babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Afghan puppets & their masters are going down 2

Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

When it comes to the Afghan war, it is impossible for U.S., NATO and ISAF troops to win, it is impossible for (an) Afghan insurgent group(s) to lose. The net result is that it is the innocent - the Afghan people - who will suffer the most. A major alleviation of the suffering will come when the U.S., NATO and ISAF militarily disengage from Afghanistan. The sooner the better.

The people of Afghanistan's fortunes took a turn for the worse the days the U.S. decided that Afghanistan was going to be the battlefield where communist U.S.S.R. was going to be destroyed by a covert war by the U.S. It was also on later days when the U.S. economy took a turn for the worse, and the Pentagon, the neocons and Dick Cheney looked toward Afghanistan and its mineral riches as a means of shoring up the U.S. economy.

Afghanistan is the richest country in the world when it comes to all strategic minerals. Even oil. The U.S. has collected evidence and estimates of the amount of oil there is in Afghanistan. The publicly quoted figures are way below the figures the U.S. Geological Survey and the Pentagon keep to themselves. There is also a lot of oil in the Caspian Sea Basin area near Afghanistan. The U.S. wants to check (like in a "Great Foreign Policy Chess Game") Russia's, China's, Pakistan's, India's and Iran's access to that oil and ability to ship oil west to Europe and east to Asia.

Finally, the U.S economy revolves around the military-industrial complex. With the Great Depression II we are now in, the ever increasing number of wars and their intensity is the result of this militarized Keynesian economics. Never mind the fact that the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Western European countries are bankrupting their treasuries (paid for by citizens' tax dollars) by enriching arms industries. Like any other business, arms industries maximize their profits and minimize their expenses by paying their workers as little as they can get away with, for example. The lion's share of the money goes to the arms industries to the destruction of global and national economies.

The product that is bought is either single use - bullets, shells, bombs, rockets, missiles - destroyed when used, or has a short shelf-life because the technology is rapidly superceded and  a "better" more expensive "cadillac" version is soon sough after.

Stupid isn't it? Rather like tobacco products addictions: Expensive, single use products that are hazardous to health and life.

When it comes to war, everything the government, the military and the fawning commercial (i.e., mainstream) media tell us is a lie.

When I post on these threads it is to expose the lies.

UPI wrote:

KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov. 5 (UPI) -- The Taliban appears to be holding its own against the U.S. surge in Afghanistan, counterterrorism sources told the New York Daily News.

Officials said morale in the Taliban ranks is high and years of fighting have hardened the militants.

"Most of the stupid Taliban are dead," a source described as a senior counterterrorism official in Washington, told the newspaper. "Even in the south, the adversaries are becoming more tactically capable."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/05/Most-of-the-stupid-Tal...


Comments

NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Killing Each Taliban Costs $50 Million: Killing Each NATO Soldier Costs $50 Thousand

http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article38463

"It is therefore 1,000 times cheaper to kill a NATO soldier...

Why are the Pentagon and NATO bankrupting the US?"

your tax dollars at work...


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Thanks for being here - both of you - and great post, Frmrsldr.

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

thnx to you both - and all contributors.

such a brutal, evil waste of people and planet this war time.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

'Most of the stupid Taliban are dead' - US Official

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/11/the-stupid-taliban-are-dead....

"Petraeus NATO headquarters insists the enemy is getting worn out from living on the run or underground, even though forward commanders 'downrange' and senior US counterterror officials in Washington have told the Daily News that the Taliban are rallying in the face of a US troop surge this year.."


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Canada Implicated in Deaths of Afghan Children

http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/sites/mediacoop.ca/files2/mc/thespoke13-web.pdf

"Multiple reports of the Canadian military being involved in the deaths of Afghan children have been uncovered in WikiLeaks' diplomatic cables by the Toronto Media Coop.."

Bravo once again for alternative peoples media. Where the hell is the MSM, or our 'representatives' on the 'Canadian content' of the WikiLeaks data dump? Helping keep everything safely under wraps is where - the treachery of both on our war crimes is itself a war crime of complicity.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Unionist wrote:

Thanks for being here - both of you - and great post, Frmrsldr.

