The Afghan people will win - Part 2

The Taliban may well have reduced opium growing when they were in power. Apparently there was a glut on black markets, and the price was depressed for several years. The Taliban seem to understand capitalism and the advantages for creating artificial scarcity of supply.

But to suggest that the Taliban are considered the homeboys in Afghanistan is misleading. Yes, they are not Eurethnic invaders. I suppose that is a plus in their column. But Afghans would probably be favouring the homeboys under conditions of extreme duress and war. We lefties should remember that democracy is the right's most hated institution, and the CIA and friends have overthrown and assassinated democracy around the world since before WW II.

Taliban religious fundamentalism is new to Afghanistan and Pakistan since the 1980s. Khaled Ahmed, a news reporter based in London, said that Taliban extremism went out to Afghanistan from madrassas based in Pakistan in the 80's. While this Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred, Pakistan was ruled by a US-backed military dictatorship. Very many Pakistanis today are angry about the Talibanization of their country. And according to several sources, still blame Talibanization of their country on Afghans. It seems there are people in both countries who do not understand that militant Islam was forced on them by third and fourth party countries with help of their own military dictatorship and Saudi princes, like CIA asset Osama bin Laden et al.

Women in Kabul wore whatever they wanted and enjoyed more basic rights in the 1960's, 70s and 80s though compared to life under Taliban rule. This whole situation began with a women's rights movement and proliferation of secular socialist thought in Afghanistan. Enter the American CIA intervening on the other side of the world:

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10015][color=red][... "The Taliban's Godfather"?[/b][/color][/url]Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists

Quote:

These newly declassified documents on Pakistani covert support to the Taliban and Kashmiri separatist groups confirms the hisotric role of Pakistani intelligence and its covert operations since the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war.

What the declassified documents do not mention, however, is the role of US intelligence.

In carrying out these covert operations, Pakistani intelligence was acting "as a go between" on behalf of the CIA. . .

Pakistan remains a training ground for the US sponsored Islamic brigades in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, South and South East Asia

President Pervez Musharraf, is described by the Western media as "a U.S. ally in its battle against terrorism" Realities are turned upside down. The Pakistani military regime has consistently, since the late 1970s, abetted and financed "Islamic terrorist organizations" on Washington's behalf.

Pakistan's ISI was always acting in close liaison with Washington. The Taliban would not have been able to accede to political power and form a government without US military aid, channeled through Pakistan

It's not ordinary Afghans who will win.

Not women like that one depicted above taking a bullet to the head in a soccer stadium Pinochet style.

Not children in Kabul, like the one begging on the sidewalk in a photo published by RAWA.

The fix was in a long time ago.

Quote:

As Unionist likes to point out:

I think it's fair to say that Unionist is not a socialist, However, just to be clear of where we are coming from, I am a proud and impenitent socialist. He has spent some amount of time supporting the crazy George regime's official government lies wrt 9/11, and somewhat furtively I might add. He's openly intolerant of Catholics, and he frequents threads like this one and supportive of US-backed militant Islam in Central Asia. I recommend a large grain of salt with your serving of Unionist.

Fidel's talking points seem oddly reminiscent of the media response lines used by the invaders in depicting the Taliban as a foreign invading influence in the region, that the mission is about protecting women and children, about sending girls to school.  One might expect a true socialist to throw off hegemony's burden and excuses.

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel's talking points seem oddly reminiscent of the media response lines used by the invaders in depicting the Taliban as a foreign invading influence in the region, that the mission is about protecting women and children, about sending girls to school.  One might expect a true socialist to throw off hegemony's burden and excuses.

This is what a Pakistani news journalist said about it to a University of California-Berkeley history studies group. Khaled expresses sympathy for Afghans at the same time he laments the US-backed military dictatorship in his country: 

Quote:

Let's explicate this a little. These warriors, these surrogates, were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Is that how this process begins? And Zia, in terms of his strategic concept, thought that by winning in Afghanistan, he would acquire for his country strategic depth.

[url=http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Ahmed/ahmed-con5.html][color=me... came along as the war progressed. He definitely benefited from the largess of the United States. The economy was in a crisis when he took over, and the money that came later was a price for his cooperation in Afghanistan.[/color][/url] In Afghanistan, he encouraged the formulation of religious militias, headed by people who were of dubious character but who served his purpose. Pakistan also chose its favorites, which I think was a shortsighted policy, which finally fragmented Afghanistan as a country. If there was a feeling that Afghanistan should become the strategic depth for Pakistan, that was defeated, because we allowed that country to become disunited. As events later shwed, it was Pakistan which became the strategic depth to the Taliban ideology.

In a way, this furthered the process of "Talibanization" of Afghanistan.

That's right. I think Afghanistan was most unfortunate. They had seven major Sunni militias who were then resident in Peshawar. We chose the most radical ones and the moderate ones we rejected. Out of the seven, five were actually in favor of the Shah coming back. We didn't want the Shah to come back. We thought that we would control Afghanistan much better if we had our own man there.

So, once again, they are not my words.  You people will continue talking past and below us when we reference what real people have to say about what happened. You people will continue supporting US-backed versions of history if you want to. I'm different. I'm Canadian and capable of thinking for myself and using the power of the internet to support what I'm saying. All you people have so far is your vapid rhetoric.

Socialists tend to consider what the non-white people have to say about circumstances in general. This, unfortunately, isnt true of  political conservatives and their groupees.

Quote:

The British came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been

The Russian came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been.

I believe neither the British nor the Russians were on the side of operation cyclone and billions of dollars in US taxpayer funding to prop up militant Islam and theocratic feudalism in Afghanistan. If the Russkies or Chinese began supplying the home boys with heat-seeking shoulder rockets, those countries would face the consequences for economic warfare and sanctions. The CIA-ISI and Saudis simply wanted it more than the Soviets were able to deal with in the 1980s. The Afghan PDPA government actually outlasted the USSR by more than a year, and held out against the mujahideen and well armed mercenaries from 40 countries for over two years while NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage.

Taliban are the creation of the American CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). The Taliban government was set up in 1996 as an Anglo-American client regime.

The Americans and British have discussed plans for "negotiating" with and propping up their old business partners, the Taliban, or what remains of the core Taliban, and even their old favourite Islamic gladio from the WTC bombing of 1993 infamy, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, in recent months. Hawks and Brits know the Taliban and have dealt with these same theocratic feudalists before. Hawks will deal with the devil to get what theyre after. The Taliban, or what's left of them, are still influenced and supplied with weapons by uncle Sam through Pakistan's army intel agency controlled by elites, the ISI.

The CIA-ISI controlled Taliban may win after much bloodshed and warfiteering.  Ordinary Afghans will not win soon.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12716][color=red][...'s Search for the "Good Taliban"[/b][/color][/url]

Actually, my own heart is with Unionist's vision for Afghanistan, and that NATO does the right thing and withdraws. Perhaps it would be a step up from the sewer to the gutter for Afghans, if they had someone as progressive as Iran's former Ayatollah running things as fundamentalist theocracies go. Perhaps the old Iran-Contra gang would be defanged by that time and Afghans free to determine their own future without  interference from the US and proxies. Anything's possible.

Jingles wrote:

Quote:

Our skills and reputation as a peacemaker give Canada the basis for an active role after our troops withdraw in 2011. We must begin laying the foundations for that diplomatic role now.

Quick! Someone get him a pith helmet and a monacle. If you wanna be a old school colonialist, you gotta look the part.

More of the same from the three old-line stoogeocrat parties, right Fidel?

That's right, the two stooges made with the Warshington-Tel Aviv friendly hands off policy on genocide in Gaza.

And Saakasvilli couldve really kicked ass in S. Ossetia if it hadnt been for those meddlesome Russian peacekeepers butting in.

We need more of that around the world for sure. I wonder what Malalai Joya and RAWA have to say about the need for international assistance in their country(as opposed to "military solutions")

Will Afghanistan become a repeat of 1989 to 1996 when NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage in that country? God help them.

Sometimes it's good to use our heads for something more than tuque racks

Pakistan is predominantly Sunni as are the Pashtuns and Taliban located in southern Afghanistan.

The Hazaras, Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik and Kyrgyz people living in the north are predominantly Shia, as is Iran which borders Afghanistan and Pakistan to the West.

Iran initially cooperated with the U.S. in its war in Afghanistan. After Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, the election of President Amadinejad and the U.S. war against Iraq, the Bush White House relations with Iran soured.

Hopefully, Obama can improve U.S. relations with Iran. Iran's improved relations with the U.S. and greater involvement in Afghanistan will provide a balance and bring stability to Afghanistan and will be of some benefit to the people who have suffered the most in this war.

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Will Afghanistan become a repeat of 1989 to 1996 when NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage in that country?

Wow... I never thought of that. We should have had our troops in there 12 years earlier! Brilliant! Then we might have been out by now (the survivors, that is)!

The Shawinigan strangler was only following a direct order from Warshington.

And then Paulie with the scabby steamships workers was only following instructions delegated to Ottawa from Warshington.

And then ...

Quote:

Was anyone calling for NATO intervention in 1989? Now that you think of it, it's absolutely obvious. Who was supposed to run the country after the Soviets got their asses whipped, anyway?

What about the all Afghan PDPA government of the time? Or was that too obvious?

 But no, the CIA and Saudis continued with the multi-billion dollar aid and weapons shipments to the mujahideen(and some of who are Northern Alliance commanders in Karzai's government today). According to Pakistani and western news journalists, the PDPA government would fall to the well-armed mujahideen whithin four months of the Soviet pullout, which actually began in 1987 and all clear in 1989.

Over two years and billions of US taxpayer dollars later, and a little over a year after dissolution of the Soviet Union, the muhahideen finally took Kabul, and Jalalabad where mujahideen and mercenaries from 40 countries suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of men and women volunteers of the then isolated Afghan PDPA army several months earlier.

More civil war broke out, and this time the CIA and Saudis began bypassing Pakistan's ISI and funding the most ruthless characters and drug dealers directly and who proceeded to tear Afghanistan apart from stern to stem. One of their favourite thugs, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar from bombing of WTC in 1993 infamy, continued raining rockets on Kabul even after he was designated prime minister of the country.

But you know all this already, unionist. And youve never objected to any of it except, perhaps, in one post I remember that didnt make much sense. In your opinon, it was the "Afghan people" who threw Soviets out of the country. Well, that's an oversimplification of what really happened, and I think you know that. The PDPA made the mistake of declaring a ban on opium growing, and the CIA took full advantage of that.

And all of the NDP's stance on white collar and corporate crime costing the country $20 or $30 billion a year and for federal accountability tends to be overlooked by progressives in favour of making the NDP out to be something it's not for some reason. Oh yeah, that would be for the purposes of a smear job in order to pull votes away from the NDP. I love progressives like that.

They express concern for democracy as if perfection is a baseline in a country that was sold off to US interests decades ago by our two on-the-take old line parties, corporate hirelings all and far from perfection when examining even small fractions of their records of corruption and traitorous acts in power. I think if Trotskyists want the perfect revolution, they'd better get good at Sim City on their puters, or something.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/18/taleban-grab-share-of-reconst...

Ha ha ha ha. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of Afghans.