The Year of the Drones – An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2011

View all U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan in a larger map. Note:strikes reported after November 19, 2010 appear on page 2 of theGoogle map.

 Created by(chaudry) Created on (26-5-2011)

An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2011

2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2004-2007

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

This research was last updated on May 24, 2011. For a full analysis of the repercussions and results of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, please click here for “The Year of the Drone,” by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, February 24, 2010 or click here for “The Hidden War,” December 21, 2010.

2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2004-2007

The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, the Express Tribune, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network.

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

Our study shows that the 244 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 31 in 2011, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,483 and 2,364 individuals, of whom around 1,190 to 1,893 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 20 percent. In 2010, it was more like five percent.*

We have also constructed a map, based on the same reliable press accounts and publicly available maps, of the estimated location of each drone strike. Click each pin in the online version to see the details of a reported strike. And while we are not professional cartographers, and Google Maps is at times incomplete or imperfect, this map gives our best approximations of the locations and details of each reported drone strike since 2004.

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

This study carries a Creative Commons license, which permits re-use of New America content when proper attribution is provided. Please click here for conditions of use, and when citing please attribute to Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation.

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2011

	Deaths (low)	Deaths (high)
2011*	154	235
2010	607	993
2009	369	725
2008	273	313
2004-2007	89	112
Total	1492	2,378

*Through May 24, 2011

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2011

	Deaths (low)	Deaths (high)
2011*	138	199
2010	581	939
2009	266	502
2008	133	164
2004-2007	81	103
Total	1,199	1,907

*Through May 24, 2011

Estimated Militant Leader Deaths from US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2011

2011	1
2010	12
2009	7
2008	10
2004-2007	3
Total	33

*Through May 24, 2011. Included in estimated militants and estimated totals, above.

Militant leaders killed

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

2011

• February 20, 2011: Abu Zaid al-Iraqi, managed al-Qaeda’s finances in Pakistan (AP)

2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2004-2007

Strikes by Target

Target	2004-2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Total
Taliban	6	11	27	42	9	95
Baitullah Mehsud (not Taliban generally)	0	1	16	n/a	n/a	17
Al Qaeda	5	10	9**	8	2	34
Haqqani	1	2	4	16	1	24
Unclear/Other	0	13	4	68	21	106

*Count is more than the number of strikes in some cases because some targets fell into multiple categories.

In cases where a media report described a specific target such as Baitullah Mehsud or the Haqqani network, the target is counted as such. If a target was both al Qaeda and Taliban commanders, it is counted once under each category. Strikes against Baitullah Mehsud are not included in the overall Taliban count. We assume that strikes which kill a leader in a given group were targeted at that group.

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

2011

31. May 23, 201
Location: Machikhel, Mir Ali, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-7
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP, CNN, BBC, Reuters, AFP/ET, The News
Assumed target: Vehicle carrying militants (UNCLEAR)

30. May 20, 2011
Location: Tappi area, 10km east of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: Reuters, AP, CNN, ET, AFP
Assumed target: Vehicle (UNCLEAR)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

29. May 16, 2011
Location: Mir Ali, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: CNN, AP, AFP, Dawn, Reuters
Assumed target: Vehicle (UNCLEAR)

28. May 16, 2011
Location: Mir Ali, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: CNN, AP, AFP, Dawn, Reuters
Assumed target: Compound (UNCLEAR)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

27. May 13, 2011
Location: Doga Madakhel, 40km west of Miram Shah, in Datta Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-5
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP, CNN, Reuters, AJE
Assumed target: Vehicle (UNCLEAR)

26. May 12, 2011
Location: Datta Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-8
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, The News, Reuters, AFP, CNN, BBC
Assumed target: Pick-up van (UNCLEAR)

25. May 10, 2011
Location: Baghar area, near Angoor Adda, South Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-5 (Arabs)
Others killed: Unknown
Source: ET, AP, AFP, CNN
Assumed target: Vehicle used by militants (UNCLEAR)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

24. May 6, 2011
Location: Datta Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 8-14
Others killed: 0-1
Source: AFP, AP, ET/Reuters, AP, Geo, Post, CNN, The News, Reuters
Assumed target: Compound used by militants (QAEDA)

MAY 2, 2011: OSAMA BIN LADEN KILLED

23. April 22, 2011
Location: Spinwam, Mir Ali, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 17-20
Others killed: 3-9
Source: Reuters, AP, WSJ, CNN, BBC, Geo, NYT
Assumed target: Compound used by Hafiz Gul Bahadur (TALIBAN)

