Harry's Place

Remember contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible.

What the fuck??

Gene:
I look at Counterpunch habitually every day, and found it very odd that they have this after their efforts a few months ago debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories.
A theory: They must have received very energetic protests about it and what you see here is a mercenary exercise to boost subscriptions to their pricey newsletter.
In any event, its shocking and shameful.

“It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civilian aircraft enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any group of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civilian aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone and the scheduled aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly to an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone craft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting to the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident…

This plan, incorporating projects selected form the attached suggestions, or from other sources, should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States. This plan would also properly integrate and time phase the courses of action to be pursued. The desired resultant from the execution of the plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western hemisphere….

A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

Lob mortar shells from outside the base into base; Some damage to installations.

Sabotage ships in harbour; large fires – napthalene.

We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even Washington.

We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).

…the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement…

A “Cuban-based, Castro-supported” filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation…”

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

This was the plan of the US Join Chiefs of Staff in March 1962.

I don’t believe the current evidence for the 911 conspiracy theories but I don’t think it’s impossible to think the the US govt. would NEVER have a hand in a terrorist attack on it’s own soild. such a concept is not without President. I think it’s scary that the very discussion of this possibility should be considered wrong.

Mainstream Media is not only doing little to they are now outright propogating them.

See Mike Rudin at the BBC – blithely fanning 9/11 conspiracy theories so that he can promote his new BBC show – “The Conspiracy Files”.
Running through and giving voice to some of the Luminaries of the “Truther” movement he then says there has been an official fightback of sorts, which is immediately pooh poohed.

Of course their has been much more than just an official fightback as Mike Rudin must well know if he did any sort of research into this whatsoever – from the Popular Mechanics treatment to “911myths.com” , to srew loose change etc etc.
The debunking is comprehensive and all of Rudin’s questions are answered.
So he is either a fucking liar or astonishingly incompetent. It is incredible that the BBC has started to actively propogate 911 conspiracies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/911_questions.html

I think it’s scary that the very discussion of this possibility should be considered wrong.

Oh for fuck’s sake, you say you don’t believe the current evidence, but then immediately think it is “scary” that suggesting Jews were behind 911 might be seen as wrong.

Get back into your tinfoil pyramid before this screen starts to control your mind!

Must go, black helicopters circling.

“Oh for fuck’s sake, you say you don’t believe the current evidence, but then immediately think it is “scary” that suggesting Jews were behind 911 might be seen as wrong.”

Nah well the Jew theory is stupid. I meant that American govt. involvement in a terrorist attack on American soil isn’t unthinkable.

deja:
You are referring to Operation Northwoods a 1962 proposal that was rejected by Mcnamara and when Kennedy heard about it he had Lyman Lemnnitzer removed from the Joint Chiefs.

As is pointed out here:
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change#operation-northwoods
It is difficult to see why such plans would have been declassified if they were to be put into action. That is even before all the other questions arise about how they could have been put into effect.

I get really sick of this “I’m just saying” style of innuendo.

Johan I’m NOT saying 9/11 was a conspiracy, because I haven’t seen any satisfactory evidence that it was. I’m saying it’s not such a ridiculous suggestion. Northwoods was rejected, yes, what is your point? The idea of a govt. carrying out or aiding a terrorist attack on its own soil has been tried before in different countries, there have been people in the US who wanted to try it, therefore we should be vigilant in case such a thing happens. Although the CURRENT conspiracy theories about 9/11 have all to my knowledge been disproven, it’s surely good that people are prepared to question. Don’t you agree? The phrase “conspiracy theory” has become a dirty word, but yet, the concept of a conspiracy exists for a reason – they DO happen sometimes. So why is it wrong to be open minded to the suggestion? I agree that the hard-line conspiracy theorists are impossible to talk to, but I’m not defending them.

If even questioning what happened on the USS Liberty is considered tin foil/”anti-semetic” territory, then what hope does that have?

This was the plan of the US Join Chiefs of Staff in March 1962.

March 32nd, 1962, by any chance?

Let me be clear — I’m not saying Jews control the world. I’m just saying it’s not such a ridiculous suggestion. Although the CURRENT conspiracy theories about Jews have all to my knowledge been disproven, it’s surely good that people are prepared to question. Don’t you agree?

Montag, what I wrote is from that link, a US govt. website. I assume you think they made it up – you’re not a conspiracy theorist are you? ;)

http://www.gwu.edu/

The George Washington University is the US government?

Really?

It is incredible that the BBC has started to actively propogate 911 conspiracies.

Not to some of us it isn’t, it’s completely unsurprising.

Please

Please

Please let’s not have another thread derailed by deja entendu??

it was bad enough reading his crap on the Holocaust Memorial Day, further compounded by his ignorance of Ireland, finally deja entendu’s wish to give parenting lessons to the rest of us, adults, and his ludicrous comments on gays and gay adoption.

please, could we just ignore him??

ok sorry it’s not from aUS govt. website. It’s from the National Security Archive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Archive

“The National Security Archive
The George Washington University Gelman Library
2130 H St., NW Suite 701
Washington, D.C. 20037″

http://www.geocities.com/tetrahedronomega/index.htm

are you saying the document is fake?

modernity – aren’t you busy on your blog. ;)

oops, just read montags email address – “fire@commie.org”

bit of a nutter perhaps?

are you saying the document is fake?

Not at all, I have no doubts about its authenticity. I also have no problem with the US government engineering the overthow of the Cuban dictatorship, through fair means or foul.

just read montags email address – “fire@commie.org”

In my day, the left was better read.

“Not at all, I have no doubts about its authenticity.”

FINALLY!

Deja entu wrote: it’s not such a ridiculous suggestion. …. Although the CURRENT conspiracy theories about 9/11 have all to my knowledge been disproven.

Conspiracy theories to my mind are rather like god claims. The burden rather lies with those making the assertion to present compelling evidence, not on the rest of us do ‘disprove’ any spurious claim.

Personally I think 9/11 was done from the grassy knowl in Central Park, by the same secret government team wot did in our luuvly Dianna led by you-know-who…. I think there was a Rummy and Haliburton angle too, it may well have been the Zionists Carl Rove and Paul Wolferwitz that were the behind the scenes men, no doubt with Mossad input ….saynaamore!

I don’t consider myself to be on the left or anything else montag. You’re probably one of those people who sees commies hiding round every corner though, so I won’t try and persuade you.

Nick: I see you left out the Illuminati. An oversight? I think not.

“Conspiracy theories to my mind are rather like god claims. The burden rather lies with those making the assertion to present compelling evidence, not on the rest of us do ‘disprove’ any spurious claim.”

I agree. I don’t believe this Counterpunch theory. I’m just not against people who questioned the events of 9/11, that’s all, because they were right to do so. Now, all that shit about the buildings imploding from within has been disproven by people who are experts in the field. I’m just saying, it’s not unthinkabel that the US govt. could have a hand in a terrorist attack on it’s own soild one day, and it’s good to be open minded to the suggestion should new evidence arrve. This is not the same as saying you HAVE to prove they are innocent. I really don’t understand the attitude that there has to be some kind of “closure”. What’s wrong with specualting and not coming to definite conclusion? It would seem helpful to be prepared for any possibility in this day and age when planes are flying into buildings and changing the course of the world.

Sick, sick, sick. But my own personal 9/11 theory involves O.J. Simpson!

Deja:
You don’t believe the Counterpunch theory. Have you read the counterpunch theory? It’s available by mail for, I believe, $35.

That’s the problem, I believe. You need to open your mind to the fact that conspiracy- mongers nearly always have an agenda that is at best finacial, but usually more sinister.

“That’s the problem, I believe. You need to open your mind to the fact that conspiracy- mongers nearly always have an agenda that is at best finacial, but usually more sinister.”

Most do. But so do most governments. I don’t trust either and I don’t usually consider either worth believing definitively. Do you? If so, which of us is really naive?

Naturally. I trust the government. In everything. Especially climate change.

I was living in a hostel in Minneapolis, MN shortly before 9/11. It was an International hostel, that had alot of foreigners. There, I befriended an Israeli chap who was setting up kiosks across the city selling “puzzle cars”, he wanted me to run one but I already had a job, but he got a few regular ‘drifter’ types to man these kiosks around town. 3 weeks after the attacks, this guy from Israel vanished out of thin air, leaving those kiosks and the guys from the hostel about as puzzled as those toy cars they were selling.

I later read a transcript of a Fox news story( that was pulled out -last minute) about the FBI arresting these Israeli students who were running kiosks selling puzzle cars and toys. I don’t have any proof that he was a spy, but it is too much of coincidence to not be skeptical about it.

Minneapolis is were the 20th hijacker was living before he got arrested.. Another coincidence.. Hmmm?

such a concept is not without President.

What a fucking moron. Not only does the short bus rider misspell it, he capitalizes it.

Unless this is Brit talk I’m unaware of.

Tons of Israelis live in America, and I’m going to assume that quite a few of them are in America illegaly. The most likely explaination for the events you say happened are that the Israelis were in America illegaly, and were deported after 9/11 for being there illegaly.

If even questioning what happened on the USS Liberty is considered tin foil/”anti-semetic” territory, then what hope does that have? =>Posted by Flanker at February 16, 2007 11:21 PM

I take it then Flanker, you approve of John Loftus’s theories about the USS Liberty?

As for me, I’d say conspiracist Loftus and his conspiracist detractors are all tin foil helmet candidates.

