Our friend Fidel is not far wrong.
Here's why:
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011/02/07/evidence-of-2002-taliban-o...
Issues Pages:
The Afghan People Will Win Part 23
Tue, 2011-02-08 02:13
#1
The Afghan People Will Win Part 23
Tue, 2011-02-08 02:39
#2
except Fidelio contends the Taliban are a faction remote controlled by Washington/Islamabad. I see no evidence for this here.
Tue, 2011-02-08 02:52
#3
except Fidelio contends the Taliban are a faction remote controlled by Washington/Islamabad. I see no evidence for this here.
True enough.
That is a slight problem with his theory.
However, the "Taliban" is not a monolithic organization either.
Our friend Fidel may not always be right, but he's never far wrong.
Tue, 2011-02-08 07:59
#4
Enduro Man
except Fidelio contends the Taliban are a faction remote controlled by Washington/Islamabad. I see no evidence for this here.
It's my understanding that the Taliban are trained and funded by Pakistan's ISI which is in turn provided much "aid" courtesy of the American taxpayer.
In effect Americans are unwittingly subsidizing the killing of their own troops. An irony that is completely lost on them. They still beleive they are fighting "the war on terror" which would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
Tue, 2011-02-08 09:47
#5
It's my understanding that the Taliban are trained and funded by Pakistan's ISI which is in turn provided much "aid" courtesy of the American taxpayer.
In effect Americans are unwittingly subsidizing the killing of their own troops. An irony that is completely lost on them. They still beleive they are fighting "the war on terror" which would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
Yes.
The sad thing is that (most) Canadians are in the same situation. One of the arguments goes, "Canada is in Afghanistan to 'defend' itself." Same argument was used over Vietnam.
Tue, 2011-02-08 13:39
#6
Enduro Man
It's my understanding that the Taliban are trained and funded by Pakistan's ISI which is in turn provided much "aid" courtesy of the American taxpayer.
In effect Americans are unwittingly subsidizing the killing of their own troops. An irony that is completely lost on them. They still beleive they are fighting "the war on terror" which would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
Yes.
The sad thing is that (most) Canadians are in the same situation. One of the arguments goes, "Canada is in Afghanistan to 'defend' itself." Same argument was used over Vietnam.
And the other asinine argument that is being thrown around (usually by far right aparatchuks) is that "we can't leave because the Taliban might commit more human rights abuses!" Without even recognizing that this is in fact what NATO forces have done and are doing. Including the deliberate murder of unarmed civlians for pure self-gratification- blood lust by any other name.
I still remember that Time magazine cover of the girl with her nose cut off. A horrific sight to be sure but it never occured to the editors to present the photographs (easily obtained) of the mutilated, decapitated and burned bodies of Afghans produced by their own nation's munitions.
Tue, 2011-02-08 23:06
#7
And the other asinine argument that is being thrown around (usually by far right aparatchuks) is that "we can't leave because the Taliban might commit more human rights abuses!" Without even recognizing that this is in fact what NATO forces have done and are doing. Including the deliberate murder of unarmed civlians for pure self-gratification- blood lust by any other name.
I still remember that Time magazine cover of the girl with her nose cut off.
Many Americans and Canadians should keep in mind the fact that this occurred after nine years of U.S./NATO/ISAF war and occupation in Afghanistan. Things are worse (and are continuing to get worse with each passing year of the war) than in 2001 before the war started and when the Taliban were in power. Another thing that should be kept in mind is the perpetrator was the girl's father inlaw (who is not associated with the Taliban), the Taliban had nothing to do with the girl's assault and mutilation. It shows that over nine years of war and occupation has done very little to change Afghan society in the countryside outside of the larger communities.
This should be an argument for leaving Afghanistan now rather than for staying longer.
Tue, 2011-02-08 23:18
#8
The sad thing is that (most) Canadians are in the same situation. One of the arguments goes, "Canada is in Afghanistan to 'defend' itself." Same argument was used over Vietnam.
Yes, imperialists of the last century were notorious for staging false flag terrorism. Themes of foreign threats were used by the Japanese in Manchuria, and later by the Nazis before invading Poland as well. By the time the rest of the world understands what really happened, it's too late. The foreign threat ruse is still cheap and effective. This time it's 19 hijackers, seven who've since been interviewed by the BBC, Saudis or other news agencies. The FBI has still to acknowledge the alive and well hijackers.
Wed, 2011-02-09 02:51
#9
Afghan Hired Gun Bill Tops $41 M
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/02/06/afghan-mercenaries.html
"Warlord paid $2.5 M since 2008 to guard base: documents"
Wed, 2011-02-09 03:48
#10
except Fidelio contends the Taliban are a faction remote controlled by Washington/Islamabad. I see no evidence for this here.
Not me. I am not the source. Sibel Edmonds and a number of other people have said that there really is no such thing as al-Qaeda. There are just those right wing fundamentalists aided and abetted by the CIA and ISI, Saudis etc leftovers from the cold war. Even China was in on supplying weapons to the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s. And now they are complaining that the CIA's training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan are still churning out radical militants who are now marauding in over the border into China. The US Military released a number of Uighurs from Guantanamo because they realized the Uighurs are the good guys.
