Marriages and Funerals in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Marriages and Funerals in Afghanistan and Pakistan | 03.07.2009 21:30 | Anti-militarism | World
There is a great tendency of American bombers and drones to hit weddings and funerals in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past eight years.
I have a habit of many years of going to all my leftist and antiwar sites on the internet each and every morning. When the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, I noticed that like later in Iraq, there were reports of civilian casualties. Also, like Iraq, I knew because of US government censorship that the exact number of civilian casualties or even a reasonable approximation was going to be very, very difficult. Then, I began hearing and reading of the bombing of weddings and funerals. I wish so much now that I had kept a scientific count of all such events because these are much harder to deny as accidents of war than are civilian deaths in a combat zone. Even taking a low estimate of one every two months and my recollection is that they were more numerous, it amounts to forty-eight over a period of eight years. These bombings can not simply be explained away as accidents or bad intelligence. Surely, US intelligence agents in Afghanistan would know when a funeral or marriage was going to take place, or they should have that knowledge, as they are often very large gatherings of people. Just recently, a drone attack killed 70 people attending a funeral in Pakistan. Of course, there were no pictures of the burned, maimed and deformed children, but the news media had a picture of a pretty, martyred Iranian woman named Neda Soltan, which they showed over and over again. If this doesn't smack of propaganda, I don't know what does. One might ask why these people don't simply give up such risky ceremonies as marriages and funerals? If America or Britain were under occupation by a foreign power would they give away important parts of their culture to that occupying power? Are they expected to hold marriages and funerals in caves, where they are reasonably safe? In funerals are they expected to just throw the body into the grave and run like the wind to escape American bombing? Each and every time the bombing of a marriage or funeral happens, the US military says they are sorry and it won't happen again. However, when it happens over and over for eight years, one begins to suspect that the real explanation is that there is a gross disregard for the lives of Afghani and Pakistani civilians.
If one's child is incinerated by a hell fire missile, this is going to create a desire for revenge by the father and all members of that family. They will then join the Taliban or, if they are more secular in their views, another insurgent group. I read a report today about a missing American soldier and the Taliban spokesperson said there were many insurgent groups, other than the Taliban, fighting in the area. The United States is creating more insurgents than it kills. Why would there be so little concern for human life? The simple explanation to me is that the ruling class of the United States is more interested in the black gold beneath the surface of the Middle East and the possible pipelines to the Indian Ocean than they are with the possibly troublesome people above ground. After the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay is there any doubt that the US ruling class, through its instruments of world domination like the army and CIA, will resort to any level of evil to obtain their objectives? I am not going to resort to the gross generalization that every member of America's ruling class is evil, but as a group they are evil, as the history of the past shows very distinctly.
Another untold story, which also smacks of propaganda because it went straight down the memory hole, rarely to be mentioned again, was the transport of Taliban prisoners from Kunduz in the northern part of Afghanistan to Sherberghan prison in the west during the early part of the war. The Taliban were loaded into trailer trucks like cattle and there was little room for breathing and no water. After a while, the prisoners began to die from suffocation and also dehydration, which was so horrible, they were licking perspiration from other bodies and blood from their wounds. American soldiers were with the Afghan troops conducting the transportation, and they gave the order to machine gun the truck trailers for air holes. Naturally, this caused even more casualties. Eventually, the American Special Forces troops ordered the remaining prisoners to be herded into the desert and then executed by machine guns. A documentary of this event was made, the Afghan participants were under continual death threat and I haven't seen this documentary again for many years, although I have a copy of it. It is called The Convoy of Death by Jamie Doran and I know it has appeared on Dandelion Salad before, but since our opponents constantly use repetition to drive home their propaganda, I see no harm in using repetition to reinforce the truth.
President Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and solve the Afghanistan problem by winning the war there. So far, he has only rearranged the soldiers in Iraq by taking them out of the cities, and is increasing the US forces in Afghanistan and increasing the drone attacks in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I knew before he was elected that he would do nothing about US foreign policy. It is simply too important to the ruling class of the United States to control the oil of that region. Also, he promised to give us some type of medical care plan which would insure all Americans, but the only kind that is truly effective is the single payer plan, which almost all other industrialized countries have, and reduces medical costs significantly. However, President Obama is too obligated to the big insurance companies and drug companies to pass such a single payer bill. Isn't there a rock song that goes something like: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?" I will say there is at least one difference. President Obama is much more intelligent and articulate than George W. Bush, but that is immaterial so long as the same old imperialist policies are continued, even if a few more crumbs fall from the tables of the rich to the poor here in the United States. Both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are aggressive wars, condemned by Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials as the chief crime of the Nazis, from which all the subsequent slaughters of Jews, Slavs and communists emanated. Most Americans think the war against Afghanistan was justified, while the war against Iraq was not. It is not legal or moral to invade another country to catch one man, namely Osama bin Laden, who still has not been captured, if he is still alive. The Israelis used the correct way, when they captured Klaus Barbie in Argentina by an intelligence operation, in which they did not bomb Argentina into rubble.
