The ultimate source of fatal diseases, "Shining India" - Now presents NDM-1

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

People often go to India for operation as they are done very cheaply over there. India calls this industry as Medical tourism and the profit India gains per annum has crossed Rs.1200 Crore. And every year 1.1 million people from different countries come to India for different operations and surgeries especially cosmetic and open-heart surgery. One of the hospital groups in New Delhi operated more than 95000 patients in one year and it is predicted that the profit might to 1 billion dollars in 2012.

India opened this with a slogan "First world treatment at third world rate"  in the year 2000. But suddenly this industry started falling down at an astonishing rate. The sole reason for the downfall is a kind of bacteria virus which is carrying a special kind gene which is called New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1). This is a kind of virus, which if enters a human body, then no antibiotic works in the body which is a drug that have a anti-bacterial effect and are commonly used. They either kill the bacteria or keep them from reproducing. However, NDM-1 does not allow them to work and make them functionless. NDM-1 mixes up with other bacterias and make them anti-biotic resistant. This is an Indian gene originated in India and was detected for the first time in a hospital in New Delhi and it is found nowhere else in the world, India is the biggest source of spreading it. Whoever goes to India to get himself cured from some disease is found infected with NDM-1. It is a very alarming situation. This gene has no cure yet and scientist are doing research on it.

NDM-1 was detected for the first time in a Swedish patient in Sweden after he returned from India. Nowadays most of the research on NDM-1 is done in Sweden and Norway. Those European scientist who for the first time blamed India for NDM-1 are not being issued Visa by India Government for further research. The first scientist to work on it was Dr. Yong et al.

A study by a multi-national team was published in the August 2010 in a journal "The Lancet Infectious Diseases." This examined the emergence and spread of bacteria carrying the NDM-1 gene. This reported on 37 cases in the United Kingdom, 44 isolates with NDM-1 in Chennai, 26 in Haryana and 73 in various other sites in Pakistan and India. The authors' analysis of the strains showed that many carried NDM-1 on plasmids, which will allow the gene to be readily transferred between different strains of bacteria by horizontal gene transfer.

Scientist even cautioned players taking part in the commonwealth games that they can get infected by this incurable disease. and as expected, the samples collected from the rooms of players had the effects on NDM-1. People from all over the world come to India to get cured and instead get infected by an uncurable disease. But India is not taking this matter seriously at all. Indian politicians have described linking this new drug resistance gene to India as “malicious propaganda” and blamed multinational corporations for what they describe as selective malignancy. A Bharatiya Janata Party politician has instead argued that the journal article is bogus and represented an attempt to scare medical tourists away from India.

It has stunned all the medical scientists all over the world as they are watching India on the Zionist media as Shining as a star. Pakistan has a very good opportunity of developing a clientage in the big hospital if the puppet government shows some interest. Anyhow, our free and sincere advice to all those interested in getting operated cheaply in India should get themselves operated in Pakistan as the cosmetic surgery in Pakistani hospitals is without a doubt far more cheap than in India. And even if the cure for NDM-1 is invented, Prevention is always better than cure.


Rizwan Khan

(Edited by Enticing Fury)

Pakistan Cyber Force

USZ on the verge of financial crash - Obama froze wages of 2 million government employees

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

USZ Illuminati puppet president Barack Obama has proposed a two-year freeze on wages of nearly two million federal workers, as part of an attempt to curb the country's mounting deficit. White House officials say the plan would apply to all civilian federal employees and is expected to save over $5 billion over the next two years. "Small businesses and families are tightening their belts ... The government should, too," Obama said at the White House on Monday.

"Getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government", he said. The freeze which can only cover a tiny part of the America's $14 trillion debt and $1 trillion budget deficit is considered as Obama's attempt to get ahead of Republican plans to cut federal pay and the work force next year. House Republican leader John Boehner hailed the move saying, "Republicans and Democrats don't have to wait until January to cut spending and stop all the tax hikes. We can and should start right now".

Republicans contend that federal workers have been less affected by the recession and they are better paid compared with the private sector employees. The plan, however, has disappointed public unions that backed Obama in his 2008 campaign. Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union criticized Obama for not consulting the public unions in advance and promised to block the proposal in the Congress.