But what is it about those who feel discussion of antisemitism should be ignored, suppressed or silenced, that they so often can’t properly spell the word that bothers them so much?

I’m also vaugely puzzled; diden’t Cockburn come out against 9/11 conspiracy theories a while ago?

asak:
yes. I offer a theory above in comment #2

Antiwar.com have been covering the Israeli angle for years, but there is no conspiracy, as such.

What may have happened is that Mossad agents were shadowing the hijackers, and knew that the attack was going to take place.

The issue for Justin Raimundo is not that the Israelis had a hand in the attacks, the issue is why did they not warn the Americans?

Deja:
Well there you go with a perfect example of the lazy “I’m just saying” line of innuendo. It really is so fucking weaselly – you were the one who brought up Northwood, and in the first iteration you made it sound as if it was US policy and a Government plot. WHen it is pointed out to you that it was proposal that was presented by a joint cheifs of staff Chairman that was a)rejected, b) regarded as by the Government of the time as so outre that Kennedy went to the almost unprecedented step of Having the Chairman immediately removed – not just from the Joint Cheifs but to a largely symbolic station overseas you just have nothing to say than banging on about conspiracies not being dismissed, even when as comprehensively idiotic as the conspiracy theories surrounding 911 are.
It would sort of like someone saying “I’m not saying Deja is a pedophile, but you have to ask why that Kids clothes catalog was lying on his bedside table”. Someone who says something like that is not as you would have it, simply asking questions, are they? And they are certainly not realy interested in the answers either.

“it’s surely good that people are prepared to question. Don’t you agree? “< ?i>
I only agree when the questions are honest and when the people asking them are actually interested in the answers – there is a good reason why conspiracy theorist has become a dirty word – it is because people like the cunts behind loose change are neither honest about their inquiry and have zero interest in the actual answers to the questions they pose. The number of dishonest quotes that they have indulged in to bolster their case bespeaks a pathological dishonesty.

What may have happened is that Mossad agents were shadowing the hijackers, and knew that the attack was going to take place.

The issue for Justin Raimundo is not that the Israelis had a hand in the attacks, the issue is why did they not warn the Americans?

I think that’s the line Counterpunch is taking, and it’s bullshit too.

I first discovered Counterpunch while searching for pictures of a naked Angelina Jolie. It’s clearly used as some sort of honey trap. But why?

What do they call it when those religious cults use attractive young women to attract new members?

Someone tell me, for the love of jeebus! I’m sure there’s a silly euphemism used for that sort of thing but it’s stuck in the back of my mind and I can’t get it out. It’s driving me mental.

I suspect that until the advent of the Internet proper (leaving aside Fido, etc) that most conspiracy theorists were largely confined to padded cells, fringes of society and a few extreme rightwing groups

sadly now the Internet has allowed the excessively paranoid but literate types to linkup and there has been a massive growth in all types of conspiracies: the black Pope, explosives teleported into the WTC, lizard men, alien-human hybrids, new Atlantis, etc and of course variants on the protocols, which include but not restricted to the dancing Israelis on 9/11, etc etc

but it is shocking how many of these weirder “theories” are almost taken as gospel, so instead of evidence based reasoning, logic and empiricism whole chunks of the Internet are devoted to nonsensical speculation, irrational comment and the justification of perverse conspiracy theories

It is not surprising but many of these conspiracy theories dovetail into old anti-Semitic myths and are not just found on extreme right-wing web sites nowadays, search any “anti-imperialist” forum and you will see them cropping up again and again, and more often than not they go unchallenged

What do they call it when those religious cults use attractive young women to attract new members?

Enticement?

Heh, and you guys thought the BNP was a problem. Lie down with the left, get up branded a zionist and sabateur. It’s been going on forever, it seems.

BTW, sounds like a rehash of Ketcham article The Israeli “art Student mystery” published in Salon back in 2002. No need to buy Counterpunch.

Modernity:
Hey don’t blame the internet – it is not as if the Czarist Secret police who authored “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” needed the internet to spread their poison is it? And the JFK conspiracy industry boomed long before the Internet became a big factor.

I was ran in to a former business associate today who happens to be a “truther”. And I tried to argue with him.

None of my arguements seemed to make any difference, but by the end of the conversation, he’s gone on to talking about “mind control satelites”. That’s pretty much proof that he’s schizophrenic isn’t it? It’s people who feel that their minds are out of control who assume that the government is to blame. I couldn’t get him to admit to any mental problems though. I only tried on the theory that the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one… But I had no luck with that either.

but it is shocking how many of these weirder “theories” are almost taken as gospel, so instead of evidence based reasoning, logic and empiricism whole chunks of the Internet are devoted to nonsensical speculation, irrational comment and the justification of perverse conspiracy theories

If you start from the premise that there is an all-powerful group that has convinced people that black is white, then the absence of evidence for it corroborated by the mainstream is itself evidence of the reach of the conspiracy, and so reinforces that premise.

It’s ironic that it’s the left and not the right which nowadays is infected with the bug, because it’s a profoundly pessimistic take on human affairs which begs the questions — how can you birng about, and for what purpose, far-reaching social change?

I want to remind you that “deja entendu” is not from the Left. He must be some kind of apolitical liberal.

There’s an interview with this guy on democracy now for anyone interested.

… I don’t think the link worked. Address is: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/161025

DEJA ENTENDU ==> I meant that American govt. involvement in a terrorist attack on American soil isn’t unthinkable.

If the central rationale is that a terrifying those days in September were, the American government was at least in control – not for our benefit, but still in control – and there was no possibility that a rabble of dusky coloured foreigners could run rings around it… well, yes…

RAY ==> What do they call it when those religious cults use attractive young women to attract new members?

Links please.

I don’t think its unthinkable, as Deja says, but its got to be highly improbable. I’m surprised the conspiracy theorists have not brought up the Reichstag fire, which is exactly analogous to what is alleged (synopsis: Hitler burnt down the parliament building in 1933, so that he could crack down on ‘terrorists’ and suspend civil liberties, the better to pursue his policies). The important question is, how should a civilised society respond to acts of terrorism, and for that the Bush administration has given good guidance in exactly how not to do it.

blocked wacko

Deja – conspiracy theories are for cretins – Moon landing, 9/11, Kennedy, whatever for cretins.

Irie – Bushitler? Think the differences somewhat outweigh the similarities.

Is it just me that is a bit worried about the way the BBC is promoting tomorrow night’s Conspiracy Files? With a disembodied voice going on about how it was an inside job. The voice is, of course, Alex Jones that entirely sane and reasonable talk show host.

I hope the programme doesn’t give these nutcases more time than they are worth (which is about five minutes on a Jon Ronson documentary) and doesn’t make them out to be anything less than people who wear tin foil in their hats to stop the signals from space.

For me, the biggest proof that 9/11 wasn’t some sort of inside job involving the NSA/CIA/Mossad and reverse vampires is that Oliver Stone made a film about it and didn’t try to blame the American Government. If he can be convinced, anyone can.

Well if The important question is, how should a civilised society respond to acts of terrorism,
why don’t you share your Wisdom theIrie ? I ma sure you have an opinion – and given that the Bush administration has given “good guidance in exactly how not to do it” I assume your advice will preclude any form of military response , completely reject any form of support for Muslim liberalism, reject reaching out to the Muslim community -like say very publicly visiting a mosque within days of the attack, and inviting leading Arab Americans to the white house only a few days after that.

And maybe whilst you are explaining how “civilised societies” (seemingly a category which excludes the US), you can explain the point of raising the Reichstag fire in this context.

Neil,
If you go and read the article posted by what appears to be one of the producers of this show I am afraid that your hopes look like they are going to be severely dashed. If the Producers tone is any indication of the show it will be actively propogating 911 conspiracy theories.

The Irie,

Your links, both of them, don’t work.

I’ve noticed the Guardian and the BBC have sort of picked up on this 9-11 conspiracy nonsense. What the hell is going on over there (in Britain), anyway. We (in the states) endured this wave a couple of years ago.

By the way, the best 9-11 debunking was by Popular Mechanics magazine. I don’t have the link but its easy to find.

Fatboy: here are the URLs:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/161025

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

The point of raising the Reichstag fire was simply that it is exactly what the conspiracy theorists are alleging the Bush admin did. I don’t believe this for a minute, by the way, so no need to pretend I’m comparing Bush to Hitler.

As for the civilised response to terrorism, I would think the first principle of any action should be don’t make matters worse. By carrying out acts of collective punishment against civilian populations, and then as an afterthought saying lets get rid of the Taliban, this is what the Bush administration did. By then launching a war in Iraq (in the name of the war on terror!) and alienating most of the world, this was made much much worse. In short, the civilised response to terrorism is to seek justice, not vengeance. Use the rule of law, not the rule of the bomb. Exploit sympathy from around the world, including Iran, rather than exploiting the opportunity to crack down hard, and pursue other agendas. Unfortunately, any fair assessment of US policy post 911 would have to conclude that the policy was driven not by the desire to prevent terrorism, or even to protect the national interest, but to pursue narrow, self interested, economic, geo-political goals, which benefit only a few elites.

Mesquito – the Popular Mechanics article is here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html (sorry, don’t know how to make links clickable).

The best thing I read about the Loose Change documentary was B. Ruby Rich in an article about Oliver Stone’s WTC film. She called it “beloved of conspiracy minded undergraduates. If that’s no damning with faint praise, I don’t know what is.

