, police posts have been abandoned and barbers sent packing. In another district, Malakand, a militant leader named Fazalullah, the son-in-law of a chieftain who sent thousands to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban against America and its allies in 2001, is reported to be wandering on horseback, delivering Taliban edicts through a megaphone.

Pakistan's normal writ does not extend to these areas; neither do its benefits. They are governed according to a British colonial model by a powerful bureaucrat called the political agent, who reports to the president. Acting through local elders, called maliks, the agent's single main charge is to keep the tribes in check. To that end, he can levy harsh collective punishments, such as demolishing houses or imprisoning women and children. Wazirs call these powers the “black laws”.

So long as they do not upset the political agent, the tribes have been left to rule themselves—through jirgas, tribal councils, or, when they feel threatened and their jihadist blood is up, sharia courts. They are probably the most neglected Pakistanis. Waziristan has one hospital bed per 6,000 inhabitants, and a literacy rate of around 10%. More than 80% of males are educated in madrassas and girls not at all. Since 1997, residents of the tribal areas have been permitted to vote, but political parties may not campaign among them. Small wonder if they feel ambivalent towards Pakistan.

The foreigners fighting in Waziristan are mostly Uzbeks, mainly from a hapless militant group, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was chased into Afghanistan in the late 1990s. Among them is said to be a handful of Uighurs from Xinjiang in China and Chechens—allegedly including the staff of the Chechen embassy to Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The latest fighting involving the Uzbeks is in part a product of this feuding. Two of the five commanders, who are all from the Wazir Yargulkhel tribe, have fought alongside the Uzbeks. They include Haji Omar, who until recently was considered Nek Muhammad's anointed successor. According to Brigadier Mahmood Shah, the army officer who drafted the deal with Nek Muhammad, Haji Omar's main weakness is a certain irascibility caused by a Soviet bullet lodged in his brain. This makes him a “wonky sort of chap”. The rival side, including most of the Yargulkhel, is led by another Taliban commander named Muhammad Nazir. By kicking out the foreigners, Mr Nazir plainly hopes to emerge as Nek Muhammad's unrivalled successor.

It would not be surprising if, as the government claims, Mr Nazir's campaign is popular. Wazirs are a xenophobic and conservative bunch. They are scandalised by some of their Uzbek guests, who drink alcohol, poach women, survive on banditry and are said to be loth to wage jihad in Afghanistan. The Uzbeks are also accused of the murder of 180 maliks in South Waziristan, which was the final blow for the local administration.

several top-level Afghan Taliban, including a son of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a noted outlaw, are reported to have tried and failed to arrange a truce in South Waziristan. But it is also possible that America, which covers the cost of Pakistan's operations in the tribal areas, has in fact been paying for Mr Nazir's Taliban to kill Uzbek militants because of their reluctance to kill American troops.

Last year, moreover, a committee of Pushtun grandees—retired civil servants, judges and so forth—was told to find out what the tribals wanted. After holding jirgas across the tribal areas, these wise men reported that they wanted the black laws repealed, gradual recourse to the laws of the state and the same freedoms as other Pakistanis

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9008911
_________________
If you want doha, you've got to give us tobin.

L'état devrait s'occuper d'aider les petites entreprises et le programme d'éducation des petites villes.