There have been many empires in the Middle East. The Persians, Mongols, Turks, Alexander the Great, the Romans and the British. They all failed and the US empire is doomed to failure as well. The only question is how much more blood of Americans and their European patsies is to be spilled there and how much more of the Americans' tax money, which we need so desperately here at home, will go into this futile adventure?
Marriages and Funerals in Afghanistan and Pakistan
e-mail:
IconoclastGS@aol.com
Homepage:
http://www.dandelionsalad.wordpress.com
Comments
Hide the following 22 comments
It's NOT accidential it's POLICY
03.07.2009 22:46
The common excuse that the pro-establishment defenders of Empire use, it was an "accident", is very well deconstructed in a couple of the talks in the "Empire as a Way of Life" series:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2007/06/374166.html
Chris
"Atmosphere of Command"
04.07.2009 16:40
The Tarnak Farm incident where a US Air National Guard pilot on amphetamines bombed Canadians shows some of these ariel bombings of civilians are unintended. The US policy of sending half-trained pilots into combat zones on drugs obviously means they can't be considered accidental though,
Celebratory gunfire was the excuse given for an Afghan wedding in Oruzgan being massacred by an AC-130, but that isn't really credible. Random AK-47 gunfire in the air isn't a threat and a Warthog can fly slowly and low enough to see what is happening on the ground.
US Airforce drone strikes have been launched on the fake 'intelligence' of Afghan informers trying to settle petty disputes with rivals, such as the 91 innocents killed in Azizabad. Now the US must know that this 'intelligence' is probably false, but it gives them an excuse to bomb.
Pakistani drone strikes are different. The Najmarai strike you refer to was obviously a deliberate attack on a funeral, as the funeral was of someone just killed by another drone attack. It's the CIA not the airforce who launch drones in Pakistan, from an airbase in Shamsi, in Baluchistan province in Pakistan. The CIA Baluchistan interesting relationship with the Baloch people, also funding their 'freedom fighters' in Iran.
I asked Torin Nelson, one of the Abu Ghraib interogators, why some people remain professional in a war-zone and why some commit abuse, and he said
"It is crucial that leadership play an active role in creating the "Atmosphere of Command" in a situation such as that one, and ones like we had at Abu Ghraib. If leadership shows a sense of disinterest in the welfare and humane treatment of prisoners, the soldiers and civilians will feel either free to act on their own or perhaps even compelled by a sense of duty to carry out the unexpressed interests of the Command. When commanders walk around the battlefield and talk about "dirty ragheads" and how they are all "terrorists," or when Donald Rumsfeld gets on TV and says that Gitmo has the "worst of the worst" it is almost an implied order to take the gloves off. This is the direct role of leadership in guiding subordinates without actually giving direct orders to violate Geneva or other conventions."
Danny
Not typos exactly but obviously bad writing
04.07.2009 20:42
"The CIA Baluchistan interesting relationship with the Baloch people, also funding their 'freedom fighters' in Iran.
Should read "The CIA have an interesting relationship with the Baloch peoples representatives similar to their relationship with the Kurds in various countries, also funding the Baloch 'freedom fighters' in Iran."
And
"Celebratory gunfire was the excuse given for an Afghan wedding in Oruzgan being massacred by an AC-130, but that isn't really credible. Random AK-47 gunfire in the air isn't a threat and a Warthog can fly slowly and low enough to see what is happening on the ground"
doesn't make clear that I do know the difference between an AC-10 and an AC-130 and shouldn't mix names and numbers without explanation. I heard it was the AC-10 from the same sources that thought an AC-10 (warthog) was fired upon, wherean AC-130 (Spectre) responded, but I am may be wrong. I am relying on other more informed peoples reports and they are are hard to find.
Pedantic to the point of irrevant since no one actually upbraided my mistakes, if anyone even read them. I was raised to try to communicate clearly though.
Danny
The Weakest Link
04.07.2009 22:25
If the UK propaganda is to be believed, RAF pilots regularly fly past and fail to release on targets provided by their US allies. But, hey who wouldn't want to try and look like the good guy.