Thank you Unionist.

I am trying to undo the evil that I did as a soldier.

I find reading and posting on babble to be therapeutic.

Here is something that casts a pall over my heart and sickens my soul:

Jason Ditz wrote:

The [Zhari] district has been seen as a key target for the [Kandahar] offensive, but locals are complaining that the US military, having occupied the district with little resistance, has proceded to bulldoze homes and farm fields en masse, with hundreds of homes destroyed and a large number of people rendered homeless.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/10/us-military-destroying-hundreds-of-ci...

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

'US Has No Afghanistan Exit Strategy'

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/150764.html

"Richard Holbrooke stated on Wednesday that the United States has 'no exit strategy' for Afghanistan and instead is implementing 'a transition strategy', the Montreal based Centre for Research on Globalization reported on Friday. Holbrooke noted that the transition strategy, which would see a continuous international presence for economic and security assistance would take a number of years.."


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Karzai Calls for Reducing US Military Operations in Afghanistan

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/afgh-n15.shtml

"Karzai dismissed US and NATO claims that the war in Afghanistan is being waged to counter the threat of terrorism. 'In my opinion and in the opinion of the absolute majority of the Afghan people, the war on terror cannot be conducted in Afghanistan beause that isn't here. It is somewhere else. We are only reaping the consequences of it here.."

Yet we're going to send 1,000 'trainers' there not to mention the evil ngo attack ( a Canadian speciality) planned for afterwards..


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

It looks like the Harper administration is planning permanent diplomatic presences in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Foreign+Affairs+spent+millions+Afghan+r...


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

ah but the best laid plans of mice and men...

Taliban Leader Mullah Omar: The US, [Canada] NATO are Being Defeated in Afghanistan

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156459/taliban-leader-mullah-omar-us-and-n...

"In a communique marking the beginning of the Muslim holiday, Eid-al-Adha, the leader of the Afghan Taliban Mullah Mohammed Omar, claimed his forces were making gains against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and announced a new plan to increase attacks aimed at delivering a 'crushing and decisive blow against the presence of foreign forces.

'The aim is to entangle the enemy in an exhausting war of attrition and wear it away like the former Soviet Union. Omar's declaration comes amid reports that leaders at this week's NATO Summit in Portugal plan to set 2014 as an end date for 'combat' operations.

'The moment of defeat of the invader has approached. The enemy has been defeated on the battlefield. Now they rely on media hype and portray themselves as if making advancement but the ground realities are what you and we are witnessing. The enemy is retreating and facing siege in all parts of the country.."

wouldn't put any money on Canadian real estate investments in Afghanistan if I were you..

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

and in a similar vein:

The Stimulus Package in Kabul

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175320/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_war_to_t...

"While Americans fight bitterly over whether the stimulus package for the domestic economy was too large or too small, few in the US even notice that the American stimulus package in Kabul, Islamabad, Baghdad or elsewhere in our embattled Raj is going great guns.."

 

'graveyard of empires' and their complicit, obedient satellites too


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

NATO Looks to Expand Their Reach

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/97684

"a significant majority of the British population oppose the war in Afghanistan. Too many lives have been lost already. This is a war that must end and our government must bring pressure at the NATO summit to bring it to a rapid conclusion.."


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

And here's another: U.S. Warns Pakistan: Fight Taliban or Lose Funding

Do they mean that Pakistan will lose US funding to buy more US-made weapons, or will they lose US funding to finance the Taliban on the sly and on the QT? For some reaon I think it's the latter. They don't mention funding and arming the Taliban as they did throughout the 1990s  though and many Afghans claiming it's still happening. At least, they wouldn't mention it in the WSJ anyway.

It's a bullshit war. All the world's a stage.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

France's expressing its desire to disengage from Afghanistan counters Holland's desire to re-engage.

Hopefully Holland reconsiders its position on the issue.

Hopefully Herr Harper can take a hint from French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/17/new-french-dm-afghanistan-a-trap/


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

NDPP

"In Lisbon the NATO leaders will try to make it appear that they are bringing an end to this war, a war that is now in its 10th year. This talk of an exit strategy is clearly a shame. We want the $11 Billion that is being spent on the war in Afghanistan to go on things we need in this country. Bring home the troops and bring justice to the people of Afghanistan."