22. April 13, 2011
Location: Angoor Adda, Bhangar area, South Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-7
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP, Reuters, CNN, BBC, NYT, Pajhwok
Assumed target: Vehicle and motorcycle used by militants (TALIBAN/HAQQANI)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

21. March 17, 2011
Location: Datta Khel, 15 miles west of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 11-12
Others killed: 13-24
Source: AJE, AP, CNN, BBC, Reuters, The News, Geo, ET, Reuters, FP, AP, FP, AP
Assumed target: Meeting of fighters planning attacks in Afghanistan; affiliated with Hafiz Gul Bahadur (TALIBAN) OR a meeting of local elders discussing a land dispute (UNCLEAR).
Note: U.S. officials claim all those killed were militants, while Pakistani officials claim all were civilians. Up to 45 total were reported killed by different sources.

20. March 16, 2011
Location: Datta Khel town, 15 miles west of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: CNN, AFP, Dawn, BBC, AP
Assumed target: Compound used by militants (UNCLEAR)

19. March 14, 2011
Location: Malik Jashdar, 6 miles east of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: CNN, BBC, ET, AP
Assumed target: Vehicle used by militants (UNCLEAR)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

18. March 13, 2011
Location: Spalga village, 15km NE of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 1
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP, AFP, WSJ
Assumed target: Compound used by TTP commander Rahimullah (TALIBAN)

17. March 13, 2011
Location: Spalga village, 15km NE of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP, AFP, WSJ
Assumed target: Compound used by TTP commander Rahimullah (TALIBAN)

16. March 13, 2011
Location: Azam Warsak, 12 miles west of Wana, South Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 0-4
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP, AFP, ET
Assumed target: Vehicle used by militants (UNCLEAR)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

15. March 11, 2011
Location: Spinwam village, Khaisor, 30 miles north of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 2-3
Others killed: 0-2
Source: Dawn, AP, AFP, Dawn
Assumed target: Militants collecting bodies from the earlier drone strike (UNCLEAR)

14. March 11, 2011
Location: Spinwam village, Khaisor, 30 miles north of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-4
Others killed: Unknown
Source: Dawn, AP, AFP, Dawn
Assumed target: Vehicle carrying militants (UNCLEAR)

13. March 8, 2011
Location: Landidog, 12 miles west of Wana, South Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 5
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP/AFP, BBC, Daily Times
Assumed target: Militant compound (UNCLEAR)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

12. February 24, 2011
Location: Mohammed Khel, in Danday Darpa Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, BBC, CNN, AFP, ET/Reuters
Assumed target: Car carrying Turkmen militants and house used by Taliban fighters (TALIBAN)

11. February 21, 2011
Location: Spalga village, 12 miles south of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 5-8
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AFP, AP, BBC, The News, Geo/AFP
Assumed target: Militant compound (UNCLEAR)

10. February 20, 2011
Location: Kaza Panga village, 10 miles west of Wana, South Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: 1 (Abu Zaid al-Iraqi, managed al-Qaeda’s finances in Pakistan)
Militants killed: 4-7
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AFP, Geo/AFP, AJE, BBC, CNN, AP, Reuters
Assumed target: House used by militants (QAEDA)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

9. January 23, 2011
Location: Mando Khel, 60km south of Miram Shah near Razmak, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: CNN, AFP, Geo, AP, AFP, AJE
Assumed target: Suspected militant compound (UNCLEAR)

8. January 23, 2011
Location: Doga Mada Khel, near Datta Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 2-3
Others killed: Unknown
Source: CNN, AFP, Geo, AP, AFP, AJE
Assumed target: Motorcycle in the same town as #7 (UNCLEAR)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

7. January 23, 2011
Location: Doga Mada Khel, near Datta Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-4
Others killed: Unknown
Source: CNN, AFP, Geo, AP, AFP, AJE
Assumed target: House and vehicle (UNCLEAR)

6. January 18, 2011
Location: Asar village, 25 miles west of Miram Shah, Datta Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-5
Others killed: Unknown
Source: The News/AFP, AFP, PTI, AP
Assumed target: Militant compound (UNCLEAR)

5. January 12, 2011
Location: Haiderkhel village, 15 miles east of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 3-5
Others killed: Unknown
Source: BBC, AFP, CNN, Pajhwok, Geo/AFP, WSJ
Assumed target: Militant compound linked to Hafiz Gul Bahadur (TALIBAN)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

4. January 7, 2011
Location: Ghar Laley, 22 miles west of Miram Shah, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-6
Others killed: Unknown
Source: AP, AFP, Geo/AFP, ET, BBC, CNN
Assumed target: House and vehicle (UNCLEAR)