Seems people have short memories and have forgotten the litany of US "blue-on-blue" or "friendly fire" fuck ups, and the subsequent squirming and non-cooperation of the Pentagon in inquests/inquiries. Before we get the out and out denial of bombing, shelling, hitting with missiles, using white phosphorous on civilians & civilian infrastructure.
Seems also that the propaganda machine has done a good job wallpapering over the Pentagon's shit regarding "targets" in Afghanistan where they were bombing the hell out of nothing at all, were leading British and American troops on wild goose chases after Bin Laden and Rumsfeld's bullshit "cave complexes", and "training camps" that turned out to be dirt farms.
Remember this is the guy who wanted to pin 9/11 on Saddam to start with. Who built up the myth of the Axis of Evil, the myth of Bin Laden's al Qaeda, of Saddam's WMD.
So, I have no problem in assuming that sometimes the US forces will kill civilians either deliberately, through not caring about "collateral damage", for political reasons (assisting whatever terrorist faction they are backing that week), by accident or through ineptitude. Hell, their whole country was founded pretty much on a terrorist/genocidal ethos... and they are rolling the franchise out to Israel.
Oh no, no one would ever target civilians. Certainly not the UK & the US with their whiter than white rap sheets...
Hersh Words
@Hersh words
04.07.2009 23:18
No, it actually reinforces that argument significantly. Please reread this sentence:
"When commanders walk around the battlefield and talk about "dirty ragheads" and how they are all "terrorists," or when Donald Rumsfeld gets on TV and says that Gitmo has the "worst of the worst" it is almost an implied order to take the gloves off."
>If the UK propaganda is to be believed, RAF pilots regularly fly past and fail to release on targets provided by their US allies. But, hey who wouldn't want to try and look like the good guy.
Even the people who know they are bad think their acknowledged bad actions are justifiable, that is a truism but it isn't applicable.
>Seems people have short memories and have forgotten the litany of US "blue-on-blue" or "friendly fire" fuck ups, and the subsequent squirming and non-cooperation of the Pentagon in inquests/inquiries.
Well,I mentioned the Canadian deaths, but I am portrayed here as 'anti-american' so I can't list every 'friendly fire' incident.
>Before we get the out and out denial of bombing, shelling, hitting with missiles, using white phosphorous on civilians & civilian infrastructure.
I think the original article for focussing on solely wedding and funeral deaths is arguable, but the number of innocent people have died is at least as important as how they died.
>Seems also that the propaganda machine has done a good job wallpapering over the Pentagon's shit regarding "targets" in Afghanistan where they were bombing the hell out of nothing at all, were leading British and American troops on wild goose chases after Bin Laden and Rumsfeld's bullshit "cave complexes", and "training camps" that turned out to be dirt farms.
Or that US forces never pursued Bin Laden when they claimed to have him trapped in Toro Boro.
>Remember this is the guy who wanted to pin 9/11 on Saddam to start with. Who built up the myth of the Axis of Evil, the myth of Bin Laden's al Qaeda, of Saddam's WMD.
Recently released US interviews with Saddam after his capture make it clear he thought Bin Laden was a contemptable zealot, and that they never met or cooperated.
>So, I have no problem in assuming that sometimes the US forces will kill civilians either deliberately, through not caring about "collateral damage", for political reasons (assisting whatever terrorist faction they are backing that week), by accident or through ineptitude. Hell, their whole country was founded pretty much on a terrorist/genocidal ethos... and they are rolling the franchise out to Israel.
Israel didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and there have been more deaths in those countries than in Palestine over the past 6, 8, or 29 years.
>Oh no, no one would ever target civilians. Certainly not the UK & the US with their whiter than white rap sheets...
Every army does to varying degrees, that is why aggressive war is a crime even if that only results in 'victors justice'.
Danny
Bin Makin it up?
05.07.2009 00:29
From what I gather bin Laden is a rather narrow-minded zealot with a very limited world view and a pathological hatred of "Infidels". His role in Afghanistan may well have been restricted to being a money conduit for Saudi funds. There are accounts of him as a "brave fighter", but also accounts of him being nothing more than a chequebook writer on the periphery of the "Afghan Arabs".
According to Rumsfeld and all who parroted his bullshit, bin Laden was the head of a sprawling Evil Empire (sounds familiar, cough USSR), when in actual fact, it would seem that he was/is nothing more than a spoilt ultra-rich brat sponsor of the exiled Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader, with no real network of their own, rather hiring mercenaries or 'freelancers' as needed- more your local chip shop than MacDonalds. The Algerian government resembles "al Qaeda" more than bin Laden's set up does.
Even the name al Qaeda (The Camp/Base) appears to have been made up by the State Dept. to bridge a legal stumbling block. And they couldn't really turn round after all these years and start telling us that the Mujahadeen are all of a sudden now "evil".