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Heavy Metal: Obama Brings the 'Hard Edge' of Empire Down on Afghanistan

http://chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/2053-heavy-metal-obama-bri...

"increasing airstrikes and night-raids on villages, razing houses and 'blowing up stuff and killing people who need to be killed'. Death and destruction in the occupied land..."

and here in Canada we are stuck with a sham/shame opposition only to this horror


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

 

It's not really that big an escalation; the Canadians and the Dutch have had Leo2 tanks in Afghanistan for years now...

 

 

As a matter of fact the Canadian After Actions Report for their tank operations in Afghanistan is what prompted the US to send 14 M1 tanks there.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

It's not really that big an escalation; the Canadians and the Dutch have had Leo2 tanks in Afghanistan for years now...

 

As a matter of fact the Canadian After Actions Report for their tank operations in Afghanistan is what prompted the US to send 14 M1 tanks there.

So what's  your point?

Goody, Hurrah! The murderous U.S. government and our U.S./NATO/ISAF thugs now have the tactics and wunder weapons that will win the war for them?

Arthur Silber wrote:

The Murderous U.S. Government Explained.

There is one aspect of this Washington Post article that I fear will be appreciated by very few people. Before I get to that, let's set out the basic facts:

The U.S. military is sending a contingent of heavily armored battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time in the nine-year war, defense officials said, a shift that signals a further escalation in the aggressive tactics that have been employed by American forces this fall to attack the Taliban.

The deployment of a company of M1 Abrams tanks, which will be fielded by the Marines in the country's southwest, will allow ground forces to target insurgents from a greater distance - and with more of a lethal punch - than is possible from any other U.S. military vehicle. The 68-ton tanks are propelled by a jet engine and equipped with a 120mm main gun that can destroy a house more than a mile away.

Despite an overall counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes the use of troops to protect Afghan civilians from insurgents, statistics released by the NATO military command in Kabul and interviews with several senior commanders indicate that U.S. troop operations over the past two months have been more intense and have had a harder edge than at any point since the initial 2001 drive to oust the Taliban government.

I give Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the author of this article, tremendous credit for a masterful job of reporting. That is not intended to be in the least sarcastic; I genuinely mean it. You can already see how skillfully he conveys the monstrousness of the U.S. government's actions simply by reporting the facts and, of critical importance, describing them accurately.

Even in these opening paragraphs, note the descriptive phrases that economically convey the extraordinary bloodthirstyness of what the U.S. is doing: "more of a lethal punch," "destroy a house more than a mile away" (marvel at the wonder of it!), "have had a harder edge." The horrifying, sickening irony of the beginning of the third paragraph hits the attentive reader very hard: it's all very well to have an "overall counterinsurgency strategy" designed "to protect Afghan civilians from insurgents" -- but who is going to protect them from the U.S.?

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/11/murderous-us-government-exp...

 


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

 

My point is it's not as big a deal as some make it out to be... tanks are already beening used in Afghanistan by NATO. Virtually every article on the US sending M1 tanks fails to mention this one little fact, I wonder why that is?

Nothing will change.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Petraeus: NATO to squeeze the life out of Taliban He must be high on opium or whatever. Laughing


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Fake Taliban Talks 

Quote:
For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

The status of the other two Taliban leaders said to be involved is not clear.

Fake Taliban leader 'dupes Nato negotiators'

Quote:
The Afghan government and its Nato allies were duped into holding peace talks with a man posing as one of the most senior members of the Taliban leadership, it was revealed today.

According to Afghan and US sources quoted by the New York Times, authorities held face-to-face talks with the man who claimed to be Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the second highest official in the Taliban movement.

Western sources quoted by the New York Times also confirmed a Guardian report that the man was paid a large sum of money in the hope that he would remain engaged in negotiations.

But foreign and Afghan sources believe the man was lying about his identity after an Afghan official involved in one of the clandestine talks - who had previously met the Taliban chief - said he did not recognise the man posing as Mansour.