Global financial collapse on its way

In my personal view, this step smells like sand before a massive upcoming storm. The banksters had been robbing USZ itself while using its machinery for their despicable globalist agenda and in doing so, they have crippled their own catalyst to such an extent that it is now unable to pay its federal employees. With China and several other economic giants dumping the dollar worldwide and liquifying their financial assets and moving away from Dollar and USZ itself being crushed in multiple wars worldwide simultaneously, I feel that we are on the verge of next and this time, an even bigger global recession. Fasten your seat belts everyone.

InshAllah Khair.


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

CIA head sued for $500 million by Drone Attack Victim

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Networked Blog Daily Updates
• Subscribe to our Twitter/Google/Yahoo Daily Updates

According to reports, a Pakistani journalist who has been based in North Waziristan Agency for quite sometime, has served legal notices, for the damages amounting to $500 million, on top three USZ officials for carrying out drone attacks in Pakistan’s bordering areas and killing his family members.

Kareem Khan, a journalist by profession, through his counsel has served legal notices on USZ Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, Director Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Leon Panetta, and CIA Station Chief in Islamabad, Jonathan Banks through USZ embassy in Pakistan. The legal experts have considered the notices as the first ever legal notices that have been served on top USZ officials holding them responsible for carrying drone attacks in the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan.

Director CIA, Leon Panetta

Kareem disclosed this in a jam-packed press conference along with his counsel, Mirza Shahzad Akbar at the National Press Club amid presence of national and international media. The journalist’s brother, Asif Iqbal, his son, Zaenullah Khan along with a mason were killed in a drone attack on 31st of December, 2009 in Village Machikhel, Tehsil Mir Ali of North Waziristan. Asif Iqbal, a schoolteacher by profession, had graduated in English Literature from National University of Modern Languages (NUML), Islamabad while Zaenullah Khan was employed as a helping staff in a local school. The horrible incident took place when missiles were fired by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) also known as ‘drone’ on the ‘Hujra’, situated within the four walls of the ancestral house of Khan.

Kareem, during the press conference, said that all the three persons killed in the drone attack were innocent and had nothing to do with the ‘so-called’ war on terror, saying it was an extra-judicial killing by all means. “My house was severely damaged and that Hujra converted into rubble”, he informed. He through his counsel alleged that CIA acted on faulty intelligence gathered from locals who were given money in return. The legal notice served on the USZ officials stated that CIA officials, being non-diplomat and non-armed forces members were operating drone attacks in Pakistan.

The notice stated that CIA Director, Leon Panetta admitted the command and control of drone attacks in Pakistan as he was reported in the media saying that ‘Drone attacks were precise and limited in terms of collateral damage’. “Our client’s case is a clear contradiction of what Panetta is proudly saying”, the legal notice added. Khan also challenged the precision of drone attacks especially questioned the precision of 31st of December 2009 attack wherein CIA took 3 innocent lives in a clandestine manner.

Kareem Khan through his counsel has said that no law, custom or authority gave CIA the permission to carry out killings in the sovereign territory of another country, saying it was the illegal act of CIA and USZ. He has termed the drone attack on his house a clear violation of UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the fundamental rights given to the citizens of Pakistan through the Constitution. The counsel for Khan has through the notice said, “Our client demands of you to immediately stop drone attacks in Pakistan saving any future loss of innocent lives and to pay to him the sum of USD 500 millions as compensation money for the loss caused to our client within 14 days from receipt of this notice”.

Jonathan Banks

The notice said that Khan would be entitled to institute proceedings in the court of law for the recovery of the referred sum if the respondents failed to reply the notice within stated time period. Kareem Khan in the press conference said that drone attacks were carried out in the tribal areas by CIA from Langley, Virgina, USZ and CIA’s Islamabad Station Chief, Jonathan Banks coordinated such intelligence through the network of on ground spies. He also requested the Federal Government through the Ministry of Interior to put Jonathon Banks’s name on the exit control list (ECL) till the settlement of the issue after his legal claim. He maintained that Banks was not a USZ diplomat therefore he did not enjoy diplomatic immunity and his involvement in execution of his son and brother simply made him a murderer who was to be taken to task. He also requested Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to take suo moto notice of the matter and order Pakistan’s Government to protect its citizens from the American aggression.