Johan W: The BBC link – Like I said I’m worried – and while calling Alex Jones “Texan nationally syndicated radio talk show host” is the truth, it only tells half the story.

I shall reserve full judgement until I watch the show. I have my fingers crossed but I’m not holding my breath.

Didn’t David Shayler say the “planes” that hit the WTC were “missles surrounded by holograms to look like planes”? I’ll have what you’re having Dave, after you’ve explained exactly how that is possible – a hologram needs something to be projected onto, this isn’t Quantum Leap (sadly).

Irie:
How was the overthrow of the Taliban an exercise in pursuit of Amerca’s “narrow self-interested, economic, geo-political goals, which benefit only a few elites”?

“conspiracy theories are for cretins – Moon landing, 9/11, Kennedy, whatever for cretins.”

that’s the sort of closed-minded I’m talking about. I guess you would have dismissed Watergate as a crazy conspiracy too would you? Most conspiracy theories out there might be bollocks but this doesn’t mean that our governments are not filled with lying, ruthless bastards and that we should trust them any more than we trust conspiracy theorists. If you do then sorry YOU are naive, not me.

“carrying out acts of collective punishment against civilian populations, and then as an afterthought saying lets get rid of the Taliban”

Is there any evidence for this in Afghanistan? The mission was to topple the Taliban and there puppet government. It seems to me that this has been largely acheived. Or do you feel that Karzai serves only America’s “narrow self-interested, economic, geo-political goals”.

I presume you don’t actually believe this and that this formulation is just the required Chomskyite closing remarks.

The Irie,

The democracynow link comes up with “no such story exists”. Are you making some sort of existential point?

I think TheIrie is mistaken here. The Afghanistan invasion certainly benefitted Afghan heroin producers for one…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2814861.stm

democracy in action

Fat boy – go to the democracy now website, and go back to 7 or 8 Feb – I forget which, and you’ll find an interview on the topic of this thread.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06018/640103.stm

“In 2005, Afghanistan earned $2.7 billion from opium exports, which amounts to 52 percent of the country’s gross domestic product of $5.2 billion, according to UNODC estimates. “You probably can’t build democracy in a country where narcotics are such a large part of the economy,” says John Carnevale, a former senior counternarcotics official in the first Bush administration and in the Clinton administration.”

That’s a better link and more recent.

Sorry, TheIrie, Zionists have suppressed your democracynow link. “No such story exists” – that what it says. The satellites are working overtime. Soon, that story will never have existed.

THEIRIE ==> Use the rule of law, not the rule of the bomb.

The Taleban was legal? Saddam’s revolting regieme was legal? International law applies to both sides, not as a hypocritical cosh to use against your opponents, dimwit. When this “rule of law” is used in Libya, you’re still carping.

Who is the interview with? There seem to be a few to choose from…

Gene: I think that’s the line Counterpunch is taking, and it’s bullshit too.

Wow, so confident already. Can it be that Mr Zitver, dual passport holder, knows something we don’t?

“By way of deception shalt thou conduct Zionist blog”

And on the back of the credulous Deja Entendu rides the holocaust denying fascist Love Supreme….

Try the link again:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/1610254

It works for me, its from 8th Feb, interview with Christopher Ketcham and Alexander Cockburn. You’re not in Saudi or something are you? Perhaps its censored?

Regarding Afghanistan, what I object to is the unquestioned use of bombing. Why do we have to use bombs all the time? As wikipedia says:

“Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court. [9] This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

The U.S. may have decided long before 9/11 to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. On September 18, 2001 Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, said “senior U.S. officials” told him in mid-July 2001 that U.S. military action against Afghanistan would be commenced by the middle of October 2001. Further, Mr. Naik reported that, based on the information he allegedly received from the U.S. officials, it was doubtful that the U.S. would abandon its plan to invade Afghanistan even if the Taliban immediately surrendered bin Laden. [10] Mr. Naik said he was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that “17,000 Russian troops were on standby”; as of late 2006, no Uzbek or Russian forces took part in any U.S. or NATO -led operations in Afghanistan.

On October 7, 2001 the United States, aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, began the military invasion of Afghanistan, including bombing Taliban and al-Qaeda related camps. [11][12] It was not until October 14, 2001 that the Taliban openly offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11. [13] The U.S. rejected this offer as well and continued with military operations, code named Operation Enduring Freedom.”

Fat boy, when you say “The mission was to topple the Taliban and there puppet government. It seems to me that this has been largely acheived.” – do you think that it is a good thing to install puppet governments? That was not the aim of the war (as it would be totally illegal!). And by what measure has it worked? Things in Afghanistan aren’t exactly rosy?

Deja – Re: opium, I don’t see what you point is?

Makhno please explain why I am credulous. What have I claimed to be truth here which is not truth? The inly thing I “blieve” is the Northwoods document, which even Montag believes is real. You on the other hand, seem to be the credulous one, who has already made up their mind that the American govt. would NEVER attack it’s own people. To me that’s credulous.

“do you think that it is a good thing to install puppet governments?”

You don’t think Karzai was elected? You think the Taliban a better government? Surely not…

“Things in Afghanistan aren’t exactly rosy?”

Have they ever been? They are better than before and through a growing democracy may be they will get better yet.

Do you believe that the various offers made by the Taliban, while staring down the barrel of a large gun, would have led to a better outcome?

Finally which “narrow self-interested, economic, geo-political goals” were acheved by the afghan operation?

I don’t think Karzai has much power in Afghanistan, I think the Taliban are still there wrecking havoc, so I think by any measure, the policy has been a disaster.

“Do you believe that the various offers made by the Taliban, while staring down the barrel of a large gun, would have led to a better outcome?” Yes.

“Finally which “narrow self-interested, economic, geo-political goals” were acheved by the afghan operation?” – Well, it hasn’t worked, but the goals were to set up a client state in the middle of the great chessboard and Brzezinski puts it, in order to be able to control the resources and exert economic/political leverage on the rest of the world.

Makhno please explain why I am credulous.

this doesn’t mean that our governments are not filled with lying, ruthless bastards and that we should trust them any more than we trust conspiracy theorists. If you do then sorry YOU are naive, not me.

We should trust David Icke as much as we do Tony Blair?

Deja. Do us all a favour. Go away and spend five minutes listening to a song by Magazine, called “my mind ain’t so open that anything can crawl right in.”

“by any measure, the policy has been a disaster.”

By which measure? Women’s rights? Education? Economic development?

You are pro Taliban? That is just crazy. Please tell me I’ve misunderstood.

“to control the resources and exert economic/political leverage on the rest of the world.”

From Afghanistan? You are joking of course.

Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms.

Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction.

The development of the ability to accept that not everything is explainable is in my view that mark of a mature person in the 21st century.

“We should trust David Icke as much as we do Tony Blair?”

IRRELVEANT. I’m not talking about David Icke. If you trust Tony Blair though you are a fool.

and that we should trust them any more than we trust conspiracy theorists.

IRRELVEANT. I’m not talking about David Icke.

Oh. You have a different kind of conspiracy theorist in mind do you? Guffaw!

To all Wingnut BBC haters:

The 9/11 Conspiracy files is a well put together DE-BUNKING of Loose Change et al.

thanks

Neil

“IRRELVEANT”

Hee hee hee

I think I’d rather be the kind of fool who trusts an elected PM than the kind of fool who trusts conspiracy theories.

Still, if you can always latch onto another story then you can never really be wrong can you?

“in order to be able to control the resources and exert economic/political leverage on the rest of the world.”

And the starting point is Afghanistan?!? He who controls Afghanistan controls the world? I think you’ve been playing too much Risk, kid.

“The important question is, how should a civilised society respond to acts of terrorism, and for that the Bush administration has given good guidance in exactly how not to do it.”

I wouldn’t say “exactly.” Despite the Islamic world’s utter contempt for Bush, there hasn’t been a significant terrorist attack in the US post 9/11. Whether or not the anti-terror policies of Spain, England or France is “better” than Bush’s is still an open question. Similarly it will be “interesting” to see what happens when the Democrats inevitably grab executive power.

“so I think by any measure, the policy has been a disaster.”

Excluding many of the “measures” actually used by actual Afghanis of course. (Economic development, education, women’s rights etc.) I find that often, “TheIrie” is a presumptuous cretin.

TheIrie:
Ask yourself, is it better to be an Afghan now or during the Taliban’s regime?

(perhaps best to watch any of saira shahs excellant work before answering, take your time – she’s a great film maker)

Fat boy – I’m not pro Taliban – I’m saying the Taliban are still there. If you’re saying things have improved, the onus is on you to provide evidence, and please, I need more than simply saying they had an election.

I’ve just stubbled accross an article in Foreign Affairs this month by dear leader Blair “OUR RESPONSE to the September 11 attacks has proved even more momentous than it seemed at the time. That is because we could have chosen security as the battleground. But we did not. We chose values. We said that we did not want another Taliban or a different Saddam Hussein. We knew that you cannot defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.”

The man is living on planet fantasy land. He has not defeated the ideas – quite the opposite.

“Oh. You have a different kind of conspiracy theorist in mind do you? Guffaw!”

no dickhead I’m not a conspiracy theorist. you’re missing the point completely, go and rot in the shithole Tony Blair is creating, you deserve it you credulous fool.