Looks like NATO and Co. have been hoisted by their petard once again.  They've been thoroughly pranked.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
The insurgents have always said they will not negotiate until all foreign troops are gone. Some people just don't listen.

Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The Taliban also demanded proof of Osama bin Laden's guilt in 9/11.

They offered to make peace with the US Military dictatorship by handing over OBL, first on condition of proof of OBLs guilt in orchestrating 9/11.

Then a second time.

And a third time when the USAF bombing got underway, the Taliban offered to handover Osama bin Laden to a third party neutral country unconditionally. No response from the US again.

What everyone wants to know is, what could the US and their own creations, the Taliban, possibly have to discuss in these ongoing talks behind closed doors? The alleged holdout in it all, mullah Omar, was the most pro-USA and pro UNOCAL of all Taliban clerics prior to 9/11.

Who is funding the Taliban?

Three guesses for a quarter, and the first two don't count.

Taliban Imposter claims he is actually a spoof writer

Taliban spoofer wrote:
"I just wanted to test the sincerity of Afghan government and its allies if they are really looking to make up with the Taliban."

"CIA won't comment on the story."

So the phony peace talks for the last few years were a ploy by the CIA and MI6 to make it appear as though they are even interested in peace with the Taliban as a counter to the widespread perception that this is a senseless war waged without any legitimate reasons whatsoever.

 The truth is that neither side is interested in peace. Why peace when them and all their friends are becoming fabulously wealthy as a result of this phony war?

And neither are the Taliban interested in publishing their demands or even any details as to their word for word exchanges with their former sponsors, the CIA and US taxpayers, from 1992 and 2001?

Or does Pakistani army intelligence still control the Taliban on behalf of their excellent cold war BFF in the CIA?


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Unionist wrote:

The insurgents have always said they will not negotiate until all foreign troops are gone. 

That's right. Thanks for both your posts Unionist and Fidel.

One of the things that gave this imposter away was that he did not make this demand.

For all we know, this imposter could be a Pentagon and U.S. military sponsored agent and doppelganger.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Afghanistan war myths A statement by March Forward! (U.S.)

wrote:
Myth 1: We are fighting to defeat the Taliban

Myth 2: We are fighting to defeat al-Qaeda.

Myth 3: We’re in Afghanistan to defend women’s rights and human rights.

Myth 4: We are fighting in self-defense.

Myth 5: We are going to leave Afghanistan.

Myth 6: The war in Afghanistan can be won.

Myth 7: The Taliban equals the resistance to the U.S. occupation.

This is just a squabble between two sets of right wing extremists. A mere misunderstanding. Their previously unrequited love for one another is out in the open now.  They have every intention of winning at the bargaining table eventually but not to win the phony war.

An anti-war report from our Yanqui good Yankee friends south of us. Spread the word.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Fidel wrote:
They have every intention of winning at the bargaining table eventually but not to win the phony war.

An anti-war report from our Yanqui good Yankee friends south of us. Spread the word.

If you actually read Fidel's linked statement, you find out that our good Yankee friends understand the true nature of what Fidel daily calls a "phony war":

Quote:
After the 2001 invasion, an enormous number of armed groups were formed by ordinary Afghans. According to official military estimates, there are 1,800 different resistance organizations fighting the occupation. This proves that the resistance is a widespread, popular rebellion against what the vast majority of Afghan people rightfully see as a brutal occupation by a foreign invader bent on dominating their land.

The Afghan people will win!

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Yes, I'm not saying that there isn't real Afghan opposition to the illegal occupation and dirty war. There is. But are you not overlooking something yourself?


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Fidel wrote:

Who is funding the Taliban?

Three guesses for a quarter, and the first two don't count.

If you actually read the article, you find that the lazy so-called "journalist" interviewed only highly-placed English-speaking Afghan intellectuals and professionals working for the invader - and that the main interviewee noted that "no Jews died in the Twin Towers".

Impeccable source...

Fidel wrote:

 The truth is that neither side is interested in peace. Why peace when them and all their friends are becoming fabulously wealthy as a result of this phony war?