But given that Saudi was too moderate and Westernised for bin Laden, I would seriously doubt he could have had anything but very obviously duplicitous strategic interests in Saddam.
What is clear is that there are very strong family ties between the bin Ladens and the Bushes. Which may provide the most obvious reason why bin Laden has so far evaded the highest profile (a half-heartedly resourced) manhunt perhaps ever.
And given that till this day there has been no solid case made against him (other than the ridiculous 'Fat Osama' tape), you do have to wonder if he had anything to do with 9/11 at all.
Hersh Words
'Bad apples' and other fairy tales
05.07.2009 12:03
Susan Burke of the CCR is the lead counsel who is representing suing the corporations involved in Abu Ghraib. I asked her why only a few low-ranking soldiers were prosecuted and she replied:
"The Bush administrations 'bad apples' strategy is no longer working. The Senate Armed Services committee of Congress just released a lengthy paper describing all the high-level officials who participated in the conspiracy to torture. The report also identifies many officials who refused to participate in the conspiracy, and instead tried unsuccessfully to stop it. The report makes clear that under Bush, top lawyers at the Department of Justice were key participants in the conspiracy."
That report is perfectly clear about who poisoned the apples:
Senate Armed Services Committee Conclusions
Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President’s determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.
Danny
Homepage: http:// http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/EXEC%20SUMMARY-CONCLUSIONS_For%20Release_12%20December%202008.pdf
War on Terror: September 01 to December 01
05.07.2009 13:02
That's currently the official story, but it doesn't ever get remembered in media coverage of the Afghanistan and Pakistan wars. I would recommend people to read the wikipedia article on the Battle of Tora Bora, as it is accurate and trustworthy on this issue as anything else available. If Bin Laden had been killed at Tora Bora then the war on terror would have ended before Christmas in 2001. US and UK forces would have had no reason to stay there, and the later false claim by Bush that he was invading Iraq because of 911 would have been defunct. We know Bush had already said he was going to invade Iraq before 911, it's just something he had his heart set on.
The western media were told Tora Bora was an impregnable bomb-proof super-fortress full of caverns powered by hydro-schemes, populated by the worlds most dangerous and heavily armed terrorists. However wikipedia reports eye-witness testimony it was a rudimentary settlement housing 200 people with 16 Kalashnikovs which gave shelter to a fightened Bin Laden for a night. Since no footage of this super-villian fortress ever emerged, it is safe to assume the eye-witness account is the honest story.
The 'coalition' forces consisted mainly of proxy Afghan militia, with some US, UK and German special forces and unopposed air-power.
That fact is unbelievable. If the US were keen to catch or kill the super-criminal they had cornered, would they really rely on a foriegn militia? It is as ridiculous as having Hitler cornered in Berlin only to hold back your troops and relying on German anti-fascists to finish him off. It is not like the US were militarily too weak to attack 200 people with 16 AK-47s, so the set-up to that 'battle' was a false premise.
Now some of the western special forces involved have since written about that battle, claimed they had Bin Laden and claimed their requests for military tactics were ignored by their chain of command.
The ridiculously pseudonymned 'Dalton Fury' from US special forces is quoted.
"Fury's team proposed an operation in which they would assault bin Laden's suspected position from the rear, over the 14,000 foot high mountain separating Tora Bora from Pakistan. But, Fury's proposal was denied by unidentified officials at higher headquarters for unknown reasons. Fury then proposed the dropping of GATOR mines in the passes leading away from Tora Bora, but this was also denied."
The implication is in December 2001, immediately after a terrorist attack that was used a Casus Belli by Bush, and which infuriated US citizens so much that they accepted every massacre of muslims since then including at least overseas wars which killed more americans than the actual attack, "unidentified officials at higher headquarters for unknown reasons" chose not to apprehend or kill their suspect.
There is room for endless speculation, but the simplest, 'follow the money', Occams Razor explanation is that Bush wanted Bin Laden alive and free so they could justify what they branded first as the war on terror, and then tried to rebrand as the 'long war', a continual war, a total war that has curtailed civil liberties, international law and independent oil-rich states.
Danny
Homepage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran
05.07.2009 13:52
That is almost certainly another lie, but you can learn from any liars motives from the subjects that they lie about. I do think war with Iran is less likely because of the protests there and this is an attempt to get military action back on the table.
Danny
Homepage: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece
Afghanistan, peaceful!???
