The Afghan People Will Win - Part 19

So I guess you've accepted the illegitimacy of the cold war propaganda and have since moved on to bascally self-identifying with the capitalist imperialist agenda on a wihole. Their interests are your interests. Here's a tip: the warfiteers and their toady-hirelings in gov wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire. They have too many mindless drones at their beck and call as it is. You can choose to think for yourself, and that's the diff. It's why you babble.

Karzai Holds Secret Talks with Taliban

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=132267&sectionid=351020403

"Afgan president Hamid Karzai has reportedly met with the Taliban's most senior commander Serja-eddin-Haggani in Kabul, as UK calls for peace with the militants. The report said the meeting was mediated by Pakistan's spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)."

Why the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan

Quote:

In 1843, shortly after his return from Afghanistan, an army chaplain, Reverend G R Gleig, wrote a memoir about the First Anglo-Afghan War, of which he was one of the very few survivors. It was, he wrote, "a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, has Britain acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated."

It is difficult to imagine the current military adventure in Afghanistan ending quite as badly as the First Afghan War, an abortive ­experiment in Great Game colonialism that slowly descended into what is arguably the greatest military humiliation ever suffered by the west in the Middle East: an entire army of what was then the most powerful military nation in the world utterly routed and destroyed by poorly equipped tribesmen, at the cost of £15m (well over £1bn in modern currency) and more than 40,000 lives. But nearly ten years on from Nato's invasion of Afghanistan, there are increasing signs that Britain's fourth war in the country could end with as few political gains as the first three and, like them, terminate in an embarrassing withdrawal after a humiliating defeat, with Afghanistan yet again left in tribal chaos and quite possibly ruled by the same government that the war was launched to overthrow.

Finally a Republican tells the truth about Afghanistan stating that the US cannot win the war, so the right wingers want to get rid of him.

Republicans call for party chairman to quit over Afghan remarks

Michael Steele under pressure to resign after saying US cannot win in Afghanistan, a 'war of Obama's choosing'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/05/republicans-chairman-afghan-...

I think what they will continue doing is destroying local infrastructure and forcing poorest Afghans into the "illegal economy" of growing opium and dealing in weapons. It seems to be what the CIA wants as drugs are still worth about half or more of the country's GDP. The CIA is protecting and doing business with Afghan drug lords just like they did in the 1980s during the anticommunist jihad. Afghan and Russian reports have claimed that the vast majority of drugs flown out of Afghanistan (and increasingly Iraq) are by US aviators to destinations in Turkey, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, and to their Albanian mafia friends in Kosovo. Dubya's phony war continues unabated under another corrupt regime with many of the same embedded bureaucrats lurking in the background and continuing to fill in the blanks on cheques of money that make round trips back to their bad selves with a bit skimmed off here and there as payment for services rendered abroad. The whole thing is as corrupt as the day is long, but it's not a real war. That it's a real war on terror is total fiction.

Afghan War: Petraeus Expands US Military Presence Throughout Eurasia

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/afghan-war-petraeus-expands-u...

"That Petraeus took charge of soldiers from 50 nations occupying a conquered country on his own country's Independence Day has gone without commentary, either ironic or indignant.."

Saving Face in Unwinnable War

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/07/09/14...

"Sinking in debt and no closer to victory, heads may roll as the US and NATO wrap up their pointless Afghan adventure... By 2011, Canadians will have spent an estimated $18.1 billion on Afghanistan...

The heretical Republican Steele was speaking truth when he said this ugly, pointless war is unwinnable. But Washington's imperial impulses continue. Too many political careers in the US, Canada and Europe hang on this misbegotten war. So too, does the tale of the obsolete NATO alliance that may well meet its Waterloo in the hills of Afghanistan.."

Compare, Contrast and Evaluate

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/07/compare-contrast-and-evalua...

"The Pentagon has announced the selection of a replacement for General David Petraeus as Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander today, and it will be the controversial Gen. James Mattis that goes to Congress for final approval.

In 2005, then Lt Gen Mattis spoke of his 'fun' experience in Afghanistan at a forum in San Diego, describing it as 'a hell of a hoot.' After laughter from soldiers in the audience Mattis went on to declare 'It's fun to shoot some people..'

Afghanistan's Pashtuns Fight for their Way of Life

http://thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100712/FOREIGN/707119...

"The country's largest ethnic group is growing increasingly frustrated and angry with the government and its foreign backers. From house raids and air strikes, to problems with classroom and civil service, they believe they are the main victims of a war deliberately targeting their very way of life. 'Our blood is turning the streets red, and so is yours,' said Nasimgul Tutakhail. an associate professor at Kabul University who helped organize the protest. 'If you do not listen to your speech, very soon you will be defeated..'"

Canada Out of Afghanistan's dirty US war now!