Good guys who also happen to be trained in terrorism at schools for terrorism still funded by US taxpayers and Saudis etc. Radical militants are still churned out of thousands of madrassas funded by the gladio gang while wealthy Pakistanis and connected Afghans send their children to prep schools in Europe and prestigious universities in America. Right wing militants are still being trained in the dark arts of making car bombs and IEDS, hijacking planes etc. The US CIA and friends know this because they continue funding militant Islam in Central Asia.
That story from anti-war.com does make sense of the claims that the Taliban offered to give up bin Laden three times. Bush and company and now Obama are totally uninterested in bin Laden. They know he has nothing to do with 9/11. They know there is no such thing as al-Qaeda.
"I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11." .
"State secrets privilege" "National Security" This maneuvering is typical of a military dictatorship. There are people embedded in US Government and the Military, CIA etc who have nothing to do with democracy. They are accountable to no one but themselves. In fact, the US became a military dictatorship in 1947 with the signing of the US National Security Act. Elvis bin Laden is a myth. There is no such thing as "Al-Qaeda" the threat to US National Security. In fact, al-Qaeda does not exist.
Wed, 2011-02-09 09:11
#11
Enduro Man
except Fidelio contends the Taliban are a faction remote controlled by Washington/Islamabad. I see no evidence for this here.
Not me. I am not the source. Sibel Edmonds and a number of other people have said that there really is no such thing as al-Qaeda. There are just those right wing fundamentalists aided and abetted by the CIA and ISI, Saudis etc leftovers from the cold war. Even China was in on supplying weapons to the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s. And now they are complaining that the CIA's training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan are still churning out radical militants who are now marauding in over the border into China. The US Military released a number of Uighurs from Guantanamo because they realized the Uighurs are the good guys.
Good guys who also happen to be trained in terrorism at schools for terrorism still funded by US taxpayers and Saudis etc. Radical militants are still churned out of thousands of madrassas funded by the gladio gang while wealthy Pakistanis and connected Afghans send their children to prep schools in Europe and prestigious universities in America. Right wing militants are still being trained in the dark arts of making car bombs and IEDS, hijacking planes etc. The US CIA and friends know this because they continue funding militant Islam in Central Asia.
That story from anti-war.com does make sense of the claims that the Taliban offered to give up bin Laden three times. Bush and company and now Obama are totally uninterested in bin Laden. They know he has nothing to do with 9/11. They know there is no such thing as al-Qaeda.
"I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11." ."State secrets privilege" "National Security" This maneuvering is typical of a military dictatorship. There are people embedded in US Government and the Military, CIA etc who have nothing to do with democracy. They are accountable to no one but themselves. In fact, the US became a military dictatorship in 1947 with the signing of the US National Security Act. Elvis bin Laden is a myth. There is no such thing as "Al-Qaeda" the threat to US National Security. In fact, al-Qaeda does not exist.
Yet it is still used as a justification for the massive expansion of America's national security state and its apparatus. The Homeland Security Department for example. A truly sinister organization if there ever was one.
This has also happened in Canada to a significant degree. Security Certificates, anyone?
Wed, 2011-02-09 09:13
#12
Enduro Man
And the other asinine argument that is being thrown around (usually by far right aparatchuks) is that "we can't leave because the Taliban might commit more human rights abuses!" Without even recognizing that this is in fact what NATO forces have done and are doing. Including the deliberate murder of unarmed civlians for pure self-gratification- blood lust by any other name.
I still remember that Time magazine cover of the girl with her nose cut off.
Many Americans and Canadians should keep in mind the fact that this occurred after nine years of U.S./NATO/ISAF war and occupation in Afghanistan. Things are worse (and are continuing to get worse with each passing year of the war) than in 2001 before the war started and when the Taliban were in power. Another thing that should be kept in mind is the perpetrator was the girl's father inlaw (who is not associated with the Taliban), the Taliban had nothing to do with the girl's assault and mutilation. It shows that over nine years of war and occupation has done very little to change Afghan society in the countryside outside of the larger communities.
This should be an argument for leaving Afghanistan now rather than for staying longer.
Thanks for clarifying that about the girl. I actually didn't know that. !
Thu, 2011-02-10 15:07
#13
5000 Attend Funeral of Prisoner Who Died in Guantanamo... by Andy Worthington
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/02/10/in-afghanistan-5000-attend-f...
"Following the death at Guantanamo last week of Awal Gul, an Afghan held for 9 years without charge or trial, his body was returned to his home country where 5,000 people attended his funeral on Monday...The lesson as ever, seems to be that when it comes to blind vengeance and futile aggression, the US has no intention of relinguishing the leading role it assumed in the wake of the 911 attacks, and is also unwilling to recognize, either in Afghanistan or in Guantanamo, that there are, or ever were, profound differences between al-Qaeda and the Taliban..."