05.07.2009 15:47
Even if you take into account that country was in no state of official war (anymore), or ignore the ongoing internal conflicts, and are blindly optimistic that the the US had stopped switching sides and the Taliban would be in power indefinitely, you still had a situation where cross border incursions into Iran and the Central Asian Republics was the norm, as well as the Waziristan & Kashmir (also links to Balkan & Chechen) situations.
Afghanistan was a bolthole and rallying point not only for the Mujahdeen, but also for Islamic militant groups forged under the brutal repression of post-Soviet Central Asia (which prevails till today to varying degrees).
So, there was a real 'casus belli' in regards to Afghanistan but ironically it was countries like Iran & India that had a right to claim it and the USA/Saudi/Pakistan that were the backers of the Taliban who were willing hosts and colleagues of these fluctuating groups.
Actually, I don't find it at all incredible that Saudi may have offered air space for a strike on Iran. The have displayed astounding contempt for their subjects in the past by allowing the US on their hallowed soil for missions into Kuwait. Which was blatant self interest and fear of Saddam.
In a religous dimension I see it as plausible too. Since, to extremist Sunnis the Shia are sum of the earth and no more holy than any infidel. And since Saudi at its most moderate is extremist Sunni and worse the epicentre of the Wahabbist sect on which the Taliban is based, I can see there being no religous objection to teh idea of halping to kill Shia.
It would of course be incredibly stupid, but again, they have been incredibly stupid before. Their country is already a powder keg and they let the USA set up a military base there...
I wouldn't be too surprised if bin Laden al Zawahiri and their handful of permanent "staff" we already on their way to Pakistan after the twin towers were hit. I would also not be surprised if there was more to the relationship between "al Qaeda" and the CIA as a form of cover story than meets the eye- and I'm not referring to any of that conspiracy rubbish either.
After all, the 9/11 attacks seem to all but exclusively Saudi, but the US wouldn't dare go near their best friends the Saudis, and needed some other target. Why, they had a family friend who was already in the terrorism business...
Who knows... apart from the fact the official versions stink.
Hersh Words
At a state of peace
06.07.2009 15:44
It wasn't invading or threatening to invade any other state. Nobody claimed Eire was at war with the UK during the post1969 IRA insurgence.
>you still had a situation where cross border incursions into Iran and the Central Asian Republics was the norm as well as the Waziristan & Kashmir (also links to Balkan & Chechen) situations.
If you mean Afghan individuals acting as terrorists then that is meaningless, unless you consider the 7/7 bombers as proof the UK has links to Al Qaeda. The national borders of Aghanistan and it's neighboring states cross tribal borders, so of course there is plently of movement of these tribes across the borders. That also occurs with the Sami in Finland, Norway and Russia.
>Afghanistan was a bolthole and rallying point not only for the Mujahdeen, but also for Islamic militant groups forged under the brutal repression of post-Soviet Central Asia (which prevails till today to varying degrees).
Afghanistan was not a bolthole for the Mujahdeen, it was their home. The few foreigners there were remnants of the of the CIA 'trap' for the USSR in 1979.
>So, there was a real 'casus belli' in regards to Afghanistan but ironically it was countries like Iran & India that had a right to claim it and the USA/Saudi/Pakistan that were the backers of the Taliban who were willing hosts and colleagues of these fluctuating groups.
Iran and India now ? The Baloch 'freedom fighters' in Iran for the most part weren't allied to the Taliban and are as likely to have been born inside Iranian-Baloch. I think the last war with India was when the Sikhs defeated them.
>Actually, I don't find it at all incredible that Saudi may have offered air space for a strike on Iran. The have displayed astounding contempt for their subjects in the past by allowing the US on their hallowed soil for missions into Kuwait. Which was blatant self interest and fear of Saddam.
More like rivalry with Saddam, they fear Iran and supported, financed and supplied Saddams invasion of Iran. The US would never have allowed Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia.
>It would of course be incredibly stupid, but again, they have been incredibly stupid before. Their country is already a powder keg and they let the USA set up a military base there...
In 1973 the US threatened to invade Saudi Arabia and depose the Sauds unless the oil supplies were restored. It is unfair or at least inaccurate to call any coerced action 'stupid'.
Danny
Lost me there
06.07.2009 17:56
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Taiba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Central_Asia
http://www.rferl.org/content/Threat_Of_Taliban_Incursion_Raised_In_Central_Asia__Again/1752944.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
There are no parallels between Afghanistan & Eire- none at least that I can begin to conjure. Attacks were being launched from within country with the Taliban's backing by guests/comrades of the Taliban, who in turn had US & UK backing.
Which in turn answers your question about 7/7: yes the background of the bombers does prove UK government links to "al Qaeda" and shared culpability... I would have expected anyone with an interest in Gitmo to have known that.