“I think I’d rather be the kind of fool who trusts an elected PM than the kind of fool who trusts conspiracy theories.”

awwww we always get the elected line. What percentage of the population ACTUALLY voted for Labour? It’s such bullshit, you apologists make me sick, just because someone won an election in a highly apathetic country doesn’t mean they are trustworthy, if you trust Blair then you are more stupid than nay conspiracy theorist because at least they have the balls to question the society in which they live instead of just going along with whoever has a pretty smile and a nice suit.

Shmuel – lets see the evidence then.

“Ask yourself, is it better to be an Afghan now or during the Taliban’s regime?” The two are not exclusive. Who do you think is the dominant power in Afghanistan, apart from the coalition?

You idiots! The story first appeared in the Jewish Forward and on ABC News. The CounterPunch piece is merely a follow-up.

At least READ THE STORY FIRST! Complete and utter philistinism!

“the dominant power in Afghanistan, apart from the coalition”

How many dominant powers are there? Asa many as it takes to prove your point….

“I’m saying the Taliban are still there”

But the difference is that they no longer run the country. And do not host terrorist training camps. A big difference methinks.

“He has not defeated the ideas – quite the opposite.”

We are all Hezbollah now?

Answer the damn question, TheIrie.

Is it better to be an Afghan now or during the Taliban’s regime?

“Shmuel – lets see the evidence then.”

While you run along and do that TheIrie will explain why Afghanistan is the center for world power. Why Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban. And how the military-industrial complex used PR to force the invasion…

Or maybe not…

Answer the damn question – THE DAMN TALIBAN ARE STILL IN POWER YOU FOOLS!

Sorry – should use capitals so explicitly. Anyhow, as no-one has any evidence that things have improved in Afghanistan, here’s a summary of the latest take on the country from Foreign Affairs:

“Summary: With the Taliban resurgent, reconstruction faltering, and opium poppy cultivation at an all-time high, Afghanistan is at risk of collapsing into chaos. If Washington wants to save the international effort there, it must increase its commitment to the area and rethink its strategy — especially its approach to Pakistan, which continues to give sanctuary to insurgents on its tribal frontier.”

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86105/barnett-r-rubin/saving-afghanistan.html

“Ask yourself, is it better to be an Afghan now or during the Taliban’s regime?” The two are not exclusive.

So you admit that some things might be better, some things might be worse, post invasion. However, you simultaneously maintain that “by any measure” US policy has been a “disaster.” So which is it? These two propositions can’t be non-mutually exclusive and exclusive (”by any measure”) simultaneously.

You have always struck me as someone so utterly full of such bullshit that arguing over the particular details of one of your shallow, knee jerk positions, I consider to be a waste of time. You might be a little stupid too. Don’t know.

Best wishes in the future…

“THE DAMN TALIBAN ARE STILL IN POWER YOU FOOLS!”

No they are not. Can you really not see that? They hold limited sway over small parts of the country. Rather like Plaid Cymru here. Hardly “in power” dude.

no dickhead I’m not a conspiracy theorist.

I see. You just think that Prime Ministers and people who think that Lizards are running the world from spaceships are to be equally trusted and when anybody challenges your theory you resort to the insults of a schoolchild.

just because someone won an election in a highly apathetic country doesn’t mean they are trustworthy

Its probably a slightly better indication than somebody who sits in their bedroom inventing new stories to explain how crop circles are mad by aliens however. How many votes do you think most conspiracy theorists get when they stand for election? Oh I’m sorry. You don’t beleive in elections do you? They are just a conspiracy.

So Counterpunch, Exile, Love Supreme and probably Flanker are all willing to believe the Israelis knew about the 9/11 plot in advance, but kept quiet.

Anyone else care to join that select group?

Tony Blair;

“The air guitarist of politicians”
Will Self.

So apropos.

if you trust Blair then you are more stupid than nay conspiracy theorist because at least they have the balls to question the society in which they live instead of just going along with whoever has a pretty smile and a nice suit.

You tell him brother!

“at least they have the balls to question the society in which they live”

And bravely pointing out who are Giant Lizards…

Shmuel – when I said “Ask yourself, is it better to be an Afghan now or during the Taliban’s regime?” The two are not exclusive.” I meant that the Taliban are still operating in Afghanistan, so we can’t talk about a post-Taliban Afghanistan. If you want to challenge my statement that “by any measure” US policy has been a “disaster.” you need to provide some evidence of some aspect of life in Afghanistan that has improved. If you do, I will modify my statement to “by nearly every measure…” until you can prove to me that on the whole life has improved. But you can’t because it hasn’t. Clear?

I meant that the Taliban are still operating in Afghanistan, so we can’t talk about a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Too right, just like the Bolsheviks are still operating in russia so anybody who talks about a post-soviet Russia is wrong,wrong,wrong.

The Irie, why don’t you provide some evidence for your assertion that “by any measure, the policy has been a disaster.”

Several posters have stated above various things that they feel have improved since the Taliban were toppled.

If it is sufficient for you that I simply state “various things” I “feel have” not “improved since the Taliban was toppled” then there is no incentive for me to provide evidence. If it is not sufficient for me, why is it sufficient for others?

Because your statement was “by every measure”. An absolute assertion.

And because you are wrong.

“An absolute assertion.” “And because you are wrong.” Isn’t that an absolute assertion? You should provide some evidence if you think I’m wrong. I have also posted a link above, which is more than anyone else can say on this topic.

I was thinking that you could detail why women going to school was a bad idea, or dancing an evil?

Perhaps you could then explain why you feel that the Taliban are both still in charge and also not in charge?

And finally why you think toppling the taliban was a bad idea and an “illegal” act.

But you’ll probably ask everyone else to search for evidence to prove your asinine assertion that “by any measure US policy in Afghanistan has been a disaster”. While failing to state which of these many measures you include.

The Irie, why don’t you provide some evidence for your assertion that “by any measure, the policy has been a disaster.”

Well, sitting here in my quiet middle class suburb, it seems to me that the lot of people in Afghanistan hasn’t improved. Women are still poor, they still live in a country called Afganistan (hardly an aspirational name for a country), and still have no access to beauty saloons or decent theatres. I mean when is Mamma Mia going to be staged in Kabul?

Not soon I warrant and that is an indictment on us all.

Also I notice that we are still living under the oppressive yoke of the dictatorships of Blair and Bush – which means that all that hypocritical fighting and suggestion that this was all about democracy and freedom was just piffle. I mean look at me, how has my life been improved since the removal of the Taliban. What about my freedom?

Stop oppressing me, and let the Taliban have their way – fighting them can only make things worse for me!

Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky

The situation for women in Afghanistan as put forward by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) is:

“The war in Afghanistan has removed the Taliban, which so far does appear to be an improvement for women in certain limited parts of the country. In other areas, the incidence of rape and forced marriage is on the rise again, and most women continue to wear the burqa out of fear for their safety. The level of everyday violence in Afghanistan is something we would find it hard to imagine. “War on terrorism” has removed the Taliban, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism which is the main cause of all our miseries. It will require a very different approach indeed for those evils to be eliminated, which is RAWA’s point. And in fact, by reinstalling the warlords in power in Afghanistan, the US is ultimately replacing one fundamentalist regime with another.

Karzai has gathered all criminals around him and even some top Taliban leaders like Mullah Ghaus, Hakim Mujahid (Taliban spokesperson who was on a US tour only months before 9/11), Wakil Ahmad Motawakal (Taliban Foreign Minister), Mullah Zaheef (Taliban Ambassador in Pakistan), Mullah Hotaki, Mullah Arsala etc. have been forgiven by Mr. Karzai and allowed to open their office in Kabul. Instead of appearing in the court of justice for their crimes, in the name of “moderated Taliban” these criminal and misogynist elements are coming in political scene once again because the US policy in Afghanistan requires such deals with them. This is indeed an unforgivable and treasonable deal against our nation and especially our ill-fated women.

It is due to such dealings of Karzai government and his US masters with terrorist warlords that Taliban-like decrees are still in place on our unfortunate women. It was on April 23, 2005 that Amina, a 29 year-old woman was publicly stoned to death on the basis of a district court’s decision in northern province of Badakhshan who was accused of committing adultery. ”

http://www.rawa.org/wom-view.htm

So,

You position is.

Situation X is terrible and is due to agents A.

Agents B remove agents A, and situation X improves somewhat into situation Y, but is less than perfection.

Therefore situation X = situation Y.

Can you spot the rather obvious failing of your thought processes?

No, this is my position:

Situation X is terrible and is due to agents A.

Agents B try to remove agents A, but basically fail. Situation X may have improved in some limited ways, but at the same time many civilians are killed, many refugees are created and all of the previous problems persist, we’ll call this situation Y.

Therefore situation X more or less equals situation Y.

So RAWA are against the Russians, the Taliban, the War Lords, Karzai, the Americans, etc etc. Any suggestions on how to improve things from them? According to their website RAWA.org, nothing at all.

So TheIrie what do you/Chomsky recommend?

Its obviously not an easy problem to sort out – decades of support for militias can’t be erased overnight. However, the policy to improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan (not a war aim by the way) would have to rule out aerial bombardment from the word go. That is never a solution. That’s what we did, and it made matters worse. How can democratic movements grow when the people are being randomly killed all the time?

So what would you/Chomsky have done? Don’t just tell us what you/Chomsky would not have done.

“Therefore situation X more or less equals situation Y”

Like 2+2 more or less equals 2+1.

(Hint: 2+2 is more.)

How can democratic movements grow when the people are being randomly killed all the time?