Khadr Asking for Clemency for War Crimes by Bryn Weese
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/09/17216461.html
"Convicted Canadian terrorist Omar Khadr, now serving time in Guantanamo Bay US Naval Station, is asking US authorities for clemency, QMI Agency has learned. If a US military court grants his request, it could move Khadr one step closer to his return to Canada. Khadr wants to shorten his sentence at the maximum security prison at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and apply to return to Canada early.."
alas, don't hold your breath Omar...
Fri, 2011-02-11 03:26
#14
Afghan President Confirms US Demand for Permanent Bases
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/afgh-f11.shtml
"Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed for the first time that the Obama administration has demanded the establishment of a system of permanent US military bases across the country, effectively laying the basis for an indefinite neo-colonial occupation.."
Fri, 2011-02-11 07:39
#15
It's my understanding that the Taliban are trained and funded by Pakistan's ISI which is in turn provided much "aid" courtesy of the American taxpayer.
This is nothing new for the US. They aided and abetted the Khmer Rouge covertly for many years. The main reasons given for them having done so in the 1970s through 1980s was that the KR opposed the Vietnamese. But there were other reasons and mainly that the Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge would be a destabilizing force and threat to democracy in general. Preventing democracy is what the US CIA and Military war planners have done and continue to do. Democracy anywhere around the world eventually represents a threat to US corporate and military interests.
In effect Americans are unwittingly subsidizing the killing of their own troops. An irony that is completely lost on them. They still beleive they are fighting "the war on terror" which would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
I don't believe they've done it unwittingly. There are precedents for arming the enemy. Dozens of western industrialists and warfiteering families including the Bushs have acted as money launderers and sold everything from weapons to raw materials for waging war to the most ruthless dictators of recent history, from Hitler and the Nazis through to Saddam Hussein and even the former Saddam's enemies in Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran.
All of this unwittingly stuff I've read and heard before, and it's simply not true. The establishment news media are responsible for what's known as coincidence theorizing. The coincidences are not really coincidence at all so much as deliberate mistakes. And when their right wing dictator friends turn so bad that they have to declare war on their mistakes, a second round of profiteering on the mistakes is on order. No, they make few mistakes. The mistakes are calculated beforehand and usually result in enormous fortunes being made. A few thousand or even a few million dead foreigners and American soliders are by no means mistakes. Those are what's known as acceptible losses and sacrifices, and "collateral damage", which is another kind of lie since Hitler invaded Poland and ordered the luftwaffe and weirmacht to be merciful with the civilian population. Hitler told Germans they were waging defensive war and even for humanitarian reasons as is the case the today. We are helping those people achieve democracy, in case anyone ever questions their motives. And all the while they were intentionally ordered to murder everyone who stood in the way at a frenzied pace. Warfiteers love to create enemies and fuel for more profitable war. It doesn't matter who wins so much as how long they can keep it going.
War is several times on order more profitable than most legitimate forms of capitalist industry. About 8000 military contractors in the US account for somewhere more than half of annual federal expenditures. War is needed to test the latest technology in battle field conditions. War industries have sales people just like any other, and performance statistics make the sell job a lot easier to the Pentagon and Congress, and to US-backed military dictator friends of the government.
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12336294]Afghan Taliban members seek guarantees for peace talks[/url]
The US and Karzai want to make sure to deal with the right wing Taliban and not the other 80 percent of the insurgency. The Taliban are creations of the US CIA and ISI with some funding from Saudi royals, ie. their good former friend Osama bin Laden, dead now for a few years. Right wing extremists prefer dealing with other right wing fundamentalist extremists. And sometimes they are murdered when they outlive their usefulness to the vicious empire.
Fri, 2011-02-11 08:12
#16
What "other 80 percent of the insurgency"? Please supply details
Fri, 2011-02-11 08:38
#17
Details-details. It's always details. I'm talking about local tribal leaders and ordinary Afghans without fundamentalist religious affiliations. Before Talibanization of Afghanistan and still today there is Pashtunwali and other tribal codes that predate extremist Taliban edicts. The main thing is that not everyone in Afghanistan is Taliban. IOWs the large majority of them are not right wing extremists created and supported, and controlled, by the CIA through the ISI. Many Afgans believe the CIA and ISI still influence, are supplying arms to and continue to control the Taliban. If you'll notice, there are no rumors of talks with Karzai's political opposition or regular tribal leaders. Uncle Sam still has a hard-on for his right wing extremist Taliban baggage and vice versa.
Fri, 2011-02-11 09:56
#18
What I should just accept your contention that there is a formation constituting 80% of the insurgency that I have never heard of? Sorry your theoretical constructs about the Islamic resistance movement of Afghanistan being purely a western created, controlled entity just doesn't square with facts or logic.
Fri, 2011-02-11 10:01
#19
'I was stunned,' said Mendes...'I started thinking, My God, this is a McCarthy-like attempt to politically intimidate both of us. 'It seems like an intimidation tactic,' said Attaran, a frequent critic of the government, notably on the issue of the military's handling of Afghan detainees.."
