The Afghan people will win! - part 20
July 31, 2010 - 2:37pm
Next...
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
July deadliest month yet for U.S. troops
The previous record month was June, with 60 reported deaths.
The surge is working.
The Real Reasons Why the US and India Demonze Pakistan's ISI
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_60777.shtml
"It is strange that America expects ISI to serve the American agenda instead of Pakistan's interests first.."
Nothing strange about that. America expects everyone in the world to serve America's interests above all else. Hell, CSIS operates entirely on this principle.
But the ISI has served America's interests as well as those of Saudi princes before from the late 1970s through today. Are we supposed to believe that Pakistan's army inteligence has suddenly stopped serving their cold war era paymasters? Many Afghans continue to believe that the CIA and NATO have been aiding and abetting the Taliban all along. The Taliban and "Al-Qaeda" are CIA creations. And this is a phony war on terror. Welcome to the colder war.
Rioting in Kabul after US embassy car kills four civilians
The Afghan capital is on high alert after rioting sparked by the death of four civilians when a US embassy vehicle crashed into their car. There are fears of a repeat of the city-wide riots that struck Kabul in 2006.
Police fired shots into the air in a bid to disperse an angry mob that torched two embassy vehicles and threw stones at police and Nato soldiers who rushed to the scene near the centre of Kabul's diplomatic quarter. [...]
The stranded rescue vehicle and the original car were left at the scene and torched by the rioters.
According to local news agency Pajhwok, despite efforts to cordon off the area an angry crowd of hundreds of civilians soon appeared chanting slogans against foreign troops and Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.
Witnesses said several Afghan police were wounded after being hit by stones thrown by protesters in an area close to a US military base and a few minutes' walk from the main gate of the US embassy.
The Afghan people will definitely win!
I enjoyed this vignette:
LOL!
It is too bad that the Afghan people have to shoulder the major part of the burden of ridding themselves of this evil occupation while the citizens of the empire responsible for the most part just watch it happen...
'Don't Blame Pakistan for the Failure of Your War' by Imran Khan
http://blogs.town9.com/dont-blame-pakistan-for-failure-of-your-war
"Before the West invaded Afghanistan Pakistan had no suicide bombers, no jihad and no Talibanization. There is now a general recognition that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily. All the Taleban have to do to win is not to lose. The Americans won't stay and everybody knows that..."
Russia, Afghanistan and Star Wars
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20426
"Russia's accommodation of the US and NATO continues apace, with new support of the Afghan war and even missile defence...Nato views Moscow as a 'strong strategic partner', not as a threat or an enemy.."
If you can't beat'em, join them..
From Freedom Figher to Terrorist: ISI's Gul
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article26056.htm
"For his part Gul maintains that his actions have been entiredly consistent the entire time - helping the Afghans end the foreign occupation of their country.."
USA Funded Osama Bin Laden in 1989 to Destabilise Pakistan
http://deadlinelive.info/2010/08/02/usa-funded-osama-bin-laden-in-1989-t...
"Pakistan President says George Bush funded CIA Operative OBL to destabilize Pakistan.."
Oh what tangled webs...
Awesome. Our tax dollars at work.
And those are some excellent posts from NDPP btw.
This site bans any 9/11 discusion.
Old goat and catchWHAtever - feel free to identify yourselves.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
MrBinky is trolling and is gone.
Binky there will be no fighting here. This is the war thread where we protest the war on poor people while, and at the same time, quietly reassuring ourselves of the generally accepted fact that millions of desperately poor people on the other side of the world somehow got their stuff together just long enough to pull off 9/11. It would be racist to suggest that poor people can't do something as incredibly dumb as to bring the wrath of the US Military warfiteers and NATO down on their desperately poor countries all by their selves and financing the whole dastardly plan a shoestring budget. So in a way we regret having to agree somewhat with warfiteers who may well be somewhat justified in their pre-emptive war to liberate desperately poor brown people from democracy and their natural resource wealth thousands of miles away. Carry on.
Hey Fidel, do you want to take your concerns to email? Try me at catchfire[at]rabble.ca. Believe it or not, I completely sympathize with where you are coming from.
Fidel, since you announced your 'boycott' of rabble at 4:06 pm this afternoon, you've posted 13 times on three different threads.
How can we miss you if you won't go away?
Ten members of the Christian medical team - six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton - were gunned down in a gruesome slaughter that the Taliban said they carried out, alleging the volunteers were spying and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver, who recited verses from the Islamic holy book Quran as he begged for his life.
Well, let's see: First our Christian soldiers kill tens of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. Then some Christian crusader bleeding hearts try to (metaphorically) heal Afghanistan's wounds with Band Aids in a misguided attempt to 'win the hearts and minds' and they get killed for that?
Geesh, you'd think they don't want us there or something.
The world doesn't want to be saved. It just wants to be left alone.
Okay thanks for reminding me of my serious intent to boycott. I almost forgot with all these comments on 9/11 and the resultant war on nouns. So, please continue with protesting the war, and forget about 9/11. They are two separate and distinct discussions of which their twains should never meet head-on in the same thread. It's tidier this way. Carry on and read yez l8r. Goin' to catch last call on the US side of the border as long as my travel papers are in order for the Homeland Stupidity Feds.
Carry on, and peace out!
@ Fidel
Fighting ? What fighting ? This site is a joke. If you post a link to the concerns of over a thousand professionals that's led to two wars - you're 'trolling' ?! WTF ? LOL !! And then you`re banned an hour after you`ve registered ! LOL !! (Sh*t - what am i missing )
http://www.ae911truth.org/
TheBinkster is as gone as he is charming.
ETA. And Fidel, take me seriously in my invitation to email. Or email Maysie or oldgoat if you'd prefer. You have far more to offer to this community than your 9/11 insights. Revel in that, instead of dwelling on a disciplinary measure.
I am happy that this is happening, the Taliban are driving out the evil crusaders. I am with Unionist on this one, the Afghan people are winning.
We must stop the unarmed civilians that have been operating in the country since at least 1980.
Thanks, Webgear, I knew you'd come around.
By the way, if you read the article you posted (I read it - how about you?), you'd know these Christians have been helping Afghans since 1966.
Just like when the Tabilan killed the 70+ year old worker at the KPRT three weeks ago.
Of course I read the articles, unlike some babblers.
It does not matter, the Afghans have spoken, they do not want them there anymore.
In actual point of historical fact, the Afghans spoke in August 2001, when they threw these "aid workers" out of Afghanistan. Once the invaders arrived and installed their puppet regime, the "aid workers" were welcomed back with open arms. So to be perfectly accurate, the Afghans have now spoken, very clearly, a second time. I wonder what message these "aid workers" understood the first time round, and what message they will get this time.