Most funny, Doug. Looks like they are desperately searching for some - any good news out of Afghanistan.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that a fight to the death was inevitable between nazi Germany and communist Russia. The reason for this was that whoever controlled the vast lands and resources of Russia would be a world dominant power.

For the past 20 years the American Empire has considered itself the 'world's only Superpower'. It has seen Russia (along with China and India) as a threat to this position. The American Empire also needs ever more energy (currently still oil) and natural resources to prevent decline/maintain its pesent extent/expand. For the past 20 years, the American Empire has enviously coveted Russia's natural resources. There are many American intelligence officials who hold the view that for this reason, war between the American Empire and Russia is inevitable. During this time, the Pentagon hasn't been sitting idle. One can well imagine it has been planning a number Operation Barbarossa scenarios.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/07/11/us-building-secret-bases-in-a...

Perhaps. Unfortunately Canada's elites care little for what Canadians may consider a better use of their tax dollars..

The Demand for Obedience and Reverence to Authority

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/07/demand-for-obedience-and-re...

"Why is the United States in Afghanistan?...Afghanistan is right in the damned middle of much that is of great importance to those who seek power and domination.."

Capt. Robert Semrau has been found guilty by a military panel of disgraceful conduct but not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of a wounded Afghan insurgent.

The charge of behaving in a disgraceful manner carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Semrau's lawyers will be back in court Tuesday to present a Charter of Rights argument over military sentencing procedures.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/19/semrau-court-martial.html#ixzz0uEBbkGgm

actually  - we obviously calculate Afghan lives quite valuable which is why we have spent all this money making sure we help take as many as we can. But we will call them 'Taliban' not 'Afghan'.   By contrast we obviously don't calculate the value of our  own cannon fodder very highly  or else we wouldn't keep sending them into harms' way and their untimely death in  this graveyard of empires at the clip we have been. We call these dead 'heroes'. And not all the good people of our stolen Canadian land and all the good people's opposition parties in their parliament toiling and moiling mightily without cease for all these years could end it, it seems. But the Afghans are certainly giving it a good kick at the can. Now perhaps you begin to see why their lives, those resisting, might be calculated as more valuable...

The Afghan People will most certainly win.

The Canadian people will most certainly lose.

Graveyard of Empires and servants of empire too.

Ill Wind Blows for a 'Neutral' Afghanistan

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG24Df01.html

"According to available details, the 17-acre (6.9 hectare) site of the new American military base is hardly 35 kilometers from the border of Uzbekistan and it seems set to become the pendant of a 'string of pearls' that the US is kneading through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan along the 'soft underbelly' of Russia and China's Xinjiang.

How would the countries in the region size up the startling prospect that the US and NATO are possibly quitting the Afghan war by 2014 and yet preparing to settle down for a long stay in the Hindu Kush?"

Furthermore, the **** is really hitting the fan now.

For STARTERS, the 4 Canadian soldiers killed in September 2006 ... turned out to be victims of "friendly" fire.

Webgear wrote:

Well, Wikileaks got that one wrong.

It's a mistake saying Wikileaks got it "right" or "wrong", W just leaked 90,000 or so military reports and made no comment AFAIK on that report.

It's possible the military report could be right, wrong--or just badly written.

Here is a quote from it from the G&M--I don't know if they have left any relevant material out of it

“At 030414Z Sept 06 received SAF & RPGS from sawtooth building. returned fire 1x GBU dropped on it. Sawtooth building is heavily damaged. only 4x sections remain standing. no activity observed. Casualties 4x CDN KIA 4X CDN WIA.”

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-disputes-leaked-friend...

Yeah, that's what I suspected but I just now noticed the full report on the Guardian and it was originally headed "blue-blue" (friendly fire)--unless Wikileaks edited in all those references:

Key
   
C7D0AA09-3145-40A7-8B29-F49B5B659501
* WIA: wounded in action. KIA: killed in action. MGRS: Military grid reference system. CCIR: Commander's critical information requirement. Hover over underlined words for an explanation or see the glossary in full.
Source: Wikileaks war diaries
Date     2006-09-03 04:14:00
Type     Friendly Fire
Category     Blue-Blue
Tracking no.     2007-033-004411-0721
Title     (FRIENDLY FIRE) BLUE-BLUE RPT 205TH RCAG : 4 CF KIA 7 CF WIA 1 CIV WIA
Summary     At 030414Z Sept 06 received SAF & RPGS from sawtooth building. returned fire 1x GBU dropped on it. Sawtooth building is heavily damaged. only 4x sections remain standing. no activity observed. Casualties 4x CDN KIA 4X CDN WIA.
At 030419Z Sep received SAF and RPG fire on op, a total of WIA in these hour 7x CDN, and 4x CDN KIA and 1x WIA interpreter.
Region     RC SOUTH
Attack on     FRIEND
Complex attack     FALSE
Reporting unit     205th RCAG
Unit name     205th RCAG
Type of unit     ENEMY
Friendly WIA     7
Friendly KIA     4
Host nation WIA     0
Host nation KIA     0
Civilian WIA     1
Civilian KIA     0
Enemy WIA     0
Enemy KIA     0
Enemy detained     0
MGRS     41RQQ310931
Latitude     31.54976082
Longitude     65.43344879
Originator group     UNKNOWN
Updated by group     A SIGACTS MANAGER
CCIR      
Sig Act      
Affiliation     FRIEND
D Colour     BLUE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/C7D0AA09-3145-40A7-8...