Tores Accused of Digging Up Dirt on 'Liberal' Profs
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/936704--tories-accused-of-dig...
Fri, 2011-02-11 10:24
#20
Nope, it's from what I've gleaned from writings of lefty news journalists from Pakistan and Britain, Malalai Joya and RAWA, and one doctor of cultural studies who lives and teaches in the Peshawar region.
You can believe whatever western newzies and US-based propagandists tell you to believe. Makes no difference to me. But your basic Taliban are certainly no left wing revolutionairies, that's for sure. There are only about 25000 or so real deal Taliban.
[url=http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/11/25/afghanistan-a-war-of-lies.htm... A WAR OF LIES[/url]
Taliban received US aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule
[url=http://www.answercoalition.org/march-forward/statements/afghanistan-war-... 7: The Taliban equals the resistance to the U.S. occupation.[/color][/url]
The Taliban only composes a fraction of the resistance to the occupation. U.S. Army General Ben Hodges admitted that only “a fifth [of fighters] or less are probably full-fledged, ideologically-motivated Taliban insurgents.” (PBS, Feb. 26) [color=red]After the 2001 invasion, an enormous number of armed groups were formed by ordinary Afghans.[/color] 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.
Sat, 2011-02-12 00:38
#21
... This is nothing new for the US. They aided and abetted the Khmer Rouge covertly for many years. The main reasons given for them having done so in the 1970s through 1980s was that the KR opposed the Vietnamese. But there were other reasons and mainly that the Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge would be a destabilizing force and threat to democracy in general. Preventing democracy is what the US CIA and Military war planners have done and continue to do. Democracy anywhere around the world eventually represents a threat to US corporate and military interests.
... I don't believe they've done it unwittingly. There are precedents for arming the enemy. Dozens of western industrialists and warfiteering families including the Bushs have acted as money launderers and sold everything from weapons to raw materials for waging war to the most ruthless dictators of recent history, from Hitler and the Nazis through to Saddam Hussein and even the former Saddam's enemies in Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran.
All of this unwittingly stuff I've read and heard before, and it's simply not true. The establishment news media are responsible for what's known as coincidence theorizing. The coincidences are not really coincidence at all so much as deliberate mistakes. And when their right wing dictator friends turn so bad that they have to declare war on their mistakes, a second round of profiteering on the mistakes is on order. No, they make few mistakes. The mistakes are calculated beforehand and usually result in enormous fortunes being made. A few thousand or even a few million dead foreigners and American soliders are by no means mistakes. Those are what's known as acceptible losses and sacrifices, and "collateral damage", which is another kind of lie since Hitler invaded Poland and ordered the luftwaffe and weirmacht to be merciful with the civilian population. Hitler told Germans they were waging defensive war and even for humanitarian reasons as is the case the today. We are helping those people achieve democracy, in case anyone ever questions their motives. And all the while they were intentionally ordered to murder everyone who stood in the way at a frenzied pace. Warfiteers love to create enemies and fuel for more profitable war. It doesn't matter who wins so much as how long they can keep it going.
War is several times on order more profitable than most legitimate forms of capitalist industry. About 8000 military contractors in the US account for somewhere more than half of annual federal expenditures. War is needed to test the latest technology in battle field conditions. War industries have sales people just like any other, and performance statistics make the sell job a lot easier to the Pentagon and Congress, and to US-backed military dictator friends of the government.
The US and Karzai want to make sure to deal with the right wing Taliban and not the other 80 percent of the insurgency. The Taliban are creations of the US CIA and ISI with some funding from Saudi royals, ie. their good former friend Osama bin Laden, dead now for a few years. Right wing extremists prefer dealing with other right wing fundamentalist extremists. And sometimes they are murdered when they outlive their usefulness to the vicious empire.
Ah, our friend Fidel is well read.
http://original.antiwar.com/kevin-carson/2011/02/11/for-the-state-blowba...
Sat, 2011-02-12 01:58
#22
And that's a very good article by Kevin Carson. Thanks Former Soldier. I believe they encouraged Hamas to form as a counterbalance to Arafat's PLO and Fatah as well but then changed gears when Hamas became a political wing for the resistance. They really do prefer dealing with extremists as a way of discrediting the resistance. And Carson's bang on when he says that he doesn't believe they cried themselves to sleep over 3000 dead serfs on 9/11 either. Coincidence? They create their own coincidences. They know how to tilt the odds in their favour. The House rarely loses at their own games of chance.
Sat, 2011-02-12 06:03
#23
So as well as your theory the Taliban are purely US created and controlled puppets, you also think the democratically elected Hamas are 'extremists discrediting the resistance?' If so please elaborate further on this curious view, perhaps in one of the appropriate threads elsewhere.
Sat, 2011-02-12 06:16
#24
IEA: Response to Secret Talks Between the Kabul Stooge Administration and America Regarding Permanent Bases
http://www.shahamat.info/english/
"Afghanistan is under the occupation of America. No treaty or agreement has legitimacy in conditions of occupation. These sham treaties do not reflect the aspirations and objectives of the Afghans. The permanent bases in Afghanistan will turn our country into a de facto hotbed of American conspiracies. They will use these bases to change regimes in Afghanistan and neighbouring countries..