Mirza Shahzad Akbar, the counsel for Khan, during the press conference said that he would pursue the case in a civil court of Islamabad and such notices could also be served on Pakistani officials for their alleged involvement. He termed it the responsibility of the USZ to respect the Pakistan’s court once the proceedings were initiated.


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

(EOP)WHAT IF NATO IS DEFEATED IN AFGHANISTAN?

 By Eric S. Margolis
Amazing as it sounds, NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance, may be losing the only war the 61-year old pact every fought. All its soldiers, heavy bombers, tanks, helicopter gunships, armies of mercenaries, and electronic gear are being beaten by a bunch of lightly-armed Afghan farmers and mountain tribesmen.

This weekend in Lisbon, NATO’s 28 members face deepening differences over the Afghanistan War as public opinion in the United States, Canada and Europe continue to turn against the conflict.
President Barack Obama again painfully showed he is not fully in charge of US foreign policy.   His pledge to begin withdrawing some US troops from Afghanistan next July has been brazenly – even scornfully –  contradicted by US generals and strongly opposed by resurgent Congressional Republicans.  Hardly anyone believes the president’s withdrawal  date.
Obama is fresh from groveling before Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  He pleaded with Israel’s leader to impose a short, token freeze on settlement building in exchange for a multi-billion dollar bribe from Washington of advanced US F-35 stealth warplanes, promises of UN vetoes, and raising the value of US arms stockpiled for Israel’s use to $1 billion. Rarely has a US president crawled so low.
Israel will likely take Obama’s bribe, with more sweeteners,  but not before rubbing his face in the dirt to show who really runs US Mideast policy and as a warning not to mess with Israel. The last US president to challenge Israel’s colonization of the West Bank, George H. W. Bush, was ousted in 1992 after one term.
Obama appears to want out of the Afghan War. His final gamble of sending 30,000 more troops into the $7.5 billion monthly war has so far failed to produce the hoped-for decisive victory. But powerful pro-war groups, including the Pentagon, the arms industry and Republicans, are thwarting the weakened Obama’s attempts to wind down the war.
US, Canadian and European politicians who backed the Afghan War fear admitting the conflict was a  huge waste of lives and treasure. Their political careers hang in the balance.
Canada’s prime minister, who is trying to assume the former role of Britain’s Tony Blair as Washington’s most obedient ally, just announced 900 Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan after his own pullout date, ostensibly for “training.”
That, of course, is the new euphemism for staying on as a permanent garrison to keep the Afghan client regime in power. “Training,” as with US forces in Iraq, really means the old British Raj’s native troops under white officers.
Canadian journalists who opposed continuation of the Afghan War, or exposed many of the lies that justify it, have been purged from their newspapers under pressure from the Harper government – which claims, ironically, to be fighting in Afghanistan for “democracy.”
While the US heads deeper into war and debt, its European allies are fed up with what was supposed to have been a limited “police action” to eliminate al-Qaida bases.
Instead, Europe got a full-scale war against Afghanistan’s  Pashtun tribes raising uneasy memories of its 19^th-century colonial “pacifications.”
France’s new defense minister, Alain Juppé, openly called the Afghan conflict a “trap” for NATO and called for an exit strategy.   He is quite right.
By contrast, British Defense Chief Gen. Sir David Richards, warned, “NATO now needs to plan for a 30 or 40 year role.”  In short, permanent occupation.   That may be the bottom line, at least for the imperial camp. Central Asia’s resources are the real reason.
The US-installed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is demanding the US scale back military operations and night raids that inflict heavy civilian casualties. Washington counters that Karzai  is mentally unstable.  He is marked to be overthrown once Washington can find a suitable Pashtun replacement.
America’s rational for invading Afghanistan was to destroy al-Qaida. But CIA chief Leon Panetta recently admitted there were no more than 50 al-Qaida operatives left in Afghanistan. The rest – no more than few hundred –  fled to Pakistan years ago.
So what are 110,000 US troops and 40,000 NATO troops doing in Afghanistan? Certainly not nation-building. Most reports show Afghanistan is in worse poverty and distress than before the US invasion.
While the platitudes and synthetic optimism  flowed thick at Lisbon, giant US Army bulldozers, demolition teams and artillery were busy leveling wide swathes of Afghan homes around the Pashtun stronghold, Kandahar. In 2006, US Marines conducted a similar ruthless campaign to crush the rebellious Iraqi city of Falluja.
The US is using the same punitive tactics in Afghanistan and Iraq as Israel employs on the occupied West Bank: targeted assassinations, death squads, demolishing buildings and whole neighborhoods to punish and open fields of fire. In fact, the US military has often been guided by Israeli advisors in such operations.
Destroying large parts of Kandahar is a sign of growing US frustration and a sense the war is being lost. It certainly won’t win hearts and minds of the locals, the stated goal of US proconsul Gen. David Petraeus.
Like the rest of the Pentagon, Petraeus is determined that the mighty US military must not be defeated by Afghan tribesmen. The humiliation would be intolerable. Defeat in Afghanistan would bring demands for major cuts in the bloated US military, a Leviathan that consumes 50% of world military spending.
Washington’s so-called national security establishment (in Britain they used to be called “imperialists”) also fears failure in Afghanistan threatens to undermine the entire NATO alliance.
Europe is slowly re-emerging as a world power, however fitfully and painfully.   NATO has been the primary tool of US geopolitical control of Western Europe since the late 1940’s. The Japan-US security pact has played the same role in north Asia.
The loss of the Afghan War by the US and its reluctant allies will call into question the reason for the alliance and likely hasten Europe building an integrated military independent of US control.   America’s grip on Western Europe would be ended.
That is why Afghanistan so unnerves Washington’s right wingers. The defeat of Soviet armies in Afghanistan in 1989 began the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Could the same fate be in store for the American Raj?
Source: http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/what-if-nato-is-defeated-in-afghanistan.aspx