I doubt the IAM was really helping a quarter of a million Afghans each year. Just like Doctors Without Borders, it too was another worthless organization feeding off the conflict and it too was pushed out by the Afghans
I doubt the IAM was really helping a quarter of a million Afghans each year. Just like Doctors Without Borders, it too was another worthless organization feeding off the conflict and it too was pushed out by the Afghans
No, Médecins sans frontières is quite different from this "IAM" Christian outfit. They left Afghanistan in 2004 after the killing of five of their staff - but returned in 2009, for your information. And here's what they said, in part, in 2004 when reporting their decision to leave:
The violence directed at humanitarian aid workers in Afghanistan comes amid consistent efforts by the US-led coalition to use humanitarian aid to build support for its military and political aims. MSF has repeatedly denounced the coalition's attempts to do so. The organization has also spoken out against the military's attempt to usurp humanitarian aid. In May 2004, MSF publicly condemned the coalition's decision to distribute leaflets in southern Afghanistan that conditioned the continued delivery of aid on local people's willingness to provide information about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Médecins sans frontières website
TheBinkster is as gone as he is charming.
ETA. And Fidel, take me seriously in my invitation to email. Or email Maysie or oldgoat if you'd prefer. You have far more to offer to this community than your 9/11 insights. Revel in that, instead of dwelling on a disciplinary measure.
Well i must say that I really do have great affection for all babblers, and especially oldgoat and Michelle. Which is why I must refrain from posting for a short while. I realy don't understand this ban on discussing the truth movement. This is not oldgoat or Michelle or any of the babbler spirit talking to us. I know they will reconsider this harsh measure and simply want us to consider behaving in any and all threads let alobe 9/11 ones. Peace out,
From a historical point of view, I do not believe the province they were killed in was never a Taliban control province nor under control of the Taliban now.
Another sign of the "wonderful progress" we are making.
The Afghan surge in troops has resulted in the war spreading to (until recently) relatively peaceful provinces, districts and areas.
I am sure the Afghans will again push out Médecins sans frontières in due time. Even these MSF types support the IAM as provided at the bottom of the link you provided.
You may very well be correct. Any foreigners in Afghanistan who follow their own agenda, and not that dictated by the Afghan people, will have a short stay. That's what history has shown.
So, are we supposed to weep over those nice white rich people who went to help the poor backwards people, who never asked for help in the first place?
TheBinkster is as gone as he is charming.
ETA. And Fidel, take me seriously in my invitation to email. Or email Maysie or oldgoat if you'd prefer. You have far more to offer to this community than your 9/11 insights. Revel in that, instead of dwelling on a disciplinary measure.
I won't be emailing any of you screws until we know where the Binkster was sent to for the crime of being a wisenheimer. Is Binky in Gitmo?
I think you should ask yourself, when did Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occur and why?
We are told that the Taliban make friendly with Al-Qa'eda, an invisible enemy that is generally the root of all evil in the world, or so we are told. And Afghanistan is alleged to be a hideout for the invisible enemy. Petraeus says the new approach is to try harder not to kill innocent bystanders and to try to protect Afghan allies. But what about the social conditions in Afghanistan which couldn't be worse than now? There is grinding poverty and lack of health care and food and just about everything. Are the US Military and NATO trying to prevent Afghans from taking a shine to the medieval Taliban who the US basically created since the 1980s? Or are the US and NATO just biding their time and hoping that their corrupt and medieval Northern Alliance/Mujahideen friends will create better societal conditions so as to prevent Al-Qa'eda and their Pakistani ISI controllers from meddling in Afghanistan by these marauding militant groups, drug smuggling and weapons trade etc? I think that if the USA is serious about stopping the very militant Islam they have created and supported covertly throughout the 1990s in Central Asia, then there has to be transparent talks with Pakistan's military and military intelligence agency the ISI. Pakistani elites need to be heard from and encouraged to allow the creation of some form of democracy in that country before Afghanistan's sovereignty can be maintained, borders respected and security assured. Nothing very positive and long lasting will happen for Afghans until a proper peace deal is hammered out and foreign interests cease with the kick-back and graft and influencing Afghan politicians. Afghans have been putting up with US meddling in their country for more than 30 years. Isn't it time that someone dragged Uncle Sam and his militant dictatorship pals in Pakkstan to the negotiating table? Or is it that this is what they have been avoiding like the plague all along for hidden reasons?
Canadians were counting on it. They thought they could take Stephen Harper at his word. They were wrong.
Today we learned that Stephen Harper wants a backroom deal with Ignatieff's Liberals to keep Canadian soldiers in the military mission past 2011.
The majority of Canadians have spoken. Parliament has spoken. We want the combat mission to end in 2011. Now I want you to help me get the word out about this backroom deal.
Help Brad Lavigne get the word out. Spread the word on Facebook.
And here I was thinking that Harper wanted the troops back in Canada just in case there was a problem with the election here. After lots of experience keeping the Afghan election process free of corruption and ensuring the right guys get in, they could come in handy here.
Heh.
In anycase, I looked at Brad's link on the "backroom" deal between the Tories and the Liberals, but got a 404 error... any up dates on the "backroom" deal?
As for training the ANA, they need plenty. These days they seem to spend more time shooting at us than anyone else.
Pakistan's capitalist economy was in crisis by the 1980s, and money came from the west to General Zia in return for his co-operation in waging a proxy war against the Maxist PDPA government of Afghanistan and then the Sovs.The idea was for Pakistani elites and the CIA to control Afghanistan through militia leaders they believed to be the most ruthless and would be more effective than religious moderates in establishing militant, oppressive rule over Afghans. But Taliban was not really their style of Islam in Afghanistan before the CIA intervened and began propping up ruthless warlords and drug barons with lots and lots of US cash and weapons. The Taliban are now the neoTaliban, and Sibel Edmonds last said that madrassas in Afghanistan are still being funded by the west to the tune of serious money every year.
Al-Qaeda is so invisible that they never existed. A-Q is a CIA, ISI, Saudi and British MI6 creation and sometimes with German and Israeli intel playing along with the charade. There is no such thing as Al-Qaeda.
A US Marine Capt. and political officer in Afghanistan Mathew Hoh said this last year:
Apparently neither side can win this war. There will have to be talks or a pullout of foreign troops. My guess is that Washington will not be giving up soon either. I am postive that the Yanks are there for reasons other than to liberate women and nation building. The Yanks have had anti-communism oand especiall anti-Russian motives on the brain since the US invaded Russia in 1918. This is about surrounding Russia and China militarily and has nothing to do with democratizing Afghanistan.
3. Several reports over the last few minutes indicated that the "Taliban" are responsible for a recent increase of civilian causalities. One news report in April indicated that the "Taliban" had assassinated over two dozen political and religious leaders in Kandahar city due to not siding with the insurgency.