I can't even follow your other points as they seem to wildly off the trajectory of the points of mine you have quoted. In some parts you obviously haven't read what I wrote correctly.
Hersh Words
the real reason we invaded?
06.07.2009 23:45
>>It wasn't invading or threatening to invade any other state. Nobody claimed Eire was at war with the UK during the post1969 IRA insurgence.
>There are no parallels between Afghanistan & Eire- none at least that I can begin to conjure.
Both of them suffered from foriegn bomb attacks, foriegn intervention, foreign occupation, crimes of genocide, religious wars, cross-border terrorism or armed-liberation (depending on your politics) from both inside and out, and the British were responsible for a lot of that. So there are some parallels without mentioning their penchant for green and religion.
The point I was making is that Afghanistan, while it may have been troubled, violent country in 2001 was at peace with it's neighbours and of no threat to them. The ruling Taliban government barely controlled a majority of their own country, they weren't massing tanks to invade anywhere.
Afghanistan was invaded by the US-uk supposedly to apprehend Bin Laden.
Normally criminals and terrorists abroad are issued international arrest warrants, it isn't legal to just ignore that and invade the country he happens to be living in at the time. He isn't there now but US-uk forces still are, so what was the real reason we invaded?
Danny
Long Game Players
07.07.2009 08:09
I think you are still missing my point. Afghanistan was not at peace with its neighbours at all, but the US & UK are every bit the aggressors here as the Taliban & Co. (or the Northern Alliance whom they backed before the Taliban). The claims of a 'causus belli' on the broader basis of 'terrorism' is absurd, as they were practically bankrolling the Taliban whose cohorts were regularly staging attacks on their neighbours. If the tables were turned, and Dublin had been quite openly ignoring Provisional IRA training camps and encouraging militants to come there, and more or less assisting IRA bombing, you would interpret that as an act of war in all but name. They didn't but the Taliban ("Afghanistan") did.
Make of this what you will: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
The bin Laden excuse is doubly absurd, since the man was an ally if not an asset of the CIA (and who knows still is?) In the run up to the 'barely legal' (read: illegal) attack on a whole country on the back of ostensibly the strike at a single group (which in reality numbers just a handful the Taliban had actually followed internationally agreed extradition protocols and offered bin Laden delivered to the US on receipt of a compelling case against him- just what the US would expect anyone other foreign country to do to effect an extradition.
And here we are all these years down the line, and still no compelling case against bin Laden has been presented. And the backside has fallen out the 'al Qaeda' myth, but not after sparking a lot of bush fires as it went.
Note the conspicuous absence of any charges relating to 9/11: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Hersh Words
Afghanistan WAS at peace with its neighbours
07.07.2009 12:33
In 2001 Afghanistan was at peace with Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and China. The nation state was at peace even if there was a civil war going on. It wasn't a threat to any other country. It was especially close to Pakistan through the Pakistani security service, but the Taliban had also greatly relieved the opium export to Iran easing that countries suffering so while Iran wouldn't be allies with the Taliban it would have appreciated the order that it provided.
You are claiming that other countries had a reason to go to war with Afghanistan because there were foriegn terrorists there, but unless legal channels are exhausted then that is not true. The reason this is important is your argument is identical to, or accepting of, the argument used by the US to invade Afghanistan. When Bin Laden was fingered for 911 the Taliban said 'Give us legal evidence and we will hand him over' which is what any other country would say.
>If the tables were turned, and Dublin had been quite openly ignoring Provisional IRA training camps and encouraging militants to come there, and more or less assisting IRA bombing, you would interpret that as an act of war in all but name. They didn't but the Taliban ("Afghanistan") did.
Actually Dublin did, more so than the Taliban which certainly wouldn't have been funding Bin Laden in the least.
"From February 1970 contacts in the Dublin government promised money once they had separated themselves from the 'socialist' Dublin IRA and concentrated on socially harmless traditional republicanism. Up to £80 000 may have been slipped to the Provisionals for arms."
- JJ Lee, Ireland 1912-1985 Politics and Society, p432
This in no way justifies MI6 bombing Dublin, as they did on May 17, 1974.
We seem to be agreeing on major points but I disagree with your acceptance of the US portrayal of Aghanistan of being at a pre-existing state of war with either the US, US allies or anyone except itself. We can both just speculate about the real reason for the invasion and ongoing occupation, from the Unicol pipeline to the desirable location for a US proxy state and military presence given the list of neighbours.