I suggest you go to Pakistan and ask that question of the Taliban’s leadership.

Fat boy – depends when you are talking about? If you want to go back to the 80s, I wouldn’t have funded the Mujaheeden. If you only want to go to post 911, then in terms of Al-Qaeda I would have negotiated with the Taliban to get them handed over, tried them in court. Regarding the Taliban, I would have gone to the UN and said, look these guys are harbouring terrorists and brutally oppressing their population, lets do something about it. Heres a cheque for $(significantly less than the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars) now lets get to work, in a multilateral, non-violent (at least no aerial bombardment) way. And I would have sought out groups in Afghanistan like RAWA and given them money and listened to them.

What is this obsession with arial bombardment? Is that really the main issue for women in Afghanistan now? No it isn’t. Could it be the people killing teachers for educating girls…. Hmmm, let’s think about it…

Yes, bombs were dropped (but not randomly) and I distinctly remember Northern alliance troops on the ground with US troops in Afghanistan.

I put it to you Irie, that you are a fruitcake who knows very little about anything outside of your cosseted Western existence and who has the intellectual abilities of a tin of condensed milk. That you think letting the Taliban get back in charge again because they are no worse than what exists now, is hardly a policy put forward by any reasonable person, unless of course they are stupid, or alternatively think that “brown people” deserve to live under conditions that you yourself would fight against tooth and nail.

You hypocritical Chomsky spouting fool.

I would have gone to the UN and said, look these RWANDANS ARE brutally oppressing their population, lets do something about it.

See? I just change two words and the stupidity of your suggestion becomes clear!

I would have gone to the UN and said, look these guys are harbouring terrorists and brutally oppressing their population, lets do something about it.

Presumably, you would have turned up in Kabul with bowls of hot couscous, street performers and some anger management consultants. And if you weren’t listened to, you could have issued a stern rebuke in the strongest of terms, although you would prefer not to upset anybody to much.

One can only weep tears of sadness that this did not come to pass.

The Irie Education Institute – I put it to you that you are wilfully ignorant and are simply blathering to avoid the serious points I am making. As to my obsession with aerial bombardment, this from NATO:

“Official: NATO killed too many civilians in Afghanistan in ‘06

The single thing that we have done wrong and we are striving extremely hard to improve on (in 2007) is killing innocent civilians,” Brig. Richard E. Nugee, the chief spokesman for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, said.

… NATO forces were accused of killing dozens of civilians last year in airstrikes during battle and gunfire from military convoys that felt threatened.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-03-afghanistan-civilians_x.htm

By all measures I believe we can conclude that TheIrie is an imbecile, not a genius. (No that these are mutually exclusive categories of course.)

The single thing that we have done wrong and we are striving extremely hard to improve on (in 2007) is killing innocent civilians,” Brig. Richard E. Nugee

Fucking war pig. No different than the Taliban if you ask me.

Still no suggestion TheIrie? Obviously handing it over to the UN won’t work. Ask any Darfuri or Rwandan…

Fat boy – you argument is predicated on pretending that the US action has some how made things better, which it hasn’t. The imperfect UN would have been far better. And as the UN is simply an administrative organ of all state in the world, rather than simply using Rwanda to dismiss it, you might try to draw lessons from that as to how the UN could be improved. Of course, this requires thinking, whereas lining up and saying drop you bombs Mr President is much easier.

The BBC program is a debunking of 911 conspiracy theories. That some people would unquestioningly assume that it is the opposite is predictable, and says far more about their mentality than it does about the BBC.

These people are not averse to conspiracy theories themselves. Aside from the well-known BBC fixation, they tend to use the methods of the conspiracy theorists on climate change. These can include pouncing on minor pieces of conflicting information, filling the voids of areas of ignorance with complete supposition and fantasy, and quoting people completely out of context.

My particular favourite is assuming that scientists are making the whole thing up because they won’t get paid if they don’t!

These can often combine seamlessly into some kind of worldwide socialist takeover conspiracy. Classic conspiracy theorist behaviour…

Shmuel – do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you just going to keep pretending I support the Taliban?

OK, I take your point Irie – I am not adverse to facts, not that that link means that life in Afghanistan is measurably worse now, than it was prior to the invasion – which is your main contention.

Riddle me this:

1. If it is your contention that the situation now is no better than when the Taliban were in power, then do you agree that we may as well allow the Taliban to regain control and withdrawn international forces?

2. If you do not agree with this, then what are your reasons for opposing the Taliban?

3. If you do decide to oppose the Taliban, then what form would your opposition exist of? Harsh language?

The BBC program is a debunking of 911 conspiracy theories.

Is it?

Have you read this?

I do hope you are right, but the adverts don’t bear you out, unless they are meant to trick conspiracy theorists into watching the programme – in the hope that they will watch and be debunked.

The Irie Educational Institute:

1. I think we should do all we can to prevent the Taliban from taking or regaining power. How this is done, and what we should do now – I don’t know. I only know the policies that brought us to this point have been wrong.

2. I saw the film Osama at the ICA a few years ago. Its about a young Afghani girl called Osama, and the film made it clear to me that the Taliban regime is indescribably inhumane.

3. Again, right now, I don’t know the answer. If I was in power, I would seek advice from Afghan refugees and democratic groups.

However, whilst I can’t tell you what I would do, I can tell you, resort to violence is not the answer. Sorry I can’t be more positive.

“are you just going to keep pretending I support the Taliban?”

I don’t think you support the Taliban. You’ve made it very clear that you think the Taliban is “by any measure” “more or less” an equal “disaster” (in a noncategorical sense; i.e. Disaster and non-disasters are not mutually exclusive) as post invasion Afghanistan. Very clear indeed.

As far having inteligent things to say, as a professional social science researcher , who does work in the area of reasoning, my professional opinion is that your own abilities seem quite average. (Imbecile was I admit an exaggeration, a term invoked because I find you so morally repulsive.)

Best…

“However, whilst I can’t tell you what I would do, I can tell you, resort to violence is not the answer.”

Marvellous!! You don’t know what to do. But you do know that things are worse and America is to blame. Also you are sure that “The imperfect UN would have been far better”, again with no evidence to support that notion.

You truly are an empty vessel…

Shmuel,

“I don’t think you support the Taliban. You’ve made it very clear that you think the Taliban is “by any measure” “more or less” an equal “disaster” (in a noncategorical sense; i.e. Disaster and non-disasters are not mutually exclusive) as post invasion Afghanistan. Very clear indeed.”

That is a fair summary of my position. Invoking your professional status is rather poor form – I would rather you engaged with the actual substance. Nearly all of your posts have been simply throwing insults, and I’m sure as an educated chap you’re capable of far more than that.

All I want to convince you of is that life is Afghanistan is desperately miserable, and not getting any better. As an empirical observation, I would have thought this would have to make us reconsider our support for using war as a means to solve our problems.

Speaking of Afghanistan, I heard that Cockburn favored the Soviet invasion of it. Anyone have any links confirming it?

I’m amazed at how surprised people are to hear that Israel has an active espionage program in the USA prior to 11th Sept. Why is this so shocking? Any and all developed nations have foreign intelligence programs of varying degrees of sophistication.

The truth of whether they had collected any intelligence regarding 11th September prior to the attacks will never be known due to the enormity of the implications linked to this but you can’t say one way or the other. The likelihood is that they had nothing, however conspiracy theories need to be comprehensively rebuffed if they are to be prevented from insinuating their way into popular dogma. Suffice to say Israel spies on the US for its own benefit and the US essentially turns a blind eye.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A8250

Feel to post your usual reactionary drivel in response to this.

SDM

Fat boy – you have offered me precisely zero evidence for all your assertions, so until you find something to show me how things have improved in Afghanistan, I suggest you wind your neck in.

“A poll by World Public Opinion. org shows 53% feel safer than they did under the Taliban.

“More than four million have returned home since the Taliban were driven from power in December, 2001″

Seems theIrie knows more than the Afghans…

If I was in power, I would seek advice from Afghan refugees and democratic groups.

How about the elected government of Afghanistan?

a little reminder of the Taliban’s rule:

“The massacre of around 300 people in Yakaolang, which took place on 9th January 2001 by the Taliban,” http://www.rawa.org/yakw-r.htm

“A UN report on Thursday gave grisly details of alleged Taliban massacres carried out in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif that may have left up to 8,000 people dead.” http://www.rawa.org/killings.htm

“The new report, “Massacres of Hazaras in Afghanistan,” gives detailed accounts of the January 2001 massacre in the central highlands of Afghanistan as well as new evidence related to an earlier massacre in May 2000. In both cases, the victims were primarily Hazaras, a Shia Muslim ethnic group that has been the target of previous abuses by Taliban forces. Afghan humanitarian aid workers were among those killed.” http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/02/19/afghan282.htm

“Within the context of the resumption of conflict in various regions, human rights violations are noted as including: the forced displacement of the civilian population; the deliberate burning of houses; summary executions of non-combatants, including women and children; arbitrary detention; forced labour. These actions, reportedly carried out by Taliban forces who were engaged in military operations, ran directly counter to assurances publicly given by the Taliban leadership with regard to the rights of the civilian populations.