Over the past few months, with the number of incidents where the U.S./NATO/ISAF military first denied any civilian deaths, then after incontrovertable evidence was made public, admitted that civilians, women and children were killed in the U.S./NATO/ISAF air attacks or clandestine special forces raids, coupled with the information recently provided by wikileaks, these figures and their attendant claims are suspect.
There's also a pretty big difference between insurgents going after known targets and taking them out individually (ie., the "assassinations" you refer to) by gunning them down with AK-47s with no "collateral damage" versus murdering tens (sometimes one hundred or more) of innocent civilians attending weddings or celebrating births in the family by bombers, fighter/ground attack aircraft or helicopter gunships by U.S./NATO/ISAF forces where they have no idea who or where their enemy is.
Tariq Ali says the estimates are half a million US troops and one-million Af-Paks murdered. Or, there could be a medium term solution with peace talks involving Iran, Russia and China as well as Pakistan and an Afghan national coalition.
Ok, the claims by NATO maybe not correct.
What does your post have to do with the issue of the Taliban assassinating people in Kandahar city by suicide bombing and rifle fire?
There have been collateral damage by these assassinations.
Anyways your NATO issue is a whole different issue.
What it has to do is that the incidents I alluded to are what U.S./NATO/ISAF forces admitted and what are now public knowledge.
What wikileaks has done is revealed additional incidents that U.S./NATO/ISAF forces have not admitted to and was not previously known by the public.
Thus begging the question of how many more such incidents have gone unreported and how many more Afghan civilians been murdered by U.S./NATO/ISAF forces.
Do you see how this calls into question the stats and reports by Western media claiming the "Taliban" has killed more civilians than U.S./NATO/ISAF forces, or no?
Why not make a seperate post about NATO/ISAF killings.
You still have not denied that the Taliban are assassinating large number of people in Kandahar city. Do a google search, many non-western reporters are reporting these incidents if you want a non-western spin.
Well let's see, this thread's title is "The Afghan People Will Win..."
I take it to mean that this is a thread about the Afghan war.
So let's see; yup, U.S./NATO/ISAF killings of Afghan civilians is an aspect of the Afghan war. Looks to me like it's logically in the right place.
Why make a separate post about U.S./NATO/ISAF killings of Afghan civilians, do you take personal umbrage to it, or something?
Yeah, you're right I don't deny the insurgents are assassinating Afghan Benedict Arnolds (i.e., traitors). It's the best cure I know for stupidity.
Who do you think is going to stay in Afghanistan longer?
You and your American soldier buddies? Or Afghan insurgents?
Yeah, so you have to be pretty stupid or pretty greedy (or both) as an Afghan, to side with the U.S./NATO/ISAF forces and the corrupt puppet Karzai regime we are propping up: Side with the corrupt Western puppet government, then open up the spigot and just let that torrent of Yanqui dollars fill your unchartered Swiss (or wherever) bank account.
Getting rid of (most Afghans, it appears, don't much like the Taliban, they like foreign soldiers even less, and less still Afghans who side with the corrupt Karzai government we are propping up) such corrupt greedy vulture Benedict Arnold scum is just as much insurgent propaganda
as the claim that we are killing less civilians than the insurgents is our propaganda.
Assassinating a "large" number of people in Kandahar city is a relative term.
What are you comparing it to?
Are there that many corrupt Afghan officials in Kandahar city that the number of their deaths is greater than the number of civilian deaths U.S./NATO/ISAF forces have caused?
Are AK-47s, suicide bombers and IEDs far more efficient WMDs when it comes to killing mass numbers of civilians than U.S./NATO/ISAF bombs, rockets and missiles dropped and fired from bomber and ground attack aircraft and attack helicopters?
Do you see how our bullshit propaganda about this war just doesn't add up?
Or is it a case of that mealie-mouthed excuse used in Vietnam about us "fighting the war with one hand tied behind our back?"
If I'm wrong, then heaven help us. Insurgent AK-47s, RPGs, machineguns, IEDs, suicide bombers, etc., being such more effective mass killing machines than our weapons and tactics - we're going to get wiped off the face of the Afghan map.
Is the war really going that badly?
I would say yes... and it's going even worse for the Afghan people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100811/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
International urged the Afghan government to seek prosecution of Taliban leaders for war crimes. Women
and children are increasingly bearing the brunt of the conflict - even as NATO restrains the use of force
on the battlefield.
Don't believe it because it's posted on a MSM web sight? Here's from the IA web sight its self...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20100810001&lang=e
In the first half of 2010, the executions and assassinations of civilians by the Taliban and other insurgent groups increased by over 95% to 183 recorded deaths compared to the same time last year. The victims were usually accused of supporting the government.
Turns out most of those "no collateral damage" assassinations are aimed at controlling the local population's tribal elders through intimidation... the Taliban is attacking the very heart of the traditional Afghan governing system at the local level. How does this benefit the Afghan people?
"The elders are threatened and if they don't cooperate with the Taliban they are killed," said a Kandahar journalist. "Then the Taliban will just tell the village that the elder was an American spy and that is why he was killed." The journalist asked not to be identified out of fear of Taliban retaliation.
My point in posting this is: We all know the mistakes and wrong doings of NATO; admitted or otherwise... but it seems there's a real reluctance for some here to acknowledge that the Taliban aren't any better and have some romantic vision of them being some noble insurgent.
Right now the Afghan people are not winning: the Taliban are. I want us to leave, but I don't want to see the Taliban return to power niether.
I'd like to start another subject line here: Can the Afghan people defeat the Taliban after they "defeat NATO? Saddly I say say no way.
But the CIA and other US officials have been talking with the Taliban and Pashtun leaders with Saudis mediating, and over quite a long time now according to various sources. Who would decide the new boundaries way over there thousands of miles away from Anglo-American jurisdiction, and where "North Atlantic" Treaty Org nations are overstepping their cold war era reach? Isn't it time that people living there and who will be affected by these decisions should know what's being discussed on their behalfs in closed door meetings in swanky hotel rooms of Karachi and Islamabad? And I must admit to being curious myself as troops from my country are donated to this noble US cause to impose US proxy rule in Central Asia.
Frmsldr
Before your time, babble had more balanced and logical thread titles, however a few progressive babblers decided this was not fair and decided to change the thread titles to the current name to suit their own needs.
I have even asked the creator's of the thread titles on their definition of what an Afghan is? I never had a response. For a while some babbler's even called Afghan, Afghanis (which is their national currency).
That's intellectual and semantic hairsplitting. If you're going to go that route, you're going to end up suffering from "paralysis of analysis."
I would say yes... and it's going even worse for the Afghan people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100811/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
International urged the Afghan government to seek prosecution of Taliban leaders for war crimes. Women
and children are increasingly bearing the brunt of the conflict - even as NATO restrains the use of force
on the battlefield.