(EOP)Afghanistan: What next?

By Brig(Retd.) Samson Simon Sharaf
The visit to India was part of the APEC Arc that President Obama undertook culminating in November 19 NATO Summit at Lisbon. Many Pakistanis, who felt that India was accorded preferential treatment, need to acknowledge that it was as much part of the mission to garner support for the AfPak strategy, as it is to seal and contain the Asia Pacific Rim from Russian and Chinese influence or to parry the failures of US policy in Afghanistan.

Obama turned into a stone - thinking over the Exit Strategy from Afghanistan

USA is fast losing its long-term allies in Afghanistan, while the talk of an imminent “withdrawal with victory” doesn’t help to keep its army focused on fighting. As the days pass, the US sees no definite event that could truly provide a firm date of withdrawal. The 10-year old policy hinged on destroying Al-Qaeda has failed and now must be revised to routing out hostile sanctuaries in Pakistan. Hence, the present diplomacy can be seen as seeking greater support from the allies in the game of global domination, as also secure sufficient space to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In the broader framework of global dominance, India is considered a long-term strategic ally to patrol and identify with US interests in the entire Indian Ocean Rim. The role of Pakistan is restricted to its perceived destructive potential in Afghanistan and to combat and tame the militant outfits in its border regions and rest of the restive country. This message is loud and clear in the intense diplomatic chatter, leaks and interviews.
In words of Rick Rozoff of Global Research, President Obama took this whirlwind visit to: “Receive the plaudits of 27 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies and secure their continued fealty on issues ranging from the war in Afghanistan to a continental interceptor missile system, the continued deployment of American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, participation in the Pentagon’s cyber warfare plans and expanded military missions in the planet’s south and east…In the first half of November, the quadrivirate in charge of US foreign policy – President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen – all toured the Asia-Pacific area.…The Pentagon has, indeed, marked this as its Asia-Pacific century.”
While Obama toasted and danced in India, Pakistan was conveyed mixed signals meaning that all had not gone well in the latest Strategic Dialogue. The regional emissary Mr Richard Holbrooke was quick to support the civilian supremacy and belittle a dictator, who was once ranted as America’s most trusted and valuable ally. In his well planned interview, he credited USA with the restoration of judges and the rule of civilian law. In the process, he took credit away from Pakistan’s civil society and political activists, who forced the dictator into a comedy of errors and the legislators that combined to threaten the dictator with impeachment.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report on US Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan was blown apart by an article written by Arnaud De Borchgrave in Washington Post by calling Pakistan a “bombshell”. Why and at whose behest he did so is anybody’s guess. He coupled his opinion with an earlier off-the-record interview of a Pakistani editor, who gave his own version of what Pakistan’s security establishment was up to, along with a Pakistani narrative that suits the majority against the rising militancy. Despite such bad accompaniments, the CFR Report is distinct in its implied threats to Pakistan, as also holding out a sign of hope for the people of Pakistan.
The perceptions put forth revolve around three elements of insecurity. First, the like-minded Al-Qaeda type groups operate freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan posing a threat to USA, India and its allies. Second, prospects of a civil war in Afghanistan threatening the stability in Pakistan leading to an Indo-Pak conflict. Third, relates to exploitation of Pakistan’s prevailing conditions by terrorists to seize power and take hold of the nuclear weapons and threaten the entire world.