In our view, America wants to keep us deprived of independence forever under the structure of permanent bases, and usurp our natural resources. The Afghan Mujahid people neither accept any would-be treaty of the Karzai Stooge Administration with America regarding the establishment of permanent bases nor accept their ratification by the so-called, phony, parliament. We do not differentiate between establishment of a few bases and occupation of the whole country..."
Sat, 2011-02-12 07:23
#25
So as well as your theory the Taliban are purely US created and controlled puppets, you also think the democratically elected Hamas are 'extremists discrediting the resistance?' If so please elaborate further on this curious view, perhaps in one of the appropriate threads elsewhere.
I don't know exactly what to think of Hamas. They are an offshoot if the Muslim Brotherhood since 1987 and First Intifada.Their stated aim then was to wage jihad against Israel and create an Islamic state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. That doesn't sound very friendly to me.
On the other hand, how was Hamas able to form and be financed from abroad at a time when Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization was under siege and effectively starved of international funding?
Some of Hamas' actions discredited the Palestinian cause no doubt. But their actions are less objectionable than the US-backed Israeli Military's actions in Gaza and terrtories. I think Hamas was allowed to form at one time because their stated goals were violence and reactionism. When Hamas became a political authority in 2006, it was viewed by Israel and US backers as a greater threat to their plans for the Middle East than Hamas the source and advocacy group for jihad.
The US and Israel prefer being opposed by violent jihadists than political moderates. It's harder for US and Israeli and European leaders to justify to electorates what are acts of state terrorism by the Israeli military when opposed by moderates with political credibility.
ETA: The US-backed Israelis have wanted to frame their confrontation with the Arab world in general as a "clash of civilizations" similar to Z-Brzezinski's portrayal of the arc of crisis nations since the USA intervened in Afghanistan beginning in July 1979. We are supposed to view these Muslim countries as backwards theocracies bent on wiping out the Jews and infidels in general. But the truth is that radicalization of those countries is mostly the work of the Anglo-American empire and Saudi royals. It's ongoing. And that's why I(the web sources Former Soldier and I pointed to) describe the Afghan insurgency as mainly local tribal leaders and ordinary Afghans not particularly motivated by religious fundamentalism so much as a desire to be free of the foreign military occupation. All we read and hear about in the newz though is the Taliban resistance. The Taliban do not define all Afghans. Talibanization, like Hamas and militant Islam elsewhere, was a relatively recent occurrence in Central Asia.
Sat, 2011-02-12 09:59
#26
I am trying to stop it. And I will be trying my darndest to give uncle Sam something else to think about with undermining his stoogeaucracy there in Ottawa come next election. A federal NDP Government could spell a heap of trouble for vicious empire central in a lot of ways. We could end up bringing democracy closer to empire central than it's ever been before. An NDP government in Canada could be a different kind of "top-down revolution".
Sat, 2011-02-12 11:51
#27
Of course 'The Taliban' do not define all Afghans. Neither does 'the Hamas' define all Palestinians. Or Muslim Brotherhood define all Egyptians. However, 'Taliban' is almost always the exclusive term the West applies to their Afghan 'enemy'. Or anyone else hapless enough to be murdered by our forces there. At this distance, here in Canada, it is extremely difficult to know, conclusively, enough about the culture, histories and actually existing conditions of people there, to make sweeping armchair generalizations about the Afghan people's resistance. You do no service to that resistance and may even aid and abet their common enemy when you impugn that part of it designated 'Taliban' and only champion those formations on the western progressive officially approved/permitted list. Like it or not, Muslim people resisting may include cultural or Islamic beliefs or precepts in their resistance, no matter how fervently Islamophobic western progressives might wish it were otherwise. It is unseemly, in this settler-state, stolen land where there is virtually no resistance of any kind to this war, to slander and impugn grassroots people called 'taliban' who fight and die against an enemy we here do next to nothing to stop.
Mon, 2011-02-14 14:06
#28
What To Do About The Afghan Quagmire - by Nelson Wiseman
http://historywire.ca/en/article/22296
"The most recent report notes that insurgent attacks have increased by 70 percent over the past year. Only 21 percent of Afghans believe that the UK forces are playing a positive role. There is little reason to believe that the Afghans think any more highly of the Canadians...The Taliban, in classic guerilla style, have outmaneuvered the Canadians with diversionary tactics, according to a military related US think tank. The Americans now see Canada's campaign as one of the most serous setbacks suffered in the war..
There is very little prospect of foreign forces succeeding in Afghanistan. The dilemmas facing Canada and the other countrys bogged down there are daunting. For Canada to turn its back on NATO (and the UN under whose auspices the NATO forces operate), however, would be to spurn its multilateral traditions and to damage it in the yes of allies. On the other hand, Canada and it allies must acknowledge that after a decade they are slowly, painfully, going nowhere."