Danny
Still not getting it
07.07.2009 13:09
100% your words and by no means mine. If you want to completely ignore all the cross border toing and froing and traffic between groups, then it's up to you. Or perhaps you could do some reading on the matter and discover that my points have absolutely nothing to do with the USA's (fraudulent) case for war:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jihad-Rise-Militant-Islam-Central/dp/0300093454
As it is, it is still going completely over your head, that US's case was totally ridiculous considering how integral to the rise of the Taliban and how deeply involved in with the various Islamic Militant groups fighting the USSR (amongst others).
In other words, the US case was as much of a case for attacking itself. Albeit, in a sane world, that would have happened: all the people responsible for US crimes in Afghanistan should have been tried in the Hague.
Before 9/11 Afghanistan was a war ravaged hell-hole overrun by a whole variety of militant factions, attacking a whole variety of neighbours. And still is to some degree.
Who you care to blame for that situation or where you want to find the origins all boils down to which group we are talking about.
You really think that Dublin was more supportive of the Provisional IRA than the Taliban was of "al Qaeda"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/055_Brigade
I don't recall of hearing that the P-IRA was ever integrated into the Irish Army. I was under the impression that most of its sponsorship came from the USA (NORAID etc.)
Hersh Words
You are arguing for war whether you realise that or not
07.07.2009 14:09
President Karzai wants the UN to stop treating the Taliban like terrorists so that he can negotiate with them. The US and UK media have been smearing him for a year because they have no wish for peace as they would then have to withdraw. This came to ahead last week when the original UN Resolution expired and required a vote to renew it.
The upshot of this was 'war as normal', the Resolution was renewed without major changes and none of the Taliban have been delisted so far. If Karzai wants to be able to negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban then he first has to persuade the 'focal point' of the '1267 committee' to remove them from the 'consolidated list'. If you agree with President Karzai that it is time for peace in Aghanistan and an end to the US-uk occupation then you should contact the 1267 Committee and ask them to remove all the Taliban names that Karzai suggest. The committee is currently chaired by Jan Grauls and can be contacted by email at 1267mt@un.org.
Further reading:
"While we are speaking about the peace process with the Taliban, we must also make sure to provide the right environment for such a peace process. Right environment means first of all looking at the list that is with the United Nations and removing names that are not part of Al-Qaeda, that are not part of the terrorist networks. Those names must be removed from the list." Karzai however dodged questions about whether he wanted the fugitive Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, among those scratched from the list. "I don't have any specific names right now to mention," he said. "I'm speaking about the principles."
Karzai has previously offered amnesty and talks to Omar, even though he is on a separate US blacklist, should he stop fighting and accept the post-Taliban constitution, which is based on democratic principles. Omar has refused to join any talks without the withdrawal of the nearly 70,000 US and NATO-led troops helping the government fight the spiralling extremist insurgency. The UN's "Consolidated List" includes the names of 142 individuals associated with the Taliban and 254 with Al-Qaeda, according to the UN website.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1822, Taliban / al-Qaeda Sanctions, June 30, 2008
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9381.doc.htm
The Consolidated List established and maintained by the 1267 Committee with respect to Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden, and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolidatedlist.htm#alqaedaind
Individuals, groups, undertakings and entities that have been removed from the Consolidated List pursuant to a decision by the 1267 Committee
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/docs/De-listed.htm
Extracts
QE.A.4.01. Name: AL-QAIDA
Name (original script): القاعدة
A.k.a.: a) "The Base" b) Al Qaeda c) Islamic Salvation Foundation d) The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites e) The Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Places f) The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders g) Usama Bin Laden Network h) Usama Bin Laden Organization i) Al Qa'ida j) Islamic Army F.k.a.: na Address: na Listed on: 6 Oct. 2001 (amended on 5 Mar. 2009) Other information: na
QI.B.8.01. Name: 1: USAMA 2: MUHAMMED 3: AWAD 4: BIN LADEN
Name (original script): أسامة محمد عوض بن لادن
Title: a) Shaykh b) Hajj Designation: na DOB: a) 30 Jul. 1957 b) 28 Jul. 1957 c) 10 Mar. 1957 d) 1 Jan. 1957 e) 1956 f) 1957 POB: a) Jeddah, Saudi Arabia b) Yemen Good quality a.k.a.: a) Usama Bin Laden b) Usama Bin Muhammed Bin Awad, Osama Bin Laden c) Ben Laden Osama d) Ben Laden Ossama e) Ben Laden Usama f) Bin Laden Osama Mohamed Awdh g) Bin Laden Usamah Bin Muhammad h) Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin i) Usamah Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin Low quality a.k.a.: a) Abu Abdallah Abd Al-Hakim b) Al Qaqa Nationality: Saudi citizenship withdrawn, now officially an Afghan national Passport no.: na National identification no.: na Address: na Listed on: 25 Jan. 2001 (amended on 2 Jul. 2007) Other information: na
Danny
And still not getting it...