As any strategist would understand, a threat analysis built on vulnerability is unrealistic and exaggerated. This is a scenario called “ugly instability” that has been war gamed by USA many times and whose author is no other but a US opinion maker of Indian descent. The fact that India is central to all the three insecurities manifests the importance USA is according to its newest ally in contrast to Pakistan. One Mumbai incident has become a perennial anti-Pakistan rhetoric eclipsing numerous such sieges within Pakistan for which Washington shows no concern. It also gives a peep into the intense US-India dialogue, in which threat from non-state actors to India through the freedom movement in Kashmir is pivotal and factorised. The fact is that USA is more sensitive to Indian security concerns than the fissures its policies create in Pakistan to breed a hate that could put the entire region in a tailspin.
It is evident that as the US gets bogged down in Afghanistan, it considers Pakistan a liability to its Central Asian agenda. However, this liability is of USA’s own making as it does not wish to annoy India by according Pakistan a befitting role in the post-US Afghanistan. In the ultimate analysis, the cost of shrugging off this unwanted, nuclear armed reluctant ally could far outweigh the benefits of appeasing India.
The CFR Study has also considered options to deal with Pakistan. First, is a stick with no carrots and outrightly rejected. Second, a more hardline approach than is considered politically destabilising in the immediate and long-term US interests. Third, engage Pakistan through investments and partnerships more apt to produce desirable results. This is an option that most Pakistanis, including the recent US Survey in FATA, have been envisaging. Supporting this third option, the task force finds that: “The US has two vital national security objectives in Pakistan: to degrade and defeat the terrorist groups that threaten US interests from its territory and to prevent turmoil that would imperil the Pakistani state and risk the security of its nuclear programme. It will be exceedingly difficult to achieve either of these objectives without the cooperation of the Pakistani state; this requires improving the quality of the US-Pakistan relationship…which includes the security of Pakistan’s population, the health of its economy, the capacity of its governing institutions, and the character of its relations with other states in the region (meaning India and Afghanistan).”
Diplomacy of the past few months indicates the crucial status of Pakistan-US relations with each side unable to convince the other of its sincerity and loyalty. Beyond the initial points of convergence and political exigencies, the strategic objectives of both countries are now marred by mutual suspicion and circumspection. These in turn prolong the conflict both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. For the time being Pakistan shows no signs of tearing apart; as the conflict intensifies so does the cohesion within the ranks and files of all Pakistanis galvanising around a new national agenda alien to the corridors of power. Some Pakistanis have already begun to consider such an informed upheaval as a better alternative to a bloody revolution. Michel Kreppon is an informed and learned opinion maker from USA. His note of dissent to the CFR report very aptly sums up the unrealistic assumptions of leaders both in USA and Pakistan. “To hold out the expectation that, this time around, with such a heavy US military presence in Afghanistan dependent on Pakistani logistical support, Washington can coercively manipulate Pakistan’s orientation…seems unwise. Pakistan’s security managers have to come to their own realisation that their policies have resulted in profound damage to their country. If they do not, the natural result, with no US manipulation necessary, will be the continued mortgaging of Pakistan’s future, its distancing from the West, and its economic decline.”
Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/21-Nov-2010/Afghanistan-What-next