..history must also show that Canadian anti-war forces were virtually non-existent, their effects negligible, especially by opposition parties. Even 'mistakes' such as the Detainee scandal and JTF2 matters were not pursued by the opposition with any degree of vigour. In effect there seemed tacit agreement that NATO would be allowed to have its way in Afghanistan, and all parties effectively collaborated in purely pro-forma criticism of the war. Significantly, the NDP even altered a long-standing policy against NATO membership to one of support for it. Nonetheless clearly this war is lost and indeed, The Afghan People Have Won! Troops Out Now!
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/500862
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529
US Backed Afghan Government Next to Fall After Egypt: Taliban
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/us-backed-afghanistan-gov...
"The Pashto language statement said the Afghan people would rise up and overthrow the Kabul government due to its corruption and the 'atrocities' committed by the United States [and Canada!] during a nearly decade-old military campaign.."
Mon, 2011-02-14 18:56
#29
Pentagon Has 400,000 Personnel In-Theatre For Its Afghan War
http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article54755
"Kabul Press investigations have revealed that the total US military, civilian and contractor force in the region exceeds 400,000 and is growing. This covert escalation may signal that conditions on the ground in Afghanistan are deteriorating faster than expected, this necessitating a second unannounced surge..."
Mon, 2011-02-14 19:21
#30
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/06/george-bush-trip-to-switzerlan... Bush calls off trip to Switzerland[/url]
Amnesty International said today that it had sent a detailed factual and legal analysis to Swiss prosecutors, claiming there was sufficient information to open a criminal investigation."Such an investigation would be mandatory under Switzerland's international obligations if President Bush entered the country," Amnesty said.
It added: "Anywhere in the world that he travels, President Bush could face investigation and potential prosecution for his responsibility for torture and other crimes in international law, particularly in any of the 147 countries that are party to the UN convention against torture."
George II the war criminal on the lam?
Mon, 2011-02-14 19:38
#31
George Bush's exposure to war crimes prosecution under existing Canadian law, was made known to the Government, the RCMP and every sitting MP in parliament prior to Bush's last Canadian visit. There was no response to the Lawyers Against War brief. In the case of the NDP, L.A.W. was advised that Jack Layton 'would entertain no further correspondence on this issue'. "
Mon, 2011-02-14 19:56
#32
Well in fact no one in the Swiss government or political opposition in that country is calling for his arrest either. It's only because of the human rights groups threatening legal action.
It's because of the obsolete electoral system in Canada that political leaders are forced to play this game of timid electioneering. The archaic electoral method known as FPTP dictates that it's much easier to prevent goals being scored against you than to score them. Everybody knows that it's a large minority of voters doing the choosing every four years, and politicians are forced to dance to their tune. It's just the way it is.
Wed, 2011-02-16 21:20
#33
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8321468/Forme... Taliban government member in London[/url] Four o'clock tea with the Brits or just another Harry Potter fan?
Thu, 2011-02-17 01:25
#34
yeah 'FORMER'. He's 'ancien regime'. Paid by the invading Crusaders or Karzai or both. Represents nobody certainly not the Afghan resistance movement. Like talking to Joe Clark. These supposed intermediaries continue to surface and are repeatedly denounced and disavowed by the IEA, as what they are, diversions and distractions designed and conceived only to sow division and dissension amongst a resistance movement that is effectively winning. Ask yourself who really needs the appearance of 'negotiations' more? The West not the Taliban.
Thu, 2011-02-17 08:25
#35
Enduro Man
yeah 'FORMER'. He's 'ancien regime'. Paid by the invading Crusaders or Karzai or both. Represents nobody certainly not the Afghan resistance movement. Like talking to Joe Clark. These supposed intermediaries continue to surface and are repeatedly denounced and disavowed by the IEA, as what they are, diversions and distractions designed and conceived only to sow division and dissension amongst a resistance movement that is effectively winning. Ask yourself who really needs the appearance of 'negotiations' more? The West not the Taliban.
No surprise that such machinations are underway. NATO under incompetent American leadership is losing the war. So such window dressing is required to convince a public at home increasingly hostile to the conflict that in the end it will all be worthwile while arrangements are being made to make the occupation permanent no matter the cost in blood.
The Taliban of course have entirely different ideas about that to be sure.
Thu, 2011-02-17 13:14
#36
Fake Taliban, Real Embarrasment
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/23/fake_taliban_real_embarr...
"Mullah Omar, who leads one group of Taliban fighters based in Quetta, has insisted from the beginning that the talks last month were not taking place. At the time, Filkins had written of Omar 'explicitly being cut out' of the talks. Now it seems that is because the talks weren't really occurring...
This episode confirms what many Afghanistan watchers have long feared: the leadership of ISAF doesn's seem to have any idea what it's doing, who it's talking to, and (probably) who it is really killing...The result is total confusion about who the enemy is and is not. The constant refrain General Petraeus has shouted to reporters is that his new strategy is working...it is 'degrading' the Taliban; it is reversing momentum; it is forcing the leadership to the negotiating table to beg for relief.
None of that is actually true."