07.07.2009 14:36
I'm plainly not. Since I have said several times that the United States itself shared a large part of the blame for the situation within Afghanistan (as did the USSR and it's former-Soviet successors).
I haven't ever endorsed the war by word or by action. Accurately describing something isn't anything other than an accurate description. If you wish to read something that isn't there, that's your personal problem. Indicting the Taliban for crimes of aggression isn't a case for carpet bombing innocent people on an ongoing basis.
Unless of course you are going out on a limb and suggesting (still) that Afghanistan wasn't mired violence and the Taliban weren't implicated in attacks on foreign soil. Which would make you the only person I have encountered bearing that opinion- though I suspect you are arguing from your heart and not your head (which is bereft of any research on this topic).
But, I'd love to see your well-researched exoneration of the poor misrepresented Taliban and their associates. Oh, that's right the NeoCons did that before they decided to go back to backing Dostum.
Hersh Words
War or peace-talks?
07.07.2009 15:03
>So, there was a real 'casus belli' in regards to Afghanistan
This is what you've been trying to argue and you are wrong. You obviously are too inflamed in argument to rationally understand why that is important. It is the difference between peace negotiations and ongoing war and you are arguing the wrong side.
So let's have some proof, in your own words and with quoted sources, what was is your "real 'casus belli' in regards to Afghanistan"?
I used the Eire metaphor for Afghanistan in the vain hope you would have a better idea of that conflict. The key point is the UK didn't invade and occupy Eire when there was actual links between the P-IRA and various Dublin governments. Do you think they should have? Do you think the Irish governments who funded and supported the P-IRA should have be listed as terrorists and bombed because of that support ? Do you think Eire should have been invaded?
>You really think that Dublin was more supportive of the Provisional IRA than the Taliban was of "al Qaeda"?
Yes, at least in terms of funding them. The Taliban merely hosted Bin Laden like a guest. Now what proof of 'support' do you have that the Taliban provided Bin Laden? You are just repeating Guradian mistruths at best.
>I don't recall of hearing that the P-IRA was ever integrated into the Irish Army.
I don't recall of hearing Al Qaeda was ever integrated into the Afghan Army.
If Irish Government links to the P-IRA had been used as an excuse for the British to invade and occupy Eire as it did in Aghanistan then you can be damn sure the Provos and Irish army would have both been resisting that occupation, probably cooperatively. Nothing unites Irishmen like the British boot.
>I was under the impression that most of its sponsorship came from the USA (NORAID etc.)
Most of their funding came from sympathetic Irish where ever they lived.
Danny
A crock of... Leprechaun's Gold
07.07.2009 15:22
I've already provided links to your queries. You obviously chose not to read them. So we hit an impasse.
Thanks for this one sick laugh though: "Nothing unites Irishmen like the British boot."
Tried telling that to UDA/UVF/UFF... ?
To mimic your warped logic, does that mean you consider Ulster to be British soil...
An excellent illustration of your analytical prowess to end on I think.
Don't bother replying, you obviously have nothing to add worth reading now.
Hersh Words
Homepage: http://www.ehow.com/how_14821_leprechaun-visit.html
One more thing worth reading
07.07.2009 15:43
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-remain-defiant-670161.html
>I'm no warmonger, but you're a dictionary defined 'crackpot', as your weird ranting about the P-IRA illustrates.
My 'weird ranting' was backed up by a credible source, JJ Lee. It is only seems weird to you because it differs from the world view you get from television.
>I've already provided links to your queries. You obviously chose not to read them. So we hit an impasse.
I have already read them, they added nothing of import. Try rereading my UN links when you are calmer.
>To mimic your warped logic, does that mean you consider Ulster to be British soil...
Apart from you mistakening Ulster for Northern Ireland (clue: different borders), I think you'll find Northern Ireland is still currently British soil ruled from Westminster.
>Don't bother replying, you obviously have nothing to add worth reading now.
You never did have obviously.
Danny
Warmongers and peacemakers
07.07.2009 17:16
Currently Karzai is the only person talking peace in Afghanistan. If anyone has been interested enough to read to this post then I want to repeat, my most important post was:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/433763.html?c=on#c227779
Please consider either as an individual or as a group emailing the UN 1267mt@un.org. to support Karzai negotiating with the Taliban by removing who he wishes from the UN list. So far I haven't been able to get a list of all the names on the committee, mostly because I was wasting my time on this 'Radio Free Europe' argument.
Danny