3. January 1, 2011
Location: Boya village, in Datta Khel, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4
Others killed: Unknown
Source: Geo, AP, Reuters, AFP/ET, BBC, CNN, LAT, AFP
Assumed target: Vehicle used by militants (UNCLEAR)

2. January 1, 2011
Location: Ghoresti, near Mir Ali, North Waziristan
Militant leaders killed: Unknown
Militants killed: 4-5
Others killed: Unclear
Source: Geo, AP, Reuters, AFP/ET, BBC, CNN, LAT, AFP
Assumed target: Retrieving bodies (TALIBAN)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

1. January 1, 2011

Location: Mandi Khel, near Mir Ali, North Waziristan

Militant leaders killed: Unknown

Militants killed: 7-9

Others killed: Unclear

Source: Geo, AP, Reuters, AFP/ET, BBC, CNN, LAT, AFP

Assumed target: Vehicle and militant compound affiliated with Hafiz Gul Bahadur (TALIBAN)

For More Information Please Visit:

www.thevisionmedia.com

Read More

The Real Story of: How Israel was Created?

 By Alison Weir

October 14, 2011

To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 U.N. action on Israel-Palestine. 

The common representation of Israel’s birth is that the U.N. created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the U.S. governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect. 

In reality, while the U.N. General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council. 

Second, the General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.

Third, the U.S. administration supported the recommendation out of domestic electoral considerations and took this position over the strenuous objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.

It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 percent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 percent non-Jewish.

And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.

Let us look at the specifics.

BACKGROUND OF THE U.N. PARTITION RECOMMENDATION

In 1947 the U.N. took up the question of Palestine, a territory that was then administered by the British. 

Approximately 50 years before, a movement called political Zionism had begun in Europe. Its intention was to create a Jewish state in Palestine through pushing out the Christian and Muslim inhabitants who made up over 95 percent of its population and replacing them with Jewish immigrants.

As this colonial project grew through subsequent years, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land. In various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians, they discussed their strategy: They would either buy up the land until all the previous inhabitants had emigrated or, failing this, use violence to force them out. 

When the buy-out effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British.

Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.

Finally, in 1947 the British announced that they would be ending their control of Palestine, which had been created through the League of Nations following World War I, and turned the question of Palestine over to the United Nations. 

At this time, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6 percent.

Since a founding principle of the U.N. was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the U.N. to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country. 

Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution in which they would be given a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine. (While they rarely announced this publicly, their stated plan was to later take the rest of Palestine.)

U.S. OFFICIALS OPPOSE PARTITION PLAN

The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and U.S. interests.

Author Donald Neff reports that Loy Henderson, Director of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, wrote a memo to the secretary of state warning:

[S]upport by the Government of the United States of a policy favoring the setting up of a Jewish State in Palestine would be contrary to the wishes of a large majority of the local inhabitants with respect to their form of government. Furthermore, it would have a strongly adverse effect upon American interests throughout the Near and Middle East ….” [Citations.]

Henderson went on to emphasize:

At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the war.

When Zionists began pushing for a partition plan through the U.N., Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal. He warned that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and emphasized that it was “not based on any principle.” He went on to write:

[Partition] would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future ….

Henderson went on to emphasize:

[Proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [U.N.] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race ….

Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by

“nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”

Henderson wasn’t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.

In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”

TRUMAN ACCEDES TO PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY

President Harry Truman, however, ignored this advice. Truman’s political adviser, Clark Clifford, believed that the Jewish vote and contributions were essential to winning the upcoming presidential election and that supporting the partition plan would garner that support. (Truman’s opponent, Dewey, took similar stands for similar reasons.)

Secretary of State George Marshall, the renowned World War II general and author of the Marshall Plan, was furious to see electoral considerations taking precedence over policies based on national interest. He condemned what he called a “transparent dodge to win a few votes,” which would cause “[t]he great dignity of the office of president [to be] seriously diminished.”

Marshall wrote that the counsel offered by Clifford

“was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the president were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the president ….”

Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America’s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,” headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wroteabout the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on U.S. national interests. 

Grady argued that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our ‘cold war’ with the Soviets.” He also described the decisive power of the lobby:

I have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experience had ended …. I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyalty …. [I]n the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaigns are apt to be decisive.

Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Acheson’s biographer writes that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Another Author, John Mulhall,records Acheson’s warning:

[T]o transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.

Secretary of Defense James Forrestal also tried, unsuccessfully, to oppose the Zionists. He was outraged that Truman’s Mideast policy was based on what he called “squalid political purposes,” asserting that “United States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.”