Helmand Operation Leaves 4 Dead
http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/02/16/helmand-operation-leaves-4-dead
"Four family members including three students, were killed in an Afghan and coalition-led operation in southern Helmand province, villagers and officials said on Wednesday. The press office of ISAF confirmed the operation in Nava district on Tuesday night but said it had targeted 'known Taliban insurgents.' It gave no further details.."
speaking of which still no word for the canucklhead nation on the investigation into'improper killing' in Helmand province by JTF2
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:23
#37
yeah 'FORMER'. He's 'ancien regime'. Paid by the invading Crusaders or Karzai or both. Represents nobody certainly not the Afghan resistance movement.
That's right, the Taliban representing about a fifth of the resistance do not represent all Afghans in the same way that the corrupt regime in Kabul are not legitimate.
So what is it that the Taliban, carbon copies of the warlords in Afghan Parliament, are demanding in these secretive talks? Are they demanding that foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan as they allege? Or are the Taliban merely demanding that the Afghan constitution be re-written to remove any and all rights for women?
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/04/afghan-women-fears-fo..."The situation of women is a disaster. Men and women today are squashed between three enemies[/url] – the Taliban, the warlords and also the occupation forces who are bombing from the skies and killing civilians, women and children. Now the Taliban are being invited into the government – there is no question the situation of women will be more disastrous and more bloody."Orzala Nemat, a human rights activist who risked her life to set up a secret network of literacy classes for girls under the Taliban regime, agrees that the situation has worsened since 2006 with the revival of the Taliban. "Places which were very safe last year are very unsafe now," she says. "If this conflict is not winnable, we need a political settlement."
Last summer, the Afghan government created a peace council to pursue talks with the Taliban. Ghazanfar says there are safeguards to protect the women in any deal, with the government of Afghanistan insisting the Taliban abide by the country's constitution, which enshrines women's rights.
The Taliban, who are "brothers in creed" with their Northern Alliance counterparts, are a significant fear factor for Afghan women and rightfully so. Will US-backed right wing extremists sell out on Afghan women's rights to the Taliban? We are led to believe that the only opposition to the US-led military occupation comes from the Taliban, which is a lie. So why would they want us to believe that they must defeat the Taliban and Taliban only? Are they preparing Afghans to settle for a deal with right wing extremists in the Taliban?
The civil war in Afghanistan was probably the first in history to begin as a revolutionary movement for women's rights and democracy. The same issues are at the forefront today in secret talks held between US-backed right wing extremists speaking only to each other while the other 80 percent of the resistance and Karzai's political opposition are largely ignored.
[url=http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-... Taliban sanctions hindering peace effort’[/color][/url]
Perhaps this is the reason why mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef is there for tea in London. Perhaps Zaeef is there to negotiate the de-criminalization of a number of Taliban warlords to pave the way for an all right wing US-backed fundamentalist government in Kabul with women's rights stricken from the constitution?
Thu, 2011-02-17 23:08
#38
Majority of Americans from all walks of life are fed up:
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/02/17/fed-up-americans-run-first-ev...
Say, maybe this is an idea for antiwar/anti-interventionist Canadians. Perhaps even Rabble tv.
Fri, 2011-02-18 08:32
#39
Afghan Militias
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=31316&Cat=9&dt=2/15/...
"The irregular armed groups have been formed without any proper coordination with local tribes who want peace. There are also frequent cases of Afghan soldiers turning their guns on NATO soldiers - an indication of the disenchantment surrounding the war effort. In the southern city of Kandahar these militias are feared more than the military and are referred to as 'death squads'. The armed groups publicly carry out killings of innocent people under the protection of both the Afghan government and foreign troops.."
Sun, 2011-02-20 21:35
#40
Afghanistan: NATO Raids Kill 64 Civilians in Kunar
http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/02/20/64-civilians-killed-kunar-raids-say...
"More than 60 civilians, including women and children were killed in joint operations by Afghan forces and NATO-led troops in eastern Kunar province, Governor Fazlullah Wahidi said on Sunday. Of the civilians killed in airstrikes in Ghaziabad district, 20 were women and 29 children or young adults, killed in ground offensives and air raids.."
your tax dollars at work Canucklheads..
Tue, 2011-02-22 15:12
#41
Petraeus Accuses Afghan Parents of Burning Kids to Make US Look Bad
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/21/petraeus-accuses-afghan-parents-of-bu...
"In a closed door meeting aimed at explaining why they had killed so many civilians, General Petraeus actually accused parents in the region of burning their own children in an attempt to raise the death count and make the US look bad..."
when will we stop our active complicity with these US/NATO butchers? Out of Afghanistan! Out of NATO!
Wed, 2011-02-23 09:38
#42
WikiLeaks: US Lied About Bala Baluk Massacre, Red Cross Concealed Truth
http://wlcentral.org/node/1337
"The Norweigan newspaper Aftenpost has published an article on NATO, US and the Red Cross and the Bala Baluk massacre on May 4, 2009. The article features a cable that shows the Red Cross put together a report that raised significant doubt about the military reports on the number of civilians killed.."
