Why exactly Afghanistan

I sense sarcasm, yet if somebody asked you to invest only 1000 Euros in a venture to build a pipeline through 1000 miles of terrorist-infested mountains, what would your response be? You'd laugh at them before throwing your money away in such a lunatic project. So, of course no corporate interest would invest billions in the same project.

Knowing that, why would anyone take such a suggestion seriously? Remember, Brzesinski is a left winger who has every reason to drum up hatred against Bush.

Remember too, many years have passed and no oil schemes (or any other investment) has materialized.

 

http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/war111901a.htm

 

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

 

The author of this article is Wayne Madsen, a conspiracy nut and out-right kook. Here is a segment with fellow kook Alex Jones. In this case he's making the case that the Boston Bombers were US government assets and the Boston attacks were part of a secret government scheme.
Contrary to what is portrayed in the movies and spy novels, the governments clandestine "spook"/"alphabet" agencies are no where near as competant as these conspiracy people think they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSGxSEr7NMQ

 

Thanks Price! This is what I've also noticed: the most of the sources about this subject are either government sponsored or work of conspiracy theorists.

 

Yesterday I spoke to my daughter, she is a journalist. I am one of these who has privilege to talk to own child seriously. She told me that a journalist must be a "Robin Hood" because influential people have enough money and power to present their ideas, other people need a journalist to talk for them.

If the USA and the British Empire were the the weaker party in this conflict I would have supported their side. Afghanis are the weaker side in this case and I would like to present their difficulties in this conflict with a mighty agressor.

Media has substantial inflence on the public opinion. In media Afghanis are de-personified - you can see just faces of men with beards and kalasnikovs in their hands. Uggly pictures are prefered to make people easier swallow their death. I would like to present you Pastuni people such at they are - nice and ordinary just like all of us.

This is a Pashtuni boy and a Pashtuni woman. They are just human beeings, like all of us:

 

Pricey..Ive seen the guy who calls him that...Sullivan...a nutter of the first order himself...For a conspiracy nut the USA has sure employed him in some good NSA posts.

 

Mr. Sullivan himself...one of our own...Great bloke..not.

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

 

I supose the BBC are conspiracy nut jobs too...

 

Tamino - we are no longer part of an Empire and I don't see any depersonalisation of the Afghan people in the press or TV - on the contrary they are usually portrayed as poor unfortunates stuck in the middle of conflict not of their making and meriting our sympathy,

I don't wish to cast any aspersions on your daughter's integrity but at the end of the day Journalists are paid for "stories". No story - no money.

Many years ago I paid a local BBC reporter to get us PR coverage in the local press and news. He was very good and reasonably inexpensive.

One day I met him at the studios and he was completing a piece for the BBC Local News about a Russian fleet of trawlers anchored off the Devon Coast hoovering up all the fish.

In my innocence I said to him "Well that's terrible, we should do something about - is it true"

"How should I know" he says "they pay me for producing pieces (stories)".

End of my innocence - everyone has an angle, rich or poor, journalist or politician and there is always a matter of money involved.

 

How much would you