Specific commentary is provided on, inter alia: continuing denial to women of access to education, health and employment; the curtailment of women’s right to freedom of movement; the abduction of women, rape, the infliction of inhuman forms of punishment such as stoning, lashing and others; the reported existence of women’s prisons in Kandahar, Kabul, and Mazar-I-Sharif and possibly in Jalalabad; the abduction by Taliban members of many Hazara and Tajik women and girls; the trafficking of women and girls to Kandahar, Jalalabad and Pakistan; forced marriages to Taliban members.”
http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2000/vol3/afghanistanchr.htm

so to summerise:

the Taliban are guilty of:

ethnic massacres;
he forced displacement of the civilian population; the deliberate burning of houses;
summary executions of non-combatants, including women and children;
arbitrary detention;
forced labour;
continuing denial to women of access to education, health and employment;
the curtailment of women’s right to freedom of movement;
the abduction of women, rape, the infliction of inhuman forms of punishment such as stoning, lashing and others;
the trafficking of women and girls: to Kandahar, forced marriages to Taliban members.

so given all that we know of the Taliban and their brutal and barbaric regime, why is anyone suggesting that they have any redeeming qualities? or are deserving of our support?

Let me guess ?

the Taliban are opposing the Americans, thus following “my enemy’s enemy is my friend “school of political cretinism that means that no matter how barbaric Taliban were, they are now are somehow deserving of support in the West by virtue of their opposition to the Americans?

Is that so TheIrie?

is anyone else believe that nonsense?

Yeah, actually I did read that. Did you read this? Or this?

But you’ve just made my point nicely by directing me to a column in which at no point does the writer say he believes these theories and with your bizarre explanation for the adverts.

“so given all that we know of the Taliban and their brutal and barbaric regime, why is anyone suggesting that they have any redeeming qualities? or are deserving of our support?” Modernity – I have consistently said the Taliban are awful, and said nothing about supporting them. Read my post of 04:02 PM.

Had United States took a leaf from Mahatma Ghandi’s book and, following 9/11, gone on protest marches and hunger strikes, this would have done wonders to the collective American waistline but wouldn’t touched Bin Laden and his organisation.

Had United States politely asked United Nations to act, the hot air emanating from 1 UN Plaza, New York City, would have further contributed to climate change and TheIrie would have (quite rightly) blamed United States for damaging the environment. Otherwise, Bin Laden’s sleep would have been undisturbed and let us not have many illusions about that.

Sometimes the only viable action includes the use of force. This might be unpleasant (and war always leads to unpalatable consequences – this is in the nature of the beast), but all other options are more unpleasant.

But… All this doesn’t mean for a single nanosecond that United States did it the right way. Remember Rumsfeld’s “We don’t do nation building”? This is precisely the elephant in the room. The real campaign did not end when Mullah Omar and his unmerry men escaped from Kabul and Kandahar: it started then. The real campaign should have included far-reaching pacification of Afghanistan, massive Marshall-style plan to improve lives of Afghanis (with an emphasis on education and rights of women), massive pressure on Pakistan (forever playing the double game), far-reaching support (with boots on the ground) to Afghan civil power and all the other things that, together, sum up to nation building. The real failure of US was not the invasion but the aftermath.

Of course, doing the right thing would have required funding and, even more, massive injection of US and NATO troops. It might have prevented the invasion of Iraq, but this wouldn’t have been a bad thing either.

Irie makes two points in his post at 4.02.

I only know the policies that brought us to this point have been wrong.

I can tell you, resort to violence is not the answer.

In other words the Taliban were awful, overthrowing them was awful. Violence is awful and the Americans are awful. Everything is wrong and I have no ideas about how to make it better.

This seems to me to be the Chomskyote position on most things.

Because you’re no longer a socialist putting forward a programme, you don’t have to stand for anything. That’s why so many people read Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore – they don’t have to commit to anything. They just have to jeer.

Nick Cohen – What’s Left.

Paul,

there is no reason to be so combative, your links have somewhat put my mind at rest about the nature of this programme – if it is a straight debunking – rather than an attempt to do a balanced view of the alternative versions of what happened – then that is great. It is rather sad that it has had to come to this state of affairs though isn’t it.

I would still argue that the BBC blogpost I pointed you to and the trailer for the show are ambigious in that regard.

George Monbiot did a good de-bunking of Loose Change in the G. The chap behind the film did a response and was thoroughly shredded by the CiF commenters (at least 2/3’s)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2011845,00.html

Aside from the fil maker chap’s basic lack of knowlege of physics and the chemcial properties of steel the comments section is interesting:

I Iike this one:

———————————————–

The sub-headline of Tim Sparke’s article – who stood to gain from 9/11 – has only one answer: Osama Bin Laden. Or has everybody forgotten that nobody knew who he was on September the 10th 2001? It is Bin Laden, after all, who said he wanted to suck the west into a war which would radicalise Islamic youth and bankrupt the USA. Sound familiar?

Does Mr Sparke also believe that subsequent suicide bombings in London, Madrid, Bali, etc etc, are also part of the same CIA plan? Or does he accept that there is indeed a terrorist group out there which wants to see the end of western hegemony in the Middle East and would as soon chop his head off as watch his film?

The Bush administration has distinguished itself throughout its time in office by its total ineptness, stupidity and crassness. Surely, following the logic of the conspiracy theory, some kind of weapons of mass destruction would have been “found” in Iraq, live on television, no doubt? Also, if the whole point of the conspiracy was to justify an invasion of Iraq, why didn’t they pin it on Saddam from the start? Why throw into the mix the guy with the beard in the cave?

There may be anomalies and inconsistencies surrounding 9/11, but there are far, far more in this half-baked attempt to understand the way the world is today.

————————————————

I think that is pretty fair – the Neocons have been played like a fiddle by OBL, have played right into his hands and radicalised a portion of a generation of young muslims.

Thats not to say that there aren’t questions around 9/11 – but what is conspiracy, what is timing and what is cockup?

Take Airline stocks – these could be co-incidence or the minor conspiracies of individual members of an interconnected world – i.e. bin laden associate – perhaps a wealthy saudi who has stocks in the various airlines invoilved so he (it wouldn’t be a she, this been saudi an’ all) calls his broker, who emails a mate, who calls his broker etc etc. All at the speed of electron. It’s an interconnected world after all. This creates a trading blip which looks mightily suspicious afterwards thats for sure but my version is a damn sight more likely then Loose Changes.

Ditto the insurance on the WTC – if someone had set a bomb in ‘93 in the basement on an asset worth tens of millions of dollars then I would want insurance – so it could also be just a case of timing…………..damn suspicious looking but more likely to be innocuous.

Of course, the Bush admins actions since then have been pretty disastrous and the US defence complex has benefitted enormously, no doubt, but surely this is more taking advantage of events rather then shaping them??????

Feel to post your usual reactionary drivel in response to this.

Disbelieving that Israelis had advance knowledge of 9/11 is “reactionary drivel”?

I think it’s closer to the mark to say the believers are the ones spouting reactionary drivel.

If anyone’s interested, the US Senate is beginning yet another debate on Iraq. C-SPAN 2.

SOM you are flatly wrong that there is no option but force. Your comments about Bin Laden are deeply flawed – the reason should be obvious (where is he?). Nation building sounds like a fine idea, but assumes a completely benevolent host. I wonder – did you support nation building by the Soviet union in Afghanistan? Obviously not, so why support ‘nation building’ by the US, as if they have no alternative agenda. I could be convinced by the nation building argument only if it was done multi-laterally.

Incidentally, I’d like to reconvene this conversation with you in about 2020, when China has overtaken the US, and see if you still think the UN is full of hot air. I suspect, you will have suddenly decided that a unilateral world order, when its not your team calling the shots, is not so desirable after all.

(Fat boy – well done – you’ve given me something to think about with those polls. Be back to you shortly)

Irie:
If, after 9-11, Bush had said: Boy, this makes me VERY cross. Know what? We are going to issue an arrest warrent for Osama Bib Laden and ask the Taliban to turn him over, we’re THAT angry.

Would not have happened? There would have been a revolution in the U.S.

The taliban regime sheltered and supported terrorists who attacked my country. The second the first plane hit, their day was over.

Are things better or worse in Afghanistan now? Frankly, I don’t much care. I am certain that other governments are taking care about what goes on within their borders.

TheIrie: In that particular instance there was no option but force. Afghanistan under Taliban was acting as a secure base for Al Qaida, Taliban refused to do anything about it (”provide us the evidence and we’ll try OBL in an Islamic court” – do you really go for this drivel?), the option of a long game, based on an air-tight blockade, would have been nonviable with neighbours like Pakistan and Iran…

Had all choices in life, TheIrie, have been between the unconditional good and the unconditional bad, morality would have been trivial. Most choices, alas, are between different shades of grey and it is our call which one is whiter. In that particular instance there was little choice.

Viz. UN, I am afraid that in its current mode of operation it is not much more than hot air. After every disaster (Rwanda, Balkans) “lessons are learnt”, except that they are not (Darfur). The UN is, in its current state, not much more than a parallelogram of self-interested forces. It need not be like that and making the UN into viable, determined, manifestly fair force for the good and a true arbiter of problems besetting humanity is a worthwhile goal. But, unless you have been smoking Class C substances, you’ll have to agree that it wasn’t in this state after 9/11. And, sadly, current situation is, if at all, worse.

SOM “do you really go for this drivel?” As opposed to bombing the country – killing lots and lots of people and achieve what exactly? They didn’t get Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, thanks to the Bush et al recruitment drives (bomb a village, create a terrorist or 50), even with Westerners joining in for the first time in history (7/7). I’m not at all clear what you think has been achieved?