Don't believe it because it's posted on a MSM web sight? Here's from the IA web sight its self...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20100810001&lang=e
In the first half of 2010, the executions and assassinations of civilians by the Taliban and other insurgent groups increased by over 95% to 183 recorded deaths compared to the same time last year. The victims were usually accused of supporting the government.
Turns out most of those "no collateral damage" assassinations are aimed at controlling the local population's tribal elders through intimidation... the Taliban is attacking the very heart of the traditional Afghan governing system at the local level. How does this benefit the Afghan people?
"The elders are threatened and if they don't cooperate with the Taliban they are killed," said a Kandahar journalist. "Then the Taliban will just tell the village that the elder was an American spy and that is why he was killed." The journalist asked not to be identified out of fear of Taliban retaliation.
My point in posting this is: We all know the mistakes and wrong doings of NATO; admitted or otherwise... but it seems there's a real reluctance for some here to acknowledge that the Taliban aren't any better and have some romantic vision of them being some noble insurgent.
Right now the Afghan people are not winning: the Taliban are. I want us to leave, but I don't want to see the Taliban return to power niether.
I'd like to start another subject line here: Can the Afghan people defeat the Taliban after they "defeat NATO? Saddly I say say no way.
To respond to your points quickly:
As I said, the Afghan people generally don't like the Taliban much, but they like the foreign illegal occupiers less and their Afghan government puppets less still. The Taliban are not nice guys. To most Afghans, our troops are "bastards", the Taliban are "bastards". Yet why do so many Afghans either actively or tacitly support the Taliban? Well, as an Afghan might put it, "The Taliban are our 'bastards'."
Remember, WE created the Taliban.
All that bullshit reported in the mainstream media about the rise in civilian casualties caused mostly by the "Taliban" is propaganda that is created and used by U.S./NATO/ISAF forces. Whenever ground forces have a firefight with insurgents or an airstrike results in civilian casualties, they come up with the story that "the Taliban killed them" or they died because "the (cowardly) Taliban used them as human shields."
Those cries for the Taliban to be tried for war crimes betrays the bias of your sources.
In the 1990-1996 Afghan civil war, war lords - our present Northern Alliance puppets, many of whom are in the Karzai puppet government we are propping up, committed crimes against humanity. What has happened about that? Our puppet Karzai regime (at the Pentagon's urging) granted them amnesty.
What about our governments and officers being put on trial for the war crimes we have committed in Afghanistan? For Canada, remember "Torturegate", or have you already forgotten?
The Afghan government to put Taliban leaders on trial for war crimes? Hamid Karzai? The President of Afghanistan who, in order to prolong his life and political career after the U.S./NATO/ISAF leaves, is currently in negotiations with Taliban and Hezb-i-Islami Gulbudden (HIG) leaders to join the Afghan national government. Put them on war crimes trials? Don't make me laugh! Whoever believes that needs to wake up because they're dreaming.
All that bullshit reported in the mainstream media about the rise in civilian casualties caused mostly by the "Taliban" is propaganda that is created and used by U.S./NATO/ISAF forces. Whenever ground forces have a firefight with insurgents or an airstrike results in civilian casualties, they come up with the story that "the Taliban killed them" or they died because "the (cowardly) Taliban used them as human shields."
Those cries for the Taliban to be tried for war crimes betrays the bias of your sources.
So are you saying Amnesty International is a bullshit MSM organization?
Has Amnesty International ever called on the US to prosecute Bush and Obama for their manifest war crimes? Of course not. That would jeopardize their funding.
Has Amnesty International ever called on the US to prosecute Bush and Obama for their manifest war crimes? Of course not. That would jeopardize their funding.
No, but they do report on the USA...
http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/page.do?id=1011100
Nor have they really demanded prosecution for other leaders of organizations and countries (some popular amongst certain babblers here) whose organizations have committed "AI documented war crimes" in the past. I don't think AI recommends prosecutions by name for the most part (this one for the Taliban being an exception). In their mission statement they are focused on pointing out human rights violations which can lead to war crimes investigations; i.e. they just report violations for others to act on. They don't seem to be in the business of charging people in courts of law.
As you pointed out, demanding prosecutions would endanger funding in some areas/countries of the world and even endanger their personnel in others.
It's a really thin line they have to walk...
(I'll take that as a yes from you. )
You gotta love it. We created the mooj, the Taliban being one of them. First they were our buddies. Now they are our enemies. Our little puppet dictator we are propping up is holding talks with the Taliban for them to join his government.
The people Canadian soldiers are now being killed by - we created them ourselves and were our former buddies, our little puppet in Kabul is negotiating with them behind our backs. Again I ask, you think Karzai is going to bring Taliban leaders to war crimes/crimes against humanity trials? Dream on.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "We support the troops." BULLSHIT.
151 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan.
Why?
Why?
It all happens on a need to know basis, and Harper feels Canadians don't need to know. What we don't know can't hurt us. The way they look at it is that volunteering Canadian lives to a US-led clusterfuck and kowtowing to Uncle Sam is none of our business.
It all happens on a need to know basis, and Harper feels Canadians don't need to know. What we don't know can't hurt us. The way they look at it is that volunteering Canadian lives to a US-led clusterfuck and kowtowing to Uncle Sam is none of our business.
What we don't know can't hurt Herr Harper either!
Occupation by NGO - by Yves Engler
http://www.counterpunch.org/engler08132010.html
"The humanitarian invasion of Afghanistan..."
New Oilfield Discovered in Afghanistan
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=138817§ionid=3510213
"A new oil deposit containing an estimated 1.9 Billion barrels of crude oil has been discovered in the northern provinces of Afghanistan.."
Petraeus to Talk Obama Out of Pullout
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=138831§ionid=351020403
"Obama had vowed he would start troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in mid 2011. However, officials like VP Joe Biden and US Secretary of State Robert Gates later said the number of troops to be withdrawn could be as low as 2,000. The developments came as the security situation keeps deteriorating in Afghanistan.."
Secret US Assault on Terrorism Widens: Report
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=47295
"The administration's demands have accelerated a transformation of the CIA into a paramilitary organization as much as a spy agency..Michael G Vickers, who helped run the CIA campaign to funnel money and guns to the Afghanistan mujahedeen in the 1980s and was featured in the book and movie 'Charlie Wilson's War' is now the top Pentagon official overseeing Special Operations troops around the globe.."
