The Afghan people will win! - part 20

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.."

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.

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...

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..

[img]http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2010/08/07/tp-chopper-crash...

Quote:

Taliban insurgents were responsible for the downing of a Canadian Chinook helicopter in southern Afghanistan on Thursday, the Canadian military confirmed Saturday.

Awesome. Our tax dollars at work. 

This site bans any 9/11 discusion.

Old goat and catchWHAtever - feel free to identify yourselves.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

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.

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?

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!

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.

Just like when the Tabilan killed the 70+ year old worker at the KPRT three weeks ago.

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

Catchfire wrote:

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,

Catchfire wrote:

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?

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/harper-cant-be-trusted-on-afghanistan][IMG]http://img....

<a href="http://www.NDP.ca/harper-cant-be-trusted-on-afghanistan wrote:

For">http://www.NDP.ca/harper-cant-be-trusted-on-afghanistan]For two years, Stephen Harper has repeatedly promised Canadians that the combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011.

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.

Webgear wrote:

1. The "Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan" started in 1994/95 due to the collapse of strong political power in Afghanistan and the frontier provinces of Pakistan. This new power structure occurred because neither the Pakistan nor Afghanistan had positive control over these provinces. These have always been strong tribal regions and within these regions there were power struggles.

[size=12]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.[/size]

Webgear wrote:

2. I would not say al Qeada is not an invisible or silent enemy.

[size=12]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.[/size]

Webgear wrote:

5. Transparent talks are need however until all parties are will to talk not much will occur, the creation of new countries will likely bring the only peace to the region, give the Pashtuns a country to control, this would apply to the other major tribal groups, recreating Baluchistan would be a good start.

A US Marine Capt. and political officer in Afghanistan [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/30/no-secret-pakistan-t... Hoh[/url] said this last year:

Mathew Hoh wrote:

"The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies ... I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."

[size=12]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.[/size]

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/ali10092009.html]Tariq Ali[/url] 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.

Webgear wrote:

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?

Webgear wrote:

Transparent talks are need however until all parties are will to talk not much will occur, the creation of new countries will likely bring the only peace to the region, give the Pashtuns a country to control, this would apply to the other major tribal groups, recreating Baluchistan would be a good start.

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.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

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

 

Quote:

Hidden bombs and suicide attacks are killing and maiming so many Afghans that Amnesty

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

 

Quote:

Civilian deaths in Afghanistan leapt by 31% in the first half of 2010, driven largely by the Taliban and other insurgents' rising use of improvised explosive devices, and their increased targeting of civilians for assassination, according to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). Attacks by the Taliban and other anti-government forces accounted for more than 76% of civilian casualties and 72% of deaths.

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?

Quote:

Amnesty International has been told that tribal elders in various villages of Kandahar, Zabul, and Khost provinces have been fleeing rural areas, fearing systematic targeting by the Taliban.

"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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Fidel wrote:

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!

New Oilfield Discovered in Afghanistan

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=138817&sectionid=3510213

"A new oil deposit containing an estimated 1.9 Billion barrels of crude oil has been discovered in the northern provinces of Afghanistan.."