Al Qaeda is stronger than ever? By what measure? More videos on the internet?
Truth is, AQ is scattered and ineffectual. The core group is isolated and not in operational control. They are worried sick about infiltration, so even if there are a bunch of potential recruits, they are worthless because any one of them could be an agent or someone after the huge rewards placed on the leaderships’ heads.

TheIrie: I might, in your elegant phrase, “really go for this drivel”. Fair enough: I am sure that had you tried yourself to go for any sort of drivel, you would have sunk in a mire of cliches after a single step.

“As opposed to bombing the country – killing lots and lots of people and achieve what exactly?” For goodness sake, how many non-combatant Afghans have been killed in USAF bombings? No, please don’t provide links – we all remember a number of heart-rendering blunders (a wedding party that looked like UK Warrior vehicles which look like Iraqi tanks – apologies for sarcasm) but the sum-total of all these was considerably less than number massacred by Taliban in a standard – what, month? Week? Had US followed up on the defeat of Taliban, had they not farmed out the clean-up of Tora Bora to local mercenaries, had they invested in building Afghanistan, the outcome would have been very different.

I realise that in your view of the world there is an Evil Empire which is always, always, wrong. You perhaps don’t realise how similar you are to the more gung-ho supporters of Dick Cheney.

SOM – the drivel sentence was a quote from you by the way. I can see you have no idea about the situation in Afghanistan, and the level of deaths caused by the extensive bombing, including the ‘daisy cutter’ bombs that were used. I suggest you have a browse on the RAWA website, if you are interested in reality.

http://www.rawa.org/

Its very easy to dismiss this as my saying the US is “always always wrong”. That’s just a blanket excuse for ignoring criticism. I’m talking very specifically about Afghanistan, and the bloody disaster in that country. Don’t forget, your Taliban were described by Ronald Reagan as “the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers”. I’m sorry, but America has an extremely large burden of responsibility for Afghanistan.

From the Guardian in 2002:

“A Guardian report in February [2002] estimated these casualties at between 1,300 and 8,000 deaths. A Guardian investigation into the “indirect victims” now confirms the belief of many aid agencies that they exceeded the number who died of direct hits.

As many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the US intervention. They too belong in any tally of the dead.

The bombing had three main effects on the humanitarian situation. It caused massive dislocation by prompting hundreds of thousands of Afghans to flee from their homes. It stopped aid supplies to drought victims who depended on emergency relief. It provoked an upsurge in fighting and turned a military stalemate into one of chaotic fluidity, leading yet more people to flee.”

http://www.rawa.org/civilian3.htm

“The drivel sentence was a quote from you by the way”

No, it wasn’t. I am careful not to be the first in using abusive language. And I can’t help if you see something there which isn’t there – in the circumstances, you’ll forgive me if I don’t pursue your link.

And I don’t understand your logic. From the word go I have made an absolute distinction between the justification to go to war with Taliban over Al Qaida (alternatively, pursue Al Qaida, who started the war, to their Taliban-sponsored lair) and the execution of this campaign. The fact that a surgeon amputated the wrong leg is not an argument against the necessity of operation, just against the competence of the surgeon.

You could have argued that, given American political state of mind, understanding of the world, US military training, this was inevitable. You might have been right or you might have been wrong, but at least you would have raised a coherent argument. Instead, you re juxtaposing two issues which, at least in principle, are separate. The only thing that unites them is “Made in USA” and it appears that this is precisely what raises your ire.

It also led to the fall of the Taliban and the return of millions of refugees.

What was the risk free option Irie?

Because that is what you are asking for.

The bombing had three main effects on the humanitarian situation. It caused massive dislocation by prompting hundreds of thousands of Afghans to flee from their homes. …

Contrast that with (according to Fat Boy) the over 4 million who have returned home. Hmm.

SOM – check you 05:26 PM post. You are the one who brought up drivel – not me.

Now it seems it is you who is anti-American – you’re saying the war was necessary, just the US was incompetent in carrying it out (the surgeon amputated the wrong leg!). No, I am saying the war wasn’t necessary. War is not the solution to problems, it creates problems. I am not saying war by the US is wrong, I’m saying war is wrong full stop. The Soviet invasion was wrong, so was the US invasion. I see no reason that a war was the only option to deal with 911. Whats more, after 911, world public opinion, including in the US agreed with me:

“The biggest poll of world opinion was carried out by Gallup International in 37 countries in late September (Gallup International 2001). It found that apart from the US, Israel and India a majority of people in every country surveyed preferred extradition and trial of suspects to a US attack. Clear and sizeable majorities were recorded in the UK (75%) and across Western Europe from 67% in France to 87% in Switzerland. Between 64% (Czech Republic) and 83 % (Lithuania)of Eastern Europeans concurred as did varying majorities in Korea, Pakistan, South Africa and Zimbabwe. An even more emphatic answer obtained in Latin America where between 80% (Panama) and 94% (Mexico) favoured extradition. The poll also found that majorities in the US and Israel (both 56%) did not favour attacks on civilians.”

http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/~his04105/publications/World-opinion.html

Boogski – my quote was from 2002, early on in
proceedings. If you read Fat Boy quote “More than four million have returned home since the Taliban were driven from power in December, 2001″ you will see that the 4 million refugees were returning from the NATO bombing which displaced them.

“Don’t forget, your Taliban were described by Ronald Reagan as “the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers”"

This isn’t accurate. The Taliban and the mujihadeen were not the same thing. Anyway Reagan said that in the mid 80s; the Taliban didn’t form until 1992.

The way I remember it, President Bush made some very clear demands of the Taliban after 9/11. Close the al-Qaida training camps and hand the fuckers over immediately. The Taliban thumbed their collective nose.

Fair correction, but I think you’ll find mujihadeen just means holy warriors, and that the Taliban were a mujihadeen group.

Mesquito: (this is not a pop at you personally)
“Are things better or worse in Afghanistan now? Frankly, I don’t much care”

And thats exactly the attitude that has crippled US strategic thinking since 2000 – the casual or laissez faire attitude that tapers off US policy and therefore cripples your longtime strategic efforts.

Qu for you – when did WW2 end?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ans – if your first instincts were 1945 then you were in the Bush camp. If your instincts were in the mid 50’s when German and Japanese militarism were finally defeated by the successful of the democratic states that replaced the German Reich and the Empire of Japan then you are correct! And probably win at Risk/Monopoly and vote Democrat……

What was the risk free option Irie?

It’s worth recalling that the risk free option — for the Taliban — was first put on the table, and rejected by Omar and his cronies who refused to hand over Bin Laden.

I would imagine their decision also failed the test of world public opinion.

Irie, if you are really saying that you are pacifist then I can respect that, but I’m sure you realise how difficult it has been, historically, to hold that position with consistency.

TheIrie wrote:

Fair correction, but I think you’ll find mujihadeen just means holy warriors, and that the Taliban were a mujihadeen group.

I think you’ll find that you’re talking out of your arse again, the Taliban were a reaction to the Mujihadeen and the Warlords, funded by the ISI (pakistani intel) and the Saudis

I suggest reading Rashid Ahmed’s book: the Taliban or at least doing some elementary research

Ans – if your first instincts were 1945 then you were in the Bush camp. If your instincts were in the mid 50’s when German and Japanese militarism were finally defeated by the successful of the democratic states that replaced the German Reich and the Empire of Japan then you are correct!

Yes, but you have to start somewhere, don’t you? I think going after the bad guys is a good place to start. WW2 is a perfect example of what letting the bad guys come to you will result in. Namely, a World War.

“check you 05:26 PM post. You are the one who brought up drivel – not me.”

Jesus wept! I brought it in reference to Taliban, not you. If you don’t understand the difference between saying “Hitler is a Nazi” and “you are a Nazi” then perhaps there might be gaps in your language comprehension.

“War is not the solution to problems, it creates problems.” Always, unconditionally? If you are a pacifist – a posituon which I respect, although I don’t share – then please say so. Note, however, that for a true pacifist a discussion on the origins of any war is pointless. A pacifist isn’t only against the war in Afghanistan, say, but also against Vietnam stopping the Pol Pot genocide. Against bombing Dresden, but also against bombing the railway tracks to Auschwitz.

Hence, if you are a genuine pacifist, then this discussion is silly. It is like discussing with a religeous Jew or with a Muslim the right recipe for pork chops. If you are not a genuine pacifist, however, then your universal quantifier represents the sort of sweeping, formulaic cliche which doesn’t advance the argument much.

War creates problems and war might conceivably solve problems. Ditto for most, if not all, human activity. Grown-ups will tot up the problems it solves and the problems it creates, compare them, factor in risk and uncertainty… There is more to life than one can write in large letters on demonstration placards.

It is not topic but to join this discussion about Afganistan. Soviet Union (never see it as socialist country, but sometimes by nature of its propaganda it had to support some leftist movement, what at the end was disaster for those movement.) supported at the time a “leftist” government in Kabul by sending troops there. I understand why USA supported Islamist (“freedom “) fighters in Afghanistan (Berzinski gave good explanation) to defeat “Russians” but I do not understand why so call progressives supported those “freedom” fighters which , probably, would not win that war without massive support of the progressive West (and CIA logistic).. As we now one of consequence of that West support to “freedom” fighters is creation of al-Qaida aaaaaa(Bin Laden often said that they can defeat West because they also defeat Russian army, but he always forget that was done by enormous support of that West).
Why so call progressive preferred some Islamic state to some pro Soviet “leftist” dictatorship, where is no political freedom , but at least people have some other freedoms, especially women , that never existed in that countries. (I do not understand that political freedom in Islamic state is more preferable than no political freedom of so called socialist state). You can say democracy is important and people have to decide for themselves. Did women of Afghanistan preferred Islamic state Pakistani or Taliban type more then dictatorship of Soviet type.?