Taliban: Greatest Guerrilla Insurgency?
http://ht.ly/2q40Z
"Resistance to interference from outsiders is almost hard-wired into the psyche of the Pashtuns, whose tribal society has survived almost 3,000 years of foreign invasion and occupation..For all their faults, the Taliban brought the majority of Afghans a degree of peace that they hadn't known since the 1970s. 'I changed my view [ of the Taliban] 3 years ago when I realized Afghanistan is on its own,' said Shukria Barakzai recently - a Pashtun MP and one of the country's leading women's rights campaigners, 'The Taliban are part of our population..they have different ideas but as democrats we have to accept that.."
Rejoice! I am alive and well, visiting my good babble friends while on vacation!
Why make a separate post about U.S./NATO/ISAF killings of Afghan civilians, do you take personal umbrage to it, or something?
Yeah, you're right I don't deny the insurgents are assassinating Afghan Benedict Arnolds (i.e., traitors). It's the best cure I know for stupidity.
http://www.stopchildexecutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=art...
old&catid=36:scenews&Itemid=68
much even for Afghans hardened by three decades of fighting.
Islamic law prohibits the execution of anyone under 18. The Taliban's own code of conduct, drawn up by the movement two years
ago, stipulates that no commander may order the execution of minors, and anyone disobeying this rule will face retribution.
But a senior Taliban member, Mullah Abdol Bari, suggested that code of conduct did not apply in Helmand.
"The code has been changed for Helmand because the number of infidels there has increased, and the Taliban don't have the time to
hold trials," he said. That meant that local commanders in Helmand province are allowed to use their own discretion to pass judgment
on people accused of spying and punish them accordingly.
"Best cure for stupidity" indeed!
I bet they really taught that 8 year old spy a lesson heh
This thread is always interesting for the one sided views it almost always displays. Killing is bad, unless it's killing <insert name> who are <insert activity> so it's O-K ...
NATO killing children by accident is murder.
Taliban killing children by accident is "bad", BUT they wouldn't be killing those children in the first place if the US never invaded, so it's not really their fault right?
Taliban killing children on purpose? See above "It's Nato's fault anyways".
How can you argue with that logic? You can't lol.
Cause then a right wing nutbar will counter argue and suggest that the US wouldn't be in Afghanistan if it wasn't for the 9/11 terrorist attacks!
And then THAT point will be counter-counter argued that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the US wasn't meddeling in the middle east. Or that the US planned it in the first place..
Blame game goes round n round
I interject the Afghan people will loose because they will either have greedy westerners trying to control them and westernize em $$$ or religious zealots trying to control them and force rules on them.
NATO and the US should try this experiment. Pull all of their troops out of Afghanistan, and then take note of how many innocent civilians are murdered by "smart" bombs, remote controlled weapons, and aerial strafing.
Do you consider the Afghans working for NATO/Isaf traitors and spys?
Do you consider the Afghans working for NATO/Isaf traitors and spys?
According to British journalist Daniella Peled, many of those Afghans say they are simply surviving. Some Afghans believe that government could be made more transparent and less corrupt, and that they could have a true defence army loyal to Afghans if they US-led NATO forces pulled out. In the mean time thiough, they have no alternative but to survive the occupation by their wits. Can you blame them?
An excellent point and one I have seen and agree with. They are just surviving, in conditions that would probably kill many here.
You didn't answer my question though
Do *you* feel the Afghans who work with NATO/ISAF or who are employed by them are traitors or "Benedict Arnolds?"
I'm sure you can guess where I am going with this. If the Taliban are willing to murder an 8 year old boy, in defiance of their own laws because they are "too busy to hold a trial" do you think when NATO pulls out all will be forgiven?
I would counter your argument with;
Sadly I remember bringing this point up in an earlier installment of this thread and the feedback I got seemed to be "Meh, at least NATO will be out of their country. It's not our business what goes on or how they run the place". Again, can't argue with someone who's behind that mindset.
Rejoice! I am alive and well, visiting my good babble friends while on vacation!
Why make a separate post about U.S./NATO/ISAF killings of Afghan civilians, do you take personal umbrage to it, or something?
Yeah, you're right I don't deny the insurgents are assassinating Afghan Benedict Arnolds (i.e., traitors). It's the best cure I know for stupidity.
http://www.stopchildexecutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=art...
old&catid=36:scenews&Itemid=68
much even for Afghans hardened by three decades of fighting.
Islamic law prohibits the execution of anyone under 18. The Taliban's own code of conduct, drawn up by the movement two years
ago, stipulates that no commander may order the execution of minors, and anyone disobeying this rule will face retribution.
But a senior Taliban member, Mullah Abdol Bari, suggested that code of conduct did not apply in Helmand.
"The code has been changed for Helmand because the number of infidels there has increased, and the Taliban don't have the time to
hold trials," he said. That meant that local commanders in Helmand province are allowed to use their own discretion to pass judgment
on people accused of spying and punish them accordingly.
"Best cure for stupidity" indeed!
I bet they really taught that 8 year old spy a lesson heh
This thread is always interesting for the one sided views it almost always displays. Killing is bad, unless it's killing <insert name> who are <insert activity> so it's O-K ...
NATO killing children by accident is murder.
Taliban killing children by accident is "bad", BUT they wouldn't be killing those children in the first place if the US never invaded, so it's not really their fault right?
Taliban killing children on purpose? See above "It's Nato's fault anyways".
How can you argue with that logic? You can't lol.
Cause then a right wing nutbar will counter argue and suggest that the US wouldn't be in Afghanistan if it wasn't for the 9/11 terrorist attacks!
And then THAT point will be counter-counter argued that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the US wasn't meddeling in the middle east. Or that the US planned it in the first place..
Blame game goes round n round
I interject the Afghan people will loose because they will either have greedy westerners trying to control them and westernize em $$$ or religious zealots trying to control them and force rules on them.
Hi PraetorianFour, welcome back.
Naturally, I was thinking of those adult vultures whose greed talked them into siding with the U.S. and their propped up puppet government.
Like you (I'm sure), I hoped/hope those war criminal military tribunals would take your arguments into consideration when it comes to the trial of former child soldier Omar Khadr.
Oh well, in any case, they're not going to execute him. I guess the prospect of possibly sending a 23 year old to jail for the rest of his life is not as bad.
Thanks Frmrsldr!
I was pretty sure you were talking about the adults but I wanted to bring attention to how tricky it is when you start labeling people traitors.
Is a man who fights along side NATO and thinks NATO is the best way to improve Afghanistan a traitor?
The man or woman who works for NATO because it puts food on their table?
The man woman or child who takes money from the Taliban to report on NATO movements, again so they can take that money and provide food for their family?
Who are we to tell him he is wrong? When we do so it's us once again holding the Afghan man or woman to out set of values ethics and morals.