Forrestal represented the general Pentagon view when he said that “no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.”

A report by the National Security Council warned that the Palestine turmoil was acutely endangering the security of the United States. A CIA report stressed the strategic importance of the Middle East and its oil resources.

Similarly, George F. Kennan, the State Department’s director of policy planning, issued a top-secret document on Jan. 19, 1947, that outlined the enormous damage done to the U.S. by the partition plan (“Report by the Policy Planning Staff on Position of the United States with Respect to Palestine”). 

Kennan cautioned that “important U.S. oil concessions and air base rights” could be lost through U.S. support for partition and warned that the USSR stood to gain by the partition plan.

Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events. He noted:

The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interests …. Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votes ….

He went on:

The present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict. It is to be hoped that American Zionists and non-Zionists alike will come to grips with the realities of the problem.

The head of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:

U.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter ~ a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of U.N.’s own charter.

Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.

An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:

[T]he Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the U.N. …. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw another outcome of the partition plan: that no Arab State would actually ever come to be in Palestine.

PRO-ISRAEL PRESSURE ON GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS

When it was clear that the partition recommendation did not have the required two-thirds of the U.N. General Assembly to pass, Zionists pushed through a delay in the vote. They then used this period to pressure numerous nations into voting for the recommendation. A number of people later described this campaign.

Robert Nathan, a Zionist who had worked for the U.S. government and who was particularly active in the Jewish Agency, wrote afterward,

“We used any tools at hand,” such as telling certain delegations that the Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote the right way.

Another Zionist proudly stated,

“Every clue was meticulously checked and pursued. Not the smallest or the remotest of nations, but was contacted and wooed. Nothing was left to chance.”

Financier and longtime presidential adviser Bernard Baruch told France it would lose U.S. aid if it voted against partition. Top White House executive assistant David Niles organized pressure on Liberia through rubber magnate Harvey Firestone, who told the Liberian president that if Liberia did not vote in favor of partition, Firestone would revoke his planned expansion in the country. Liberia voted yes. 

Latin American delegates were told that the pan-American highway construction project would be more likely if they voted yes. 

Delegates’ wives received mink coats (the wife of the Cuban delegate returned hers); 

Costa Rica’s President Jose Figueres reportedly received a blank checkbook. 

Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its original vote opposing partition. 

Longtime Zionist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, along with 10 senators and Truman domestic adviser Clark Clifford, threatened the Philippines (seven bills were pending on the Philippines in Congress). 

Before the vote on the plan, the Philippine delegate had given a passionate speech against partition, defending the inviolable

“primordial rights of a people to determine their political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of their native land.”

He went on to say that he could not believe that the General Assembly would sanction a move that would place the world “back on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic documents of theocratic governments.” 

Twenty-four hours later, after intense Zionist pressure, the delegate voted in favor of partition.

The U.S. delegation to the U.N. was so outraged when Truman insisted that they support partition that the State Department director of U.N. affairs was sent to New York to prevent the delegates from resigning en masse.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the partition resolution, 181, passed. While this resolution is frequently cited, it was of limited (if any) legal impact. General Assembly resolutions, unlike Security Council resolutions, are not binding on member states. 

For this reason, the resolution requested that “[t]he Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation,” which the Security Council never did. Legally, the General Assembly Resolution was a “recommendation” and did not create any states.

What it did do, however, was increase the fighting in Palestine. 

Within months (and before Israel dates the beginning of its founding war) the Zionists had forced out 413,794 people. 

Zionist military units had stealthily been preparing for war before the U.N. vote and had acquired massive weaponry, some of it through a widespread network of illicit gunrunning operations in the U.S. under a number of front groups. 

The U.N. eventually managed to create a temporary and very partial cease-fire. 

A Swedish U.N. mediator who had previously rescued thousands of Jews from the Nazis was dispatched to negotiate an end to the violence. Israeli assassins killed him, and Israel continued what it was to call its “war of independence.” 

At the end of this war, through a larger military force than that of its adversaries and the ruthless implementation of plans to push out as many non-Jews as possible, Israel came into existence on 78 percent of Palestine. 

At least 33 massacres of Palestinian civilians were perpetrated, half of them before a single Arab army had entered the conflict, hundreds of villages were depopulated and razed, and a team of cartographers was sent out to give every town, village, river, and hillock a new Hebrew name.

All vestiges of Palestinian habitation, history, and culture were to be erased from history, an effort that almost succeeded.

Israel, which claims to be the “only democracy in the Middle East,” decided not to declare official borders or to write a constitution, a situation which continues to this day. 