Just to add to Berzinski explanation:
All USA cold war game in Afghanistan was obviously done with total disregard to consequence and the interests of Afghanistan people. As we know after the defeat of “Russians” and total destruction of Afghanistan “West” did not show any interest for destiny of Afghanistan .
And:
After 9/11 I would support attack on Afghanistan to destroy Bin Laden organisation and dismantle Taliban regime if USA and West coalition were ready to take care of innocent population of Afghanistan during those attacks and after victory give real support to rebuild Afghanistan which was real oblogation of USA and west to people of that country but?

Soviet Union (never see it as socialist country, but sometimes by nature of its propaganda it had to support some leftist movement, what at the end was disaster for those movement.)

To go a little further off-topic: the Soviet leadership genuinely believed that the USSR was a socialist country. Khruschev famously expressed the hope that the young children of his day would like in a fully developed communist society, and predicted that they would “bury” the capitalists.

Soviet support for third world nationalist movements was undoubtedly motivated by some propagandistic aims, but mostly by the real politik need for assets to counter Western influence. Soviet collapse in 1989 decisively shifted the balance of power towards the West (or liberal democracies if you prefer), undermining the residual belief in the possibility of an economic alternative to global capitalism, and consequently laying the groundwork for the various “peace processes” in the early 1990s.

Bin Laden often said that they can defeat the West because they also defeat the Russian army, but he always forgot that was done by enormous support of the West.

I was going to say something about that, but I’ll leave it for the Obama thread.

Without security there can be no freedom and without freedom there can be no democracy. Without security women, men, girls and boys lack the ability to freely participate in the educational, developmental and structural growth of Afghanistan’s government and society. Without security the people of Afghanistan are forced to live in a culture of fear, anxiety and uncertainty. Without security the oppressive ideas and actions of our enemies, both at home and abroad, gain increased power and momentum.

AWN, ACBAR, FCCS and ACSF, in the name of our members and partners, stand here today to denounce brutal, un-Islamic acts of terrorism. We stand here to send the strong message that we will not give up the fight for the safety, security and empowerment of all Afghan people. The murder or intimidation of our courageous leaders will not stop us in our struggle to promote and protect human and women’s rights. We ask the people of Afghanistan, and our brothers and sisters around the world, to channel their fear and anger into a renewed and binding commitment to achieve the dreams of Safia Amajan and the many other martyrs who lost their lives in the fight for human and women’s rights.

We ask the people of Afghanistan, and our brothers and sisters around the world, for their solidarity and support in showing the world that the people of Afghanistan believe in peace, demand protection and are willing to fight for the security of their country and families.

It is the sole responsibility of the government of Afghanistan, as delineated in our Constitution and international legal commitments, to protect its citizens from violence and harm, death and discrimination. We ask the government of Afghanistan and the international community to:

*Provide all necessary security provisions – in the form of drivers, bodyguards, secure technology and any other items deemed necessary – to men and women who work as community leaders and government officials.

*Provide financial support to the families of people who are murdered by acts of terrorism or other state related acts of violence.

*Demand that the international community dedicate time, money and resources to uncovering the root causes of social insecurity and terrorism.

*Demand that the international military dedicate time, money and resources to intelligence training for local police and national military.

*Increase the salaries of the police and national army.

*Recruit professional people within the police structure.

*Demand that international human rights organizations initiate research and advocacy intended to apply pressure to international governments and policy bodies.

*Comply with internationally binding legal standards of protection and human rights.

*Protect our borders from neighboring countries that support, harbor and encourage terrorism.

*Expand security policy so that strict, swift action is taken against terrorists despite all political costs.

*Ensure that concrete legal actions are taken to catch, prosecute and punish all men and women involved in acts of terrorism.
Seek out and punish all officials involved in corruption.

~ Statement of the Afghan Women’s Network (AWN) and several NGOs in response to the murder of Safia Amajan.

“I don’t think you support the Taliban. You’ve made it very clear that you think the Taliban is “by any measure” “more or less” an equal “disaster” (in a noncategorical sense; i.e. Disasters and non-disasters are not mutually exclusive) as post invasion Afghanistan. Very clear indeed.”

That is a fair summary of my position.

That’s interesting, because it was intended as a parody of your position.

to leftest, but …
You seems to be leftest but in the case of Israel you totaly forgot what left stand for.
“Without security the people of “…….” are forced to live in a culture of fear, anxiety and uncertainty. Without security the oppressive ideas and actions of our enemies, both at home and abroad, gain increased power and momentum.”
This is just a comment, no desire to discuss Israel with you.

to leftest, but …
You seems to be a leftest but in the case of Israel you totaly forgot what left stand for.
“Without security the people of “…….” are forced to live in a culture of fear, anxiety and uncertainty. Without security the oppressive ideas and actions of our enemies, both at home and abroad, gain increased power and momentum.”
This is just a comment, no desire to discuss Israel with you.

to leftest, but …
You seems to be a leftest but in the case of Israel you totaly forgot what left stand for.
“Without security the people of “…….” are forced to live in a culture of fear, anxiety and uncertainty. Without security the oppressive ideas and actions of our enemies, both at home and abroad, gain increased power and momentum.”
This is just a comment, no desire to discuss Israel with you.

Why so call progressive preferred some Islamic state to some pro Soviet “leftist” dictatorship, where is no political freedom , but at least people have some other freedoms, especially women , that never existed in that countries.

Damn good question, yugoslav. It doesn’t make sense and I think that’s why the SWP, StWC, George Galloway etc. get their asses reamed so often on this blog. :D

Of course, there’s no reason why people (men AND women) can’t have political and social (and even economic) freedom, is there? I think that is what the West and sensible Capitalism is about.

Soviet Union (never see it as socialist country0

That’s funny because both Trotsky and Lenin did.

Neil W:
Sorry I did not answer you question. I was out doing something that had nothing at all to do with U.S. foreign policy.
When did WW2 end? You ARE a tricky one. I’d say: in 1990, when the last regime that entered that conflict in 1939 allied with the Nazis fell.
Since I don’t run policy, and don’t participate in politics, I don’t have to care if things are better or worse in Afghanistan. They are better.
BTW what being a Democrat or a Republican has to do with Afghanistan policy eludes me. Can you explain?

The Irie

I tend to support your views but you’re wasting your time responding to the Fatboys and the odious Schmuels of this world they ask “What would you do”. When in effect they themselves have done nothing but cheer lead for agression and simple minded one dimensional Jingoism.

To them I say get thee to a recruiting office or contractor and put your Jingoism where someone elses life is.

“the Fatboys and the odious Schmuels”

So only the “Shmuels” are odious? I’m offended.

“get thee to a recruiting office”

I guess the analog would be:

Get thee in a burkha and report for your stoning. (Or something.)

Also Ian, could you point to a single comment of mine that seems “Jingoistic”?

to Cosovan,
I am not sure they did. They tried to make it socialist but they failed, probably in 1920. They had taught that there was still chance for socialism in Russia (also under Stalin, by Trotsky) but their had hope in a world socialist revolution , especially in Europe, that would enable Russia to be socialist. Also it was difficult to be objective to your child (for Trotsky).

I’d suggest that the pacifists go string “peace” beads or something. Plant a sapling or arrange flowers. Leave world affairs to the adults. :D

Paul:
The BBC program is a debunking of 911 conspiracy theories. That some people would unquestioningly assume that it is the opposite is predictable, and says far more about their mentality than it does about the BBC.

I was not aware that the BBC program had yet aired. NOw if you had actually bothered to read and comprehend the comments directed at the BBC before posting your little tantrum you would have seen that they were prompted by the fact that a Mike Rudin, who alludes to a role as producer of the new series “conspiracy Files” posted to the BBC editors blog about the 911 cosnpiracy theories and how they would be the subject of the shows first episode. That posting most assuredly is not debunking the 911 cosnpiracy theories and actively pooh poohs aresponses to them whilst also giveing the Conspiracy theorists plenty of colunm time without actually posing any questions of their theories.

So no-one has “unquestioniningly” assumed anything about the show – the questions about the show were raised becasue of the statements made by one of it’s producers as well as the tone of some of it’s advance publicity. The person making unquestioning assumtions here is you – or perhaps you have been granted advance screenings of the show so can report definitively that Mike Rudins comments are not reflected in the actual show, despite his allusions to the comments being prompted by the making of it? But as everyone else has not seen that actual show yet (because it has not yet been aired) and the concern was expressed in relation to the opinion of a Producer maybe you should not be running around making “unquestioning” assumptions about peoples mentality either.

Shmuel

A devestating response;

Witness me writhing on the ground in embarrassment and shame.

“Witness me writhing on the ground in embarrassment and shame.”

It’s not difficult to imagine.

Ok…nice retort, that got a big grin from me. Bastard. :-)

It’s not too difficult when one is dealing with facile meliorists who think the Taliban could have been toppled with a 12-step program.

South Africa on C-SPAN 2.

It’s not too difficult when one is dealing with facile meliorists who think the Taliban could have been toppled with a 12-step program.