I have not been following the Khadr case very closely. Even if he did throw a grenade that killded a US soldier and planted IEDs, the kid was 14 or 15.. Under the wing of his father. Do you expect a 14 year old to not emulate his parent and believe them when they say these people are bad it's okay to hurt them? I don't. When he was first detained he was apparently uncooperative, refused to be weighted and started talking shit to his guards. Of course he's a teenager who has been force fed hardcore religious indoctronation his whole life, big surprise.
That's getting off topic though. I'm just saying it's tricky when you start making statements like "assassinating Afghan Benedict Arnolds (i.e., traitors). It's the best cure I know for stupidity." cause the "traitor" just depends on which side is holding the gun and some people have no issue with labeling 8 or 14 year olds traitors and suggesting a "cure" for it.
Is a man who fights along side NATO and thinks NATO is the best way to improve Afghanistan a traitor?
Yes. Why just "man", though?
Yes.
No.
You didn't ask if they were "wrong". You were just asking whether they were "traitors". The answer is yes - pretty simple question based on lexicography, I would think. If Canada is invaded by the U.S. and I fight with the invaders - for money or for free - I trust you will call me a traitor too?
As for holding Afghans to "our set of values, ethics, and morals" - don't be too concerned. The Afghan people know how to deal with traitors without our lecturing them on morality.
Is your point about traitors, or about children? The traitor part is pretty simple, I thought. But we real human beings (i.e., not U.S.-NATO murderers) don't hold children responsible for actions like these. Hope my view here is clear to you.
I'm just saying it's tricky when you start making statements like "assassinating Afghan Benedict Arnolds (i.e., traitors). It's the best cure I know for stupidity." cause the "traitor" just depends on which side is holding the gun and some people have no issue with labeling 8 or 14 year olds traitors and suggesting a "cure" for it.
The stupidity I'm referring to are the few Afghans who decide to opt for short term personal greed (financial gain) over the long term welfare of their fellow Afghans. It should be pretty obvious to them that the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents who oppose the foreign presence are going to remain in Afghanistan longer than the foreigners. Such Benedict Arnolds had better have a plan to evacuate Kabul when it falls to anti U.S./NATO/ISAF forces, or else their lives won't be worth even one red cent. But again, I say "that's the price one pays for stupidity."
Is a man who fights along side NATO and thinks NATO is the best way to improve Afghanistan a traitor?
Yes. Why just "man", though?
Yes.
Just laziness on my part, it should be man woman and child.
You said yes it makes them a traitor. Who are you, a westerner, to call an Afghan citizen a traitor?
If an Afghan citizen chooses to throw their lot in with X what gives you [gives us] the right to pass judgement? It's been argued here quite often that westerners have no right to tell Afghanis how to live or what to believe in, yet you are doing JUST that by saying that an Afghan citizen who chooses X over Y is a traitor.
Is your point about traitors, or about children? The traitor part is pretty simple, I thought. But we real human beings (i.e., not U.S.-NATO murderers) don't hold children responsible for actions like these. Hope my view here is clear to you.
Not very clear no. traitor is really subjective. Some Canadians no doubt think you're a traitor for your views, as no doubt some think the same of me.
As a "real human being" [Unlike the NATO-US murderers facist stormtroopers warmongers imperial invaders etc..] are you okay with executing "traitors"? Traitors being whichever government in power deems as a traitor, be it a James Bond spy or little Billy next door.
Here is a question, when you say the Afghan people will win. How do define "winning" in the context of Afghanistan? Is winning to you simply Nato pulling out of Afghanistan?
Just feel like it. What's the matter, you don't believe in freedom of conscience? Anyway, whoever is fighting to throw the foreigners out of their country is ok with me. Whoever supports the foreigners is a traitor. I don't like to interfere in others' judgments, but I'm making a big exception this time.
I won't pass judgment. I'll leave that to the Afghan people. Some posters on this very board have actually argued in the past that after the Afghan people win, Canada should give refuge to the traitors who worked with "us" against their people. I am on record as suggesting that we keep their treasonous asses out of this country. Perhaps that will teach people not to throw their lot in with invaders.
Call me inconsistent. Call me confused. Just don't call me after 10:00 pm EDT.
It's fine. Some Canadians think people of colour are inferior and not to be trusted. Your moral and political relativism is charming, but somehow unpersuasive on a discussion board where we oppose imperialism and aggression. Or were you aware of that?
I'm totally fine with the Afghan people dealing with collaborators exactly as they please. It is their affair. Just as you are ok with some things that I find deeply offensive.
Here is a question, when you say the Afghan people will win. How do define "winning" in the context of Afghanistan? Is winning to you simply Nato pulling out of Afghanistan?
No, I would prefer the U.S., Canada, and NATO to suffer humiliating military defeat. I guess just "pulling out" is a close second. Yeah, P4, in case you haven't had the opportunity to read the scores of threads on Afghanistan which I've opened (mostly) or posted in, that's my definition of victory for the Afghan people.
Do *you* feel the Afghans who work with NATO/ISAF or who are employed by them are traitors or "Benedict Arnolds?"
I'm sure you can guess where I am going with this. If the Taliban are willing to murder an 8 year old boy, in defiance of their own laws because they are "too busy to hold a trial" do you think when NATO pulls out all will be forgiven?
By what I know, Taliban laws are not necessarily those of the various tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not all of who see eye to eye with the others in those countries. The Pashtuns, for instance, have their own code of conduct, Pashtunwalli, which is said to sometimes clash with Taliban edicts. But apparently what unites them all in opposition to the foreign invaders is the foreign occupation itself. And I think that the fundamentalists know this is true and are willing to overlook certain things in order to keep the peace among the united resistance. This co-operation among tribes and ethnics is unique to Afghanistan. In Iraq, for example, there is no united front against the illegal US military occupation.
But I don't know whether they would be considered traitors. They may, and otoh, I think there is a civil war that still wants playing out and without the interference of other countries. There need to be peace talks, a loya jirga with UN appointed mediators. Surrounding countries need to be included in these peace talks as they are involved in this conflict as well. Afghanistan's borders and sovereignty require certain guarantees from the leaders of those countries.
Sadly I remember bringing this point up in an earlier installment of this thread and the feedback I got seemed to be "Meh, at least NATO will be out of their country. It's not our business what goes on or how they run the place". Again, can't argue with someone who's behind that mindset.
If things come down to a civil war in any country, is it really any of our business? What if Russian and British imperials had intervened in the American civil war to the extent that two superpowers have intervened in Afghanistan's civil war since the 1970s? What if some countries had armed the southern US confederates to the eye teeth against the northern union side? Would Cuba or Russia and China have any right to begin arming the various rightwing miltia groups and neoNazis in the US today and fomenting civil war in America in these uncertain economic times in the US? That would amount to outside political interference in the extreme, for sure. Tha Yanks would probably consider it an act of war.