In 1967 it took still more Palestinian and Syrian land, which is now illegally occupied territory, since the annexation of land through military conquest is outlawed by modern international law. 

It has continued this campaign of growth through armed acquisition and illegal confiscation of land ever since.

Individual Israelis, like Palestinians and all people, are legally and morally entitled to an array of human rights.

On the other hand, the state of Israel’s vaunted “right to exist” is based on an alleged “right” derived from might, an outmoded concept that international legal conventions do not recognize and in fact specifically prohibit. 

Read More

World Population To Pass 7 Billion - So What?

 Consider the war on children, the war on humanity in today's world. The chemicals, enforced population and birthrights (IE China), the abortion holocaust, the deformed due to war crimes, the horrors of GMO, not to mention plain starvation. Genocide of the lowest degree. Now read the truth as Zen sees it. Makes perfect sense to me.

The devious filth known as The Powers That Be have always hated the people. In fact, although I have no proof, I have always suspected that the Plagues of Europe (Black, Bubonic, etc) which culled many millions, leaving their land and properties up for grabs, were not accidental at all. This culling, as you will read below, is not new at all. 

Zen's words are in blue.  I added comments, quotes and illustrations in green.

My question is:

WHO DIED AND MADE THESE F*CKERS GOD?

Did Malthus  REALLY call for killing off the poor (Or, as Kissinger so politely and humanely put it, “the useless eaters”?)

Yep. He did. He called for increased mortality among the poor:

All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons… To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits.

In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.

In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. (Book IV, Chap. V) ~ Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population

And here we have a precious quote from one of the "illustrious" elite, Margaret Sanger, goddess of abortion, genocide and racism, all part of her concept of population control:

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. ~ Margaret Sanger

  

October 16, 2011

By Zen Gardner

Cause for concern? 

Only if this imposed parasitic world system isn't rectified. 

There's plenty for all, it's just being hoarded and deliberately withheld and manipulated.

What? 

Have you too been convinced there's "too many people"? 

Can you imagine an ant colony thinking there's too many babies? 

They WANT offspring.

What the heck's wrong with people? 

Got too many for local resources? Move to the country!

Here's today's scare, compliments of the United Nations, of course:

Room for one more?

World population to reach 7 BILLION in next few days

Children most likely to be born in Asia-Pacific region

Fears over pressure on food supply and medical care

.

 Going to the beach in China

The world's population looks set to smash through the seven billion barrier in the next few days, according to the United Nations.

It comes just 12 years since the total reached six billion ~ with official estimates saying the figure will top eight billion in 2025 and 10 billion before the end of the century.

And it is most likely the baby will be born in the Asia-Pacific region - where the population growth rate is higher than anywhere else in the world.

Scroll down for video...

Crowded: The world's population looks set to smash through the seven billion barrier in the next few days ~ and it is most likely the baby will be born in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Mumbai, India, pictured here

Experts say the pace of growth ~ which has seen the number of people on the planet triple since 1940 ~ poses an increasing danger to citizens.

With more people to feed, house and provide medical care for, they say the world's resources look set to come under more strain than ever before.

As populations stabilize in the industrial world, almost all growth in the near future is expected to take place in developing countries.

Read more: here

I suppose, according the Malthus, this sort of imageexplains our right to kill off all those unwanted brown skinned people?

IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL

The PTBs want a population they can control. 

That we are many freaks them out, as per the Occupy Movement. 

They're getting the crap scared out of them.

The Georgia Guidestones, which should have been investigated and disclosed to the people of Georgia and the United States and the world as to what they were intended for and who did them, say the Earth's population should be limited to 500 million inhabitants.

Says who, I ask.

 .

Does THIS attitude explain what is being done to Africa and has been going on for many decades? 

Or to the Black race in North America? 

Or Brown people ANYWHERE on the globe?

Social and scientific engineers have been tinkering with humanity at the behest of mega powerful wealthy elites for eons. Now it's accelerating at such a rate we're apparently approaching an event horizon of sorts, a "singularity".

So what's the truth on population growth?

Try this out.

Simplistic?

Go ahead and support wars, sterilization and depopulation. Your viewpoint is manipulated. 

(ED: We will keep breeding for them regardless.)

Zen

www.zengardner.com

 I don't THINK so!!!! Seems to have gone the opposite direction in today's Western world.

More information here:

THE TRUTH: 

OVERPOPULATION IS A MYTH 

THE LIES: 

MALTHUSIAN SNOBS PRAY FOR CURE TO 

OVERPOPULATION

AN ESSAY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF POPULATION

Read More