Here in Canada, of course, we have had almost no information on the activities of our troops throughout this whole engagement. All is kept from us and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with that on the part of most Canucklheads, sad to say.
Thu, 2011-02-24 15:11
#43
'We Afghans Are All Bouazizi' : by Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers
http://warisacrime.org/node/56838
"Aren't any of you curious about whether there are any 'stirrings of Middle East change' in Afghanistan?"
Thu, 2011-02-24 20:22
#44
UN: Afghan Security Worst Since Start of War - by Jason Dix
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/23/un-afghan-security-worst-since-start-...
"Speaking today on the situation in Afghanistan, outgoing UN Deputy Special Representative Robert Walkins reported that security in the nation is at its worst levels since the 2001 invasion, and that the situation is progressively getting worse. Watkins, who has spent 2 years at his position, noted that NATO keeps insisting things are 'getting better', but that the UN operations in the country haven't seen any improvements whatsoever in the ability to deliver aid.
Indeed, Watkins insists that roughly 40% of the nation, including much of the south and the major city of Kandahar are virtually 'off limits' to UN personnel because it is just too dangerous to go there.."
Another Runaway General: Army Deploys 'Psy-Ops' on US Senators - by Michael Hastings
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-d...
"The US Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in 'psychological operations' to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war.."
Fri, 2011-02-25 11:55
#45
2011 Ottawa Conference on Defense and Security
CPAC is showing this now. Peter MacKay is telling lies about the Afghan mission and how 'Canada held the fort', as well as the behind the wire training phase, he says will help to 'elevate and liberate the people of Afghanistan'. He also flogged the F-35 quite aggressively naturally.
Fri, 2011-02-25 12:51
#46
MacKay Met With Head of 'PSYOPS"
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Mackay+with+head/4344339/story....
"Soon after meeting US General William Caldwell in Afghanistan last June, Bob Rae offered the strongest signal to date his party would support keeping Canadian troops in the country past 2011 to help train Afghan troops. That was exactly the kind of response the US commander allegedly went to unusual lengths to try to acheive, according to an eye-opening media report Thursday.
'My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave' said Lieutenant Colonel Michael Holmes, who headed the propaganda unit.."
Fri, 2011-02-25 22:42
#47
"Soon after meeting US General William Caldwell in Afghanistan last June, Bob Rae offered the strongest signal to date his party would support keeping Canadian troops in the country past 2011 to help train Afghan troops. That was exactly the kind of response the US commander allegedly went to unusual lengths to try to acheive, according to an eye-opening media report Thursday.
'My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave' said Lieutenant Colonel Michael Holmes, who headed the propaganda unit.."
First the military serves lawmakers (like Bob Rae) the Kool-Aid, then provide them the Disney (dog and pony show) guided tour of Afghanistan in General Caldwell's hip holster.
Canadian lawmakers come back to Canada and all come up with the same verbatim quote, "We are making wonderful progress. There needs to be a Canadian presence beyond 2011", like they were mindless hypnotized zombies. It comes as no surprize, really.
Sat, 2011-02-26 04:03
#48
Canadian pols tug forelocks and bend knee to Uncle Sammy automatically - no necessity to 'play with their heads' to make them 'behave the way we want them to behave'...
Sat, 2011-02-26 06:14
#49
Canadian pols tug forelocks and bend knee to Uncle Sammy automatically - no necessity to 'play with their heads' to make them 'behave the way we want them to behave'...
They went to Afghanistan not to learn what is going on there, but for photo ops and because they already were pro-war.
Fair enough.
Sat, 2011-02-26 19:05
#50
Feb 26 IEA: The Fifth Column Embraced: Spreading The Lying Buzz of Negotiations
"For months we have been hearing the startling and stunning buzz of negotiations, reports of which have been increasingly spread in an urgent and polished style by the ignorant Western news agencies...
It is logically impossible for negotiations to be conducted with the lackey government and their fifth column so long as it lies embraced in the lap of wicked America with American flags flapping above the peaks of this Muslim land..
The policy of the Islamic Emirate is as clear as the afternoon sun. The Emirate summit has more than once declared in its media statements that negotiations with the lackey government are not possible so long as Western armies are present here and while it remains in the first rank of collaboration, treachery and perfidy towards this country and its people.
This is and remains the Emirate's policy and there will be no concession or compromise on this."
Sun, 2011-02-27 12:16
#51
Britain Should Pull Out of Afghanistan, Says Gorbachev
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/britain-should-pull-out...
"Mr Gorbachev condemn the Western occupation of Afghanistan and issued a direct appeal to Mr Cameron to act. 'I am using this interview to appeal to the Prime Minister to go in the right direction on Afghanistan,' he says. 'I am appealing to him to set that goal.'
Mr Gorbachev became President after Soviet forces had occupied Afghanistan, and oversaw the eventual withdrawal of troops in 1989. He points out that Britain advised against the Soviet invasion, saying the Afghans are a special people that live by their own rules, and that Britain should now heed its own advice..."