Thats kinda the point. Even our top brass is saying they were killed in action against insurgents with an astrix. The bomb missed its target while they were engaging afghani fighters(soldiers not planes).  It landed on them while they were fighting. Its a half lie, but its still a lie. They again got bombed by an amercian pilot while shooting at the "enemy". So yes they died fighting the taliban but they didn't get killed by an ied or from small weapon fire from the enemy. 

The government is being very weaselly on it (the libs aren't being much better on it either) but are saying it will put our troops at risk, when all of the info is well over half a year old. Where have I heard that excuse before? Oh yeah everytime we get ANY info about anything in afghanistan. We can't talk about the Karzai Rape Law, because t will decrease the morale of the soldiers and put them in danger? Really? Can't talk about torture from 2006 it will put them in danger...well duh if you torture people and they don't get lockup or dead, they will tell people what you did. No need to worry about some reports.

Webgear wrote:

Well, Wikileaks got that one wrong.

What wikileaks released was the radio comms with the American unit at the battle and their higher command.

They speak of a U.S. airstrike that destroyed a building where four Canadian soldiers were killed, and four were injured.

The publicly released description of the incident by the Defense Department, the Defense Minister's spokesperson and the military magazine The Maple Leaf claim that the four soldiers killed were killed by insurgents.

Whether the initial U.S. Army rad comms or the later Canadian government version of events are correct, remains to be determined.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Canadian government and military lied to us.

Has the media release all 92,000 reports?  Yesterday when I was looking at the Guardian website, there was only 300 reports provided.

I agree that the people's understanding and interpretation of this report is wrong. People (mostly journalists) should look at all reports and have an understanding of these reports before releasing news articles about an event.

I know that will never happen.

"The greatest importance is ... the unvarnished quality... of the information." This is in marked contrast to the stream of vomit, of lies, from the official authorities, the puppet regime in Kabul, and so on. We can therefore predict the main thrust of the American "spin" ... will be to cast aspersions on the information. Good luck, Uncle Sam! lol. lol.

Yes, and pick off drivers, motorcyclists, children, etc.  who get in their way for fear they might be suicide bombers. There must be some amazing cognitive dissonance going on for people to participate in such activities and then they, or their superiors, blather about "hearts and minds", "training" the local police, "helping" the Afghans to govern themselves, etc, etc, etc.

There is enough material for dozens of historians for dozens of years. But the amount of material and its timing DURING A WAR is amazing. Has there been anything like it?

Webgear wrote:

I agree that the people's understanding and interpretation of this report is wrong. People (mostly journalists) should look at all reports and have an understanding of these reports before releasing news articles about an event.

I know that will never happen.

When I was "in", I was in an armored unit that later converted to reconn. The "report" was described to me by a retired U.S. former Colonel who said that it was a log of radio comms by a unit involved in the battle. This made perfect sense as one of the very important duties reconn. units perform is to monitor radio traffic and keep logs on the important transmissions.

Information that is recorded in a log is never taken out, removed or altered. If earlier information is incorrect and additional information is available that contradicts or differs, then that information is later added to the log.

In this particular case, there is no information added later that contradicts or differs from the earlier information. Yet the Canadian government, Defense Minister spokesperson and Defense Department publication's account of events contradicts the log released on wikileaks.

Remember, that log nor the U.S. Pentagon and military's account of events (which are consistent with the log) were not released to the public until now.

In this case who's version of the truth is correct?

Yours, the government's and the military's - and anyone else's that contradicts is wrong? Is that how it works?

Sorry, what type of report are you referring to?

Well, every unit I was ever in, the standard procedure was to always monitor the radio, on one net higher and lone net lower. You always tracked the close and deep battle of your unit and flanking units.

Anyways, this event was very well documented by several organizations; there are several personal and professional accounts in numerous publications.

I followed the battle over the radio as it happened. A few weeks later I talked to the platoon commander in the company for several hours about what had happened. I even talked to a few friends from the previous unit that was attacked there about a month before.

My account is closer to the truth than anything that has been leaked thus far.

Ok, are you saying the report from Wikileak is a radio log?