Home

A federally-registered independent political party

Follow the CEC on Facebook Follow @cecaustralia on Twitter Follow the CEC on Google +


Follow the CEC on Soundcloud












A Brief Report on Pakistani-British Terrorism

December 10, 2008 (LPAC)--Certain U.S. institutions recognize that Lyndon LaRouche's role is critical to being able to flank a British war drive to turn the Mumbai atrocities into another India-Pakistan war. Only LaRouche is leading the way in identifying the Anglo-Saudi-MI6 operation as primary, rather than Pakistan as such. The report which follows was volunteered by an EIR source, in order to help LaRouche in this all-important effort.

The Pakistan ISI includes all its so-called former leaders, along with the current official leadership, an extended group well-financed by Saudi charity money, and also by the drug and smuggling trade; it's a massive “asteroid-field” operation.

How did we get to this point?

In the Afghanistan Mujaheddin war of the 1980s, British MI-6 and U.S. Intelligence designated the ISI as the go-between for a proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and, $2 billion, $1 billion each from the Saudis and from the US, was sent to Pakistan to recruit the jihadi fighters for Afghanistan. Abdullah Gul was part of that process.

The earlier history was also important. Zia ul-Haq, one of the worst leaders to take power in Pakistan, took leadership in 1977. Massively pushing the sort of fundamentalism which linked directly to the most extremist of the Saudis, his hanging of Pakistan's nationalist modernizing former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto destroyed Pakistan's ability to emerge from virtually medieval, tribal rule by a landed oligarchy, into a real nation-state.

But, why are the Saudis and the British in such a key position in Pakistan? Ask yourself: how can Pakistan afford such a huge operation as the ISI, a large force throughout the entire region, while at times, Pakistan has been paying most of its government budget for debt service? They can't afford ISI, of course. The answer is the black money from decades of Saudi charity money ($4 billion total per year, with Pakistan the biggest recipient), smuggling, drugs, and masses of money from the extended British MI-6 and the U.S. for insurgencies.

The smuggling operation is very high revenue for the Pakistanis, going back to World War I. Take Baluchistan: The Baluchis are not motivated by Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, they have been big-time tribal smugglers since early in the Twentieth Century, working for both for the Germans and the British during World War 1. With their outlet to the ocean, they sit between Dubai and Mumbai, a fundamental link to the British bank managers of the key banks and companies in Dubai. More Brits work in the financial sector in Dubai than probably all other foreign employees there: another point of British control over ISI, by the control of the drug trade through their money-laundering through Dubai and elsewhere.

But, the Afghan war was a real turning point; we are still suffering the effects among Islamic fundamentalists from this whole process, where Holy War became, not a specific military objective, but a way of life. Where, in the mid-1980s, tens of thousands in Pakistan and Afghanistan got indoctrinated in this idea of Holy War by the Saudi Wahhabite teachings.

This process of financing by the charities is very important. Saudi charities and Gulf princely charities, are not like American missionaries, where people go and teach schools. No, these are monies sent to specific areas, that are deployed by the recipients -- in ways that they see fit.

So these Saudi charities were the force that educated all the tens of thousands of second generation Holy War fighters. Because the first generation had a specific mission: to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That was their mission; it was a mission against an occupation. What is their mission against India? There is none. India is not occupying anyone. Today, the Holy War has become more of an ideological, brainwashing type of thing--a way of life.

Or, as Pakistan President Zardari wrote Tuesday in the New York Times, "The world worked to exploit religion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by empowering the most fanatic extremists as an instrument of destruction of a super-power. The strategy worked, but its legacy was the creation of an extremist militia with its own dynamic. Pakistan continues to pay the price.... The challenge of confronting terrorists who have a vast support network is huge." [emphasis added by the editors]

So, it is real British cultural warfare, and Pakistan has become the breeding grounds for this operation because of the fundamentalist doctrine. EIR reported in about 2004, that the Saudis put up the money to build 4,500 madrasas in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, in order to repeat the creation of the same kind of potential labor pool of recruits from the Wahhabite doctrine that they have in Pakistan and Kashmir.

Some of them are groups like the Tablighi Jamaat. They are not designated as a terrorist group. But they are funded by the Saudis, and their mission is, "Oh, we just propagate Islam." But in point of fact, they can supply the manpower for the terrorist operations.

And the same thing with London, because we're going to find that all of the mosques are financed by the Saudis. That doesn't make them all terrorist-recruiting centers, but it's a general pool of profiling from which they can be funneled into the more extremist ideas.

So you have surrogate wars of different types, with the British chuckling on top of it--providing the stable of resources for all these attacks. The Brits can come up with any variety of extremists that they want, and we have, in fact, seen in many cases. We saw in the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi by the Sikhs, and the Tamil Tigers assassination of Rajiv Gandhi: both of those had British links. And, the killing of Benazir Bhutto, which was connected to Hizb ut Tarir. It's all British.

Lyndon LaRouche responded: "Concentrate on the question of the role of the British and how these assets all go together. Keep pointing the arrows toward the British, on the Saudi operation and so forth, all on the British. That's the key point. It's all there, you just have to point the arrows on that thing. That's where the coincidence occurs, huh? A common denominator. The common denominator is the British, so you show everything in terms of the common denominator. After all, it's the British Empire. And these are all branches of the British Empire, so why not point to that?"

Back in Washington, LaRouche is preparing an intervention into the inauguration process, including his Jan. 22 Webcast. In some respects, this will echo his November intervention into the transition, which catalyzed the intervention we have seen by the institution of the Presidency, into the incoming Obama Administration.


Citizens Electoral Council © 2016
Best viewed at 1024x768.
Please provide technical feedback to webadmin@cecaust.com.au
All electoral content is authorised by National Secretary, Craig Isherwood, 595 Sydney Rd, Coburg VIC 3058.