No, I would prefer the U.S., Canada, and NATO to suffer humiliating military defeat. I guess just "pulling out" is a close second. Yeah, P4, in case you haven't had the opportunity to read the scores of threads on Afghanistan which I've opened (mostly) or posted in, that's my definition of victory for the Afghan people.
Unless the Afghan people get some kind of central government strong enough to keep the Taliban tamped down they will never win. The default tribalism/warlordism they fall into in absents of any type of strong central authority fails to keep any type of peace or economic stability. Unless of course you think the Taliban is that ideal central authority for the Afghans... defeating or driving away NATO will not be the end of the suffering, poverty and oppression. It will only be the end of Afghan posts here on babble (and elsewhere on the internet).
I'm in a quandary; I don't really don't have the confidence you have that the Afghan people can stave off a Taliban return if we just up and leave but at the same time I want us out of there as soon as possible without having to return again in 5 or 10 years.
I don't think a military victory for a mostly white male dominated ultra conservative religious group would be good for the world right now...
I'm in a quandary; I don't really don't have the confidence you have that the Afghan people can stave off a Taliban return if we just up and leave ...
What makes you think the Afghan people want to "stave off" a Taliban return?
Ah, so "we" went in there to overthrow the Taliban, and "we" should get out as soon as we're sure the Taliban never return - otherwise "we" may "have to return".
Then when will "we" be marching into Saudi Arabia?
Even though reflections like yours lead to the slaughter of millions around the world (i.e., we should be staving things off and doing what's good for the world right now), the comforting thought is that those who follow such paths always end up in the toilet of history. Hopefully Canada will learn that lesson faster than the British or the Soviets did, and of course than the U.S., which hasn't learned it yet.
I'm in a quandary; I don't really don't have the confidence you have that the Afghan people can stave off a Taliban return if we just up and leave ...
What makes you think the Afghan people want to "stave off" a Taliban return?
Stuff like this...
http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing120_What_Do_Afghans_Want.htm
These are the results of a nationwide poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News (USA) and ARD (Germany), in which 1,534 Afghans were interviewed in all of the country's 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009.
The poll found enormous hostility to the Taliban. 82% of people said they would prefer the present government; only 4% favoured a Taliban government. 90% of people said they opposed Taliban fighters. The Taliban were seen as the biggest danger to the country by 58% of people; the United States was in fourth place with 8% (just ahead of 'local commanders' - a euphemism for US-backed warlords, we suspect).
'Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?' The Taliban came top with 27%; al-Qa'eda/foreign jihadis were next with 22%. In third place were 'US/American forces/Bush/US government/America/NATO/ISAF forces' with 21%.
69% of people thought it was a good thing that the US-led forces had come to Aghanistan to bring down the Taliban. (Down from 88% in 2006.)
64% of Afghans thought (in January 2009) that 'The Taliban are the same as before', and had not grown more moderate.
I pretty much agree with the artical... the creation of a coalition government including the Taliban leadership is probably the best answer. I suspect for the Afghan people dealing with the Taliban is going to be like holding a really pissed off badger by the scruff of the neck: you don't like doing it but you can't set it down or let it go... There will be no military victory for any side.
And 51% of Afghans want pullout of foreign troops by 2011. What kind of survey was it? Was there an option given to survey participants for immediate withdrawal of NATO troops? Did they ask any women what their opinions are and without husbands standing over them? Were Pashtuns represented in the survey?
Peace with Criminals, War with People!
This "war" is a total farce. Uncle Sam and the Taliban actually have great love for one another. How can anyone hate their own child, their own creation, I ask you? The idea isn't to create a peaceful democracy in Afghanistan - it is to keep them on their knees while the US Military and NATO maintain "forward operations" in Central Asia in this colder war era. It's a bullshit war.
Afghanistan Recruits Iraq-Style Militia Force
http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2010/08/afghanistan-recruits-iraqst...
"Critics are concerned about repeated mistakes made in Afghanistan during the 1980s when similar militia were mobilised against the mujahedeen fighting Soviet troops. Some of the forces grew into private armies, turning on their own bosses and battling each other in power struggles during the 1990s civil war. The 1992-1994 fighting was centered largely on Kabul and killed more than 80,000 civilians.."
I'm in a quandary; I don't really don't have the confidence you have that the Afghan people can stave off a Taliban return if we just up and leave ...
What makes you think the Afghan people want to "stave off" a Taliban return?
Stuff like this...
http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing120_What_Do_Afghans_Want.htm
These are the results of a nationwide poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News (USA) and ARD (Germany), in which 1,534 Afghans were interviewed in all of the country's 34 provinces between 30 December 2008 and 12 January 2009.
The poll found enormous hostility to the Taliban. 82% of people said they would prefer the present government; only 4% favoured a Taliban government. 90% of people said they opposed Taliban fighters. The Taliban were seen as the biggest danger to the country by 58% of people; the United States was in fourth place with 8% (just ahead of 'local commanders' - a euphemism for US-backed warlords, we suspect).
'Who do you blame the most for the violence that is occurring in the country?' The Taliban came top with 27%; al-Qa'eda/foreign jihadis were next with 22%. In third place were 'US/American forces/Bush/US government/America/NATO/ISAF forces' with 21%.
69% of people thought it was a good thing that the US-led forces had come to Aghanistan to bring down the Taliban. (Down from 88% in 2006.)
64% of Afghans thought (in January 2009) that 'The Taliban are the same as before', and had not grown more moderate.
I pretty much agree with the artical... the creation of a coalition government including the Taliban leadership is probably the best answer. I suspect for the Afghan people dealing with the Taliban is going to be like holding a really pissed off badger by the scruff of the neck: you don't like doing it but you can't set it down or let it go... There will be no military victory for any side.
What Fidel said.
In addition, I will paraphrase an argument of Malalai Joya: The Afghan people are fighting four enemies - the U.S. and foreign forces, the Afghan puppet government the foreign forces are propping up, the Northern Warlords and the Taliban and other anti-democratic mysoginistic forces.
If the foreign forces leave, then that will at least be one less force killing Afghan people and one less force that has to be fought against. Foreign countries can't export liberty. Liberty can only be achieved in a country if its people want it themselves.
Whatever happened in Afghanistan in the past didn't affect any other country (save perhaps Pakistan and India.) It wasn't any business of ours to interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan. We should leave Afghanistan. We should never have gone there in the first place.
Has anyone heard of Adnan G. El Shukrijumah? He's supposed to be the new leader of the invisible enemy sometimes known as Al-CIA'duh - a supposedly significant reason why our stooges volunteered Canada's military to a US-led occupation of the Stan.
Mercenaries ordered to leave Afghanistan
What makes you think the Afghan people want to "stave off" a Taliban return?
Honestly?