Ah, I see, but where does the Afghan insurgency - the ones fighting the Canadians and U.S. and NATO - figure here? You never seem to recognize their existence. You denigrate their armed struggle by your nonstop "phony war" thesis, and you use that daily to promote "negotiations" (Jack Layton style). Such "negotiations", if they ever happened before all foreign soldiers were driven screaming out of Afghanistan, would merely be another form of arrogant imperial interference and imposition.

The foreigners should get out (while still alive and able to do so) and let the Afghan people decide, on their own, who is phony and who isn't.

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Who is funding the Taliban?

Three guesses for a quarter, and the first two don't count.

If you actually read the article, you find that the lazy so-called "journalist" interviewed only highly-placed English-speaking Afghan intellectuals and professionals working for the invader - and that the main interviewee noted that "no Jews died in the Twin Towers".

Impeccable source...

Don't make me go find that CBC News piece from two years ago that says most everyone in Kandahar believes the CIA/ISI are still aiding and abetting Taliban.

And from the UK news piece :

Quote:
"Even a child of five knows this," one Kabuli radio journalist tells me, holding his hand a couple of feet from the ground in illustration. Look at Helmand, he says; how could 15,000 international and Afghan troops fail to crush a couple of thousand of badly equipped Taliban? [...]

Among the things everybody knows are that Afghan national army troops report taking over Taliban bases to find identical rations and weapons to their own US-supplied equipment. The US funds the madrasas both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, which produce the young Talibs. US army helicopters regularly deliver supplies behind Taliban lines. The aid organisations are nothing more than intelligence-collecting agencies, going into regions the army cannot easily reach to obtain facts on the ground. Even the humblest midwife-training project is a spying outfit.

They don't trust the Americanos after 31 years worth of US meddling in Afghanistan? Why not?

 So it seems that everyone and his dog in Afghanistan know that the American CIA and US Military are in cahoots with right wing extremists leading the Taliban. And a former translator for the US FBI, Sibel Edmonds, has said very similar things in corroborating what Afghans know is true.

It seems you're outnumbered again, Unionist.

Unionist wrote:
Fidel wrote:

 The truth is that neither side is interested in peace. Why peace when them and all their friends are becoming fabulously wealthy as a result of this phony war?

Ah, I see, but where does the Afghan insurgency - the ones fighting the Canadians and U.S. and NATO - figure here? You never seem to recognize their existence. You denigrate their armed struggle by your nonstop "phony war" thesis, ...

No you are the one who has repeatedly said that the Taliban will never negotiate a peace deal with Uncle Sam. In truth, however, the ongoing phony peace talks are completely illegitimate. And not from a point of view that the Taliban represent all Afghans - they do not. There are more than 1800 resistance groups fighting the illegal occupation of Afghanistan based on a phony pretext for "self defence" of American national security. Problem is, Afghanistan is no where near the USA and had nothing to do with 9/11.

So the faux pas committed by the American CIA and British and Saudis and Pakistani ISI here is not that they are trying to make it appear as though they are interested in peace. The wrong being committed here and for years is that they are excluding all other resistance groups when they fly Taliban mullahs and commanders to these phony peace chit-chats on the sly. Do you get it now?

92% of Afghans Never Heard of 9/11

Quote:
Fewer than one in 10 Afghans are aware of the 9/11 attacks and their precipitation of the war in Afghanistan, says a study from an international think tank.

We need to explain to the Afghan people why we are here, and both show and convince them that their future is better with us than with the Taliban,” ICOS lead field researcher Norine MacDonald said in a statement.

A

Apparently Afghans should be more sympathetic to the Americans who died in a false flag operation on 9/11. It might make the occupation go a little easier for the brutal colonizers.

And so while the real anti-war movement is explaining to everyone possible that 9/11 is a false pretext for phony war, the US Military also wants Afghans to have understanding and empathy and develop Stockholm syndrome for their brutal colonizers. Afghans should understand why the US-led forces are so far away from home and occupying Afghanistan country militarily. Apparently the US Military tells Americans something completely different when explaining their military occupation of Afghanistan.

The "why?" is always an important part of the propaganda campaign for brutal colonizers throughout history. And it should be taken equally as seriously by serious left wing anti-war foot soldiers like us as well.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments