The Afghan people will win - part 3

Flashback retro moment:

Zbigniew and [url=http://911review.org/brad.com/archives/Bin-Ladin_Tim-Osman.html][color=r... Osman(OBL)[/color][/url] discuss the string of Jihads that Zbigniew [url=http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm][b]never regrets[/b][/url]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/1z5p7ki.gif[/IMG]

"Your cause is right. God is on your side"

Quote:

“The men and women of Afghanistan are like pigeons who have been freed from Taliban cages, but whose wings have been cut off and who are in the claws of vampires who suck their blood. And most of those vampires are to be found in parliament.” - Malalai Joya, 2007

I hope our friend Realigned is alright.

Afghanistan is a large country. Just like in Vietnam, we have too few soldiers. Fighting in Afghanistan is like playing "whack a mole" at the county fair: We go where insurgent activity is the greatest. We fight them. They break away from the engagement. We claim we won the battle. Meanwhile, the insurgents start up their activity wherever we are not, often where we 'defeated' them previously. We go there. We fight them. We 'win'. Then we have to go back to where we were before because they have recaptured that area.

Mind you, when we leave a 'captured' area, we let the ANA and ANP occupy it. Just like in Vietnam, we are not fighting against a professional standing army, but an enitre  people or culture, if you like.

If the ANA and ANP are from the area, they are more likely to join family members among the insurgents and more likely to fight against us strange foreigners. Remember, this is Afghanistan - their country we are fighting in, not Canada, our country. We will come and go. The Afghans will remain.

Just like in Vietnam, the Afghan people (as mentioned above) are positively motivated to support the insurgents and also support them because they are afraid as a result of intimidation.

The Afghans nearby are aware when insurgents plant IEDs. Villagers either help the insurgents or try to remain uninvolved but spread the word around their communities that the insurgents have been in the area and to watch out for IEDs.

This is why, when it came to the incident of the three children who were killed by the UXO, I felt it was likely a Canadian mortar rather than an IED, because it was more likely that the Afghans would be suspicious of IEDs, if the Taliban had been there.

Insurgents use as much plastic, wood, etc., when it comes to making IEDs, thus making them hard to detect. 

When it comes to the economy, few people point to the elephant sitting next to us in the room. It's war that has destroyed our economies.

<>If we are going to further ruin our economies by buying expensive high tech equipment to aid us in detecting IEDs or insurgent activities at night, then Osama bin Laden (assuming it was him) succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in destroying us.

It's far cheaper to have soldiers fight this war, a war our government knows we cannot win. With 116 soldiers dead and counting, is it worth it? I don't think so. Who does? Harper does. 

<>  

Former Soldier, it seems that as it was with Viet Nam, the US-led coalition forces are crossing the border into a neighboring country to chase down insurgents. There is even a secret bombing campaign, although not on a scale that Cambodia was with saturating bombing by B52's. The similarities are peculiar to say the least.

Do you think the Pakistani army or ISI, or even the Russians might be supplying weapons to the Taliban and militant groups in those countries?

Do you think the US military and partner countries might actually be not all that interested in beating the Taliban so much as just being there and establishing a base from which to escalate attacks on an alternate target country in coming months?

M Spector posted a link to a google earth air photo in another thread depicting location of a drone air base somewhere in Pakistan. And the location is just a few tens of miles farther from the Iranian border than the other direction, to Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I think that the elites of the world might be considering a major war for resources as but one way to sidestep the current crisis of financial capitalism looming over the western world.

Quote:

The Afghans have never succumbed to foreign occupation, heaven knows the British empire tried, tried and failed again. Not even Alexander the Great succeeded, and whoever else he is, minister Kenney is no Alexander the Great. Young Canadian soldiers are dying in significant numbers on Afghanistan's plains. Their families are entitled to know how many of us believe this adventure to be similarly doomed and that genuine support for troops - British, Canadian and other - means bringing them home and changing course.

George Galloway, banned from speaking in Canada by those who send Canadians to die in a war that can't won.

Fidel,

The Pakistani Army and ISI are arming and sympathizing with the Pashtun Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon is using the opium trade (like it did in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand/Burma) and Cocaine in Columbia to fund its wars and black operations.

Afghans are selling opium to make (some or a lot of) money and buy arms. Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik, Kyrgyz, Kazak and Russian arms merchants sell weapons to Afghans. The weapons are either Russian or Chinese made, so China makes money on this as well. Opium/heroin makes a lot of money. Arms dealing makes more. The further south arms are sold (until it gets to Pakistan), the more money it makes. From Pakistan, international parties buy arms. Anyone is welcome to join this money making merry-go-round.

The largest U.S. base outside the U.S. is "Emerald City", Baghdad, Iraq. The second largest base is Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. When you read about bases in Afghanistan, you will discover that they are being expanded, increased and strengthened.

This is supposed to offer more "protection" for the troops. Another interpretation is that these are signs that it is intended these bases are meant to last and be used (by the U.S. and NATO, Canada included) for a long time.

Iraq has a lot of oil. Kosovo has a lot of oil. The Caucasus region where Kosovo and Chechnya are located have a lot of oil. Remember the "colored revolutions" in Georgia, the Ukraine and those Central Asian countries mentioned above? These so - called "democratic revolutions" were funded by American multinationals like the (George) Soros Organization and were sponsored by the Pentagon, State Department and White House. The U.S. is putting great pressure on these countries (Georgia and the Ukraine) to join NATO - another tool of the Pentagon. In the case of the Central Asian countries, the U.S. wants (air) bases, with the Afghan war used as an excuse. The Central Asian countries have a lot of oil. Georgia and the Ukraine don't but, they are located in an area near where there is a lot of oil - Azerbaijan (which I didn't mention, for example). These countries either have Russian pipelines or will have pipelines running through them.

The driving force behind this is power: Economic and military/political. The U.S. sees Russia, China and India as its greatest threats. Having influence over and getting Georgia and the Ukraine to join NATO could turn the flow of oil and natural gas away from Russia and Europe and toward the U.S. As for the Central Asian countries, it turns the flow of oil away from Russia, China and India and toward the U.S. Having bases and influence in and on these countries isolates Russia and keeps tabs on and influences China and India.

The U.S. plays countries against each other: China vs India and vice versa and Pakistan vs India and vice versa.

Pakistan is paranoid of India. That is why Pakistan wants to have influence over Afghanistan and squeeze out any influence of India concerning Afghanistan.

The U.S. is fighting a war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan borders Iran to the East. Iraq borders Iran to the West. Thus, the U.S. can bring political influence upon Iran. For the U.S. (and Israel) to attack Iran would be financially and militarily, the most stupid and self destructive thing they could do.

Go to http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/16/afghanistan-holds-mineral-tre...

to find yet another (real) reason why we are fighting in Afghanistan. 

It's always the few that do come to fruition, that detonate as planned, that brings out the lies about mission success and what not.

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

And I think the barefoot people of Afghanistan yearn to be free.

What a condescending comment. I'm sorry their choice of footwear doesn't meet your standards.

For the gross majority, life in Afghanistan is grinding poverty and despair.

I'm sorry the Taliban are thieving money from the locals, especially the aid money and weapons delivered to them surreptitiously by the west and Pakistan's ISI. Afghans know what's been happening there for years.

Quote:

They don't "yearn" for anything except to be left alone by foreign missionaries, whether armed with weapons or with ideologies.

Taliban fundamentalism is an ideology. However, neither Pakistanis nor Afghans have accepted a purely ideologically driven fundamentalist society as is the case in Iran today post-US interventionism and meddling in that country over the course of a cold war.

So tell us, what do they yearn for in Afghanistan then, mr I refuse to tolerate Catholic school funding and part-time cheerleader for the Saudi and Pakistani ISI-trained and indoctrinated Taliban?

According to Afghan Malalai Joya, she and very many Afghans do not yearn for a return to Taliban rule, as difficult as that might be for you and Zbigniew, and hypermisogynists in the Taliban to imagine.

To "thanks",

History seldom allows us the opportunity to get things right twice, but when it comes to Afghanistan; it did.

The first time was 9/11. According to international law, an act of terror is a criminal act, not an act of war. The appropriate response would have been for the intelligence communities to find out who were responsible for 9/11, find out where they are and then attempt to arrest them and bring them to justice. To go to war against Afghanistan was an inappropriate and (just like the 9/11 attacks) criminal act.

<>The second time was after the battle of Tora Bora (late Novermber - early December 2001) when Afghans (the northern war lords, their armies and their allies) liberated Afghanistan in America's 'proxy' war. Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair went to Afghanistan and said, "For too long we have ignored Afghanistan. Afghanistan must not become a breeding ground for terrorism." We could have sent humanitarian organizations to Afghansitan and engaged in reconstruction and development and nothing but reconstruction and development. Had we done that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. Instead, we 'blew it'. instead of sending humanitarian aid, we sent the NATO led ISAF and continued the war in Afghanistan.

"We should have pulled out in February 2009..."

No time was a good time to pull out: We should never have sent soldiers and waged war in Afghanistan in the first place.

"...justifications... over petrofuel routes through the lands of other peoples." This has always been the "real" reason for the Afghan war. Any other reason is just bullshit "spun" by the government, the military and the sold out mainstream media to "sell" the war to people who don't make the effort to find out the truth for themselves.  

What is war?

War is killing, injuring and destroying. How does shooting, shelling and dropping bombs on Afghans - how does murdering and maiming Afghans "help" them? The next time Harper, or an Army officer or a war supporter tells you this - ask them that question. 

Stephen Harper introduced a war resolution, passed by the House, that escalated Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan. He did this, not once, but TWICE! Originally, we were to disengage from Afghanistan in 2007. That was escalated to 2009 the first time and 2011 the second time.

"My own judgement... quite frankly is we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency." - Stephen Harper in a CNN interview, March 1, 2009.

If you, if we all, wish to spare your second son (and all remaining and future soldiers in the Ghan) from physical or emotional injury or death, then we must put pressure on Harper to introduce a peace resolution to the House immediately to bring our troops home now. He did it for two war resolutions. He can do it for a peace resolution. We can achieve peace now if enough of us put enough pressure on our government.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS/SUPPORT PEACE/BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

http://www.antiwar.com.porter/?articleid=14439

Looks like Gen. David Petraeus has made Gen. David McKiernan his 'fall guy' when it comes to Spec. Ops.

It is more and more difficult to distinguish the fewer and fewer differences between Canada and the U.S. each day:

We have Joint Task Force 2. The U.S. has [Combined] JOINT [Special Operations] TASK FORCE - [Afghanistan].

Is there some kind of limit to the amount of text per post, or something?

So according to Burghardt's antiFascist article of last year , who would represent the economic and political status quo in Afghanistan today? And failing them, what other group of rightwing religious whackos would be next in line? Is it comparable to English imperialists of history and Scottish nobles who controlled unruly clans in the north for the right price?

If the corrupt former mujahideen "freedom fighters", Northern Alliance commanders,  and drug trafficking bureaucrats now in Karzai's government are playing the part of political Liberals there, would the Taliban be the equivalent of Afghanistan's Tories? Paleoconservatives? It sounds like the west is trying to setup a two-party plutocracy in mirroring our own rigged political arrangement here in the homeland.

Interesting comments on CTV's QP today - that this is an American war and that the Americans could care less about the Canadian presence there - our presence is very tiny compared to the Americans, and that the Americans probably want everyone else (NATO?) out so they can run the war the way they want to.

And at the end of the program another pundit reminded everyone that Obama wants to talk to 'moderate' Taliban with the aim of perhaps making a peace deal.

The comments were all over the place! And Iggy and Layton weighed in, too, Layton reminding everyone that he's called for talking to the Taliban early on.

Besides Jack Layton, the British, and now Yanqui imperialists who propped up a Taliban proxy government in 1996, who else thinks they should be negotiating with and legitimizing the Taliban criminals in '09?

What happened to the previous plan to get the hell out of the stan, man?

So it appears that the invaders indicating they are ready to deal with the Taliban, and apparently are doing so now, is likely not an act of desperation at all. The Taliban are old hands by now at dealing with hawks and corporate raiders in the US. Taliban leaders have accepted invitations to Washington before and been given warm receptions there.

Quote:

who else thinks they should be negotiating with and legitimizing the Taliban criminals in '09

Why should the Taliban negotiate with the crusader armies or their corrupt proxies? They're gonna win eventually, so why bother?

The Crudaders have no legitimacy to negotiate. To believe that they do, is to accept the neocolonial narrative upon which the whole Afghan occupation rests.

Afghan clerics urge Saudi-led talks with Taliban

Quote:

KABUL (AP) — Afghanistan's top Muslim clerics urged President Hamid Karzai on Friday to push ahead with a proposal for talks with the Taliban that would be mediated by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. . .

Karzai has previously asked King Abdullah to facilitate contacts with the Taliban. Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief met with top officials in Afghanistan in January in a move seen by many as part of a quiet effort to open a line of communication.

The leaders of Afghanistan's powerful Muslim clerics' council pressed Karzai in a meeting Friday to push the talks forward, said Faiz Mohammad, a council member from Kunduz province. They proposed a meeting that would include government and Taliban representatives and also former jihadi leaders, other prominent Afghans and representatives of neighboring countries, Mohammad said.

Long live king Abdullah!!

This talking to the Taliban business is a ruse.  With thousands of American troops pouring in for battle, I think it is obvious that they want to find a group of compliant 'awakening' elements to bribe, so that they can pass them off to the western media as Taliban who have seen the light.  They could then better sell the indiscriminate bombing and bloodletting in the villages as absolutely necessary to root out the 'few' remaining diehards that will not negotiate, unlike the more sensible camera props that we'll be shown.

Quote:

"When I was getting ready to deploy, they were telling us that the Taliban all wore black turbans. But it turned out there wasn't some big gang sign, like the Bloods and the Crips. Other people were wearing black turbans, too. It was messed up. We were supposed to be fighting the Taliban, but we were obliterating Afghanistan."

Jim began taking his frustration and confusion to a Buddhist ascetic who lived in a cave above the Kandahar airfield where Jim was stationed. "

Babah, which means ‘honored grandfather' in Pashto, was just a remarkable person. He had this glow about him. When I met him, he was 96. Most of his teeth were gone, and the rest were brown. He was a small man, frail looking, but he was so strong. I think he might have been stronger than me."

Jim often made the trek up to Babah's cave to sit peacefully and drink tea. Babah had been a traveler in his youth. He spoke six languages, told stories of walking from Afghanistan to Tibet through the Hindu Kush and on into Pakistan and India.

And he taught Jim about Buddhist practices and beliefs. Everything Jim learned resonated with the sorrow he felt about what was being done to the country and the people he was coming to know and love.

"I thought we were just doing too much messed up stuff to civilians. It was wrong, and I didn't worry about what people had on their collar, if I had something to say, I would say it.

"But they didn't like what I was saying, so I think that had a lot to do with why Babah got detained.The last thing he said to me, as my brothers cuffed him, was, 'Without suffering, there would be no bliss. Without death, there would be no life.' Even as they put a black hood over his head, he still had his beautiful smile on his face."

One Soldier's Tale of How War Drove Him Crazy

Ghislaine wrote:

 

 Wow, am I ever glad we are there fighting for democracy! 

 

 

I highly doubt that.

Ghislaine wrote:

I was being sarcastic.

Just wanted to make sure.

Unionist wrote:

I predict that the Taliban will not negotiate and they are not doing so now. Any bets?

I dont know. Maggie and Ronnie insisted that representatives of the government of "democratic" kampuchea maintain their seats at the UN after year zero in that country. The US and Britain even continued supporting Pol Pot in exile up to 1993. The Vietnamese were still ferreting out khmer rouge mercenaries from jungles along the border in relatively recent times.  And like the CIA-SAS-ISI trained Islamic gladios, KR mercenaries were trained by US green berets and armed by the CIA, post-Mao China, Britain etc.

Not only can I picture the Taliban sitting down to talks with their former sponsor nation again, I can almost imagine the Taliban attending UN meetings in New York and around the world and UN membership supported by uncle Sam and friends. Anything's possible