I've have some pretty heartfelt conversations with Afghan men. By heart felt I mean honest. By men who at times would point at me and said things like ISAF can be real assholes! And that when the Taliban were in power at least they had electricity and some security [of course the latter if you followed their rules but I digress..]
Anamosity towards ISAF aside, the above picture is a very very real worry for fathers in Afghanistan who love their daughters. Many of us here are parents and realize how scary something like this can be.
I'm not getting into a who's nicer ISAF or Taliban argument- are bombs from planes or accidental killings any less horrible than IEDs and cutting someones nose off etc.. but to answer your question what makes people think some Afghans may not want the Taliban to come back into power?
This picture.
Whether you hate ISAF et el or not, the Taliban are very brutal and barbaric in their treatment of women and some Afghan parents are rightfully afraid for their childrens welfare should the Taliban take over.
It wasn't the Taliban who did that.
It was the girl's father and his Northern Alliance war lord buddies who did that.
Northern Alliance war lords who we are propping up and who are the majority of MPs in our puppet Karzai government we are propping up.
A Karzai government that signed off on the misogynist Sharia Family Law.
We have been in Afghanistan for nine years. Since 2001, things have gotten worse - for women specifically, and for all Afghans generally.
If, after nearly ten years of war and occupation, we can't stop this, then perhaps the Afghan people can't either, if given the chance by our leaving them in peace?
And Karzai is a pro-Mooj freedom fighter from the glorious anti-communist jihad era of the 1980s. He's one of the good guys, isn't he? WTF? Now it's fubar.
It wasn't the Taliban who did that.
It would seem TIME disagrees with you...
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html
Were'd you get you info from?
What shamelss pro-U.S. propaganda in this thread. From RAWA's web site:
“Time” exploits victim to promote war -“During the Taliban’s regime such atrocities weren’t as rife as it is now and the graph is hiking each day”
Afghan feminist Malalai Joya condemned the pro-war media manipulation. “During the Taliban’s regime such atrocities weren’t as rife as it is now and the graph is hiking each day”, she told France 24 on August 1.
“Eighteen-year-old Aisha is just an example and cutting ears, noses and toes, torturing and even slaughtering is a norm in Afghanistan
“Currently, Afghan people, especially women, are squashed between three enemies: Taliban, fundamentalist warlords and troops … The US used the plight of Afghan women as an excuse to occupy Afghanistan in 2001 by filling television screens, internet pages and newspapers with pictures of women being shot down or beaten up in public.
“Once again, it is moulding the oppression of women into a propaganda tool to gain support and staining their hands with ever-deepening treason against Afghan women.”
It wasn't the Taliban who did that.
It would seem TIME disagrees with you...
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html
Were'd you get you info from?
From the linked RAWA article:
“I heard Aisha's story from her a few weeks before the image of her face was displayed all over the world”, Ann Jones, author of Kabul in Winter, wrote in the August 12 Nation. “She told me that her father-in-law caught up with her after she ran away, and took a knife to her on his own; village elders later approved, but the Taliban didn't figure at all in this account.
“The Time story, however, attributes Aisha's mutilation to a husband under orders of a Talib commander, thereby transforming a personal story, similar to those of countless women in Afghanistan today, into a portent of things to come for all women if the Taliban return to power.”
Of course, TIME magazine wouldn't happen to be a mouthpiece of the same murdering invaders who have slaughtered and disenfranchised the Afghan people for the last 9 years, so I guess that makes TIME's filthy lies credible on a progressive discussion board.
ETA: Oh, the same response to your last post, P4, although I see you have wisely edited it out.
Yessir.
The Yanks and Pakistan's military dictatorship of the 1980s were just working together to drive out secular socialist thought in the region in favour of theocratic feudalism. It would be like Southern confederates and ultra-rightwing militia groups winning the American civil war with foreign aid and weapons and 30 year's worth of meddling. US meddling in Afghanistan and Asia in general just never ends.
Poll shows growing opposition to Afghan war. Nine years in, Americans are sick of war:
Just weeks after a USA Today/Gallup poll showed support for the Afghan War was plummeting, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows the trend continuing, with 58 percent of Americans now firmly opposed to the war, the worst such toll in the well publicized poll since the 2001 US invasion.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/20/poll-shows-growing-opposition-to-afgh...
Ever notice how people support polls when it coinsides with their opinion yet critisize polls when it doesn't?
There was a poll just recently where a 5 to 1 ratio of Canadians believed the "tamils" should be sent home.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/20/15083191.html
Somehow I doubt many members here would support this poll. Polls are questionable devices to use in arguments, n'est pas?
hey, did you read the loaded poll question?
people only agreed, IMV, because they had been lyingly told there were "terrorists" on the boat. Had that not been stated in the question, who knows what their answers may have been.
But thanks for the link anyway, as there is a online poll about panhandling I would not have liked to miss.
leave up to the extreme right wing news media to target the poor by conducting a nasty poll about them.
Afghanistan Crisis Deepens: US, Canada and NATO Threaten to Extend War
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/407.php
"Folowing a visit to Afghanistan in late May, Liberal MP and Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae said its is time to revisit the exit date and prepare for a longer intervention. Even the New Democratic Party's military affairs critic, Jack Harris, doesn't rule out a continued military role..."
Privatizing the Occupation: The Mercenaries and the NGOs - by Yves Engler
http://www.counterpunch.org/engler08262010.html
"Reliant upon contracts from Western governments, NGOs often follow the military into war zones. In these settings they are often perceived as hostile agents of an occupying power..."
and often these perceptions would be completely correct too
IEA - Afghan Resistance Statement: Does The American Withdrawal Date Matter?
http://www.alemarah-iea.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&new=art...
"As the Afghan proverb says: 'These are our mountains and we are its dwellers.' Whether the invading enemy forces [Canada!] leave in 1 year or in 10 years, we will continue to fight them until they exit our lands, because long after these invaders have left, we would still be here, free and independent.."
IEA - Afghan Resistance Statement: Does The American Withdrawal Date Matter?
http://www.alemarah-iea.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&new=art...
"As the Afghan proverb says: 'These are our mountains and we are its dwellers.' Whether the invading enemy forces [Canada!] leave in 1 year or in 10 years, we will continue to fight them until they exit our lands, because long after these invaders have left, we would still be here, free and independent.."
The Afghans in their simple knowledge are a lot wiser that most of us.
America's Corruption Racket in Central Asia
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26266.htm
"In another significant piece datelined Kabul, Dexter Filking and Mark Mazetti reveal that the man in the eye of the storm of an Afghan-American corruption scandal, Mohammed Zia Salehi - the Chief of Administration for Afghanistan's National Security Council - is on the payroll of the Central Intelligence Agency..."
Power Points 'R' US: ISAF Headquarters Kabul
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26263.htm
losing Afghanistan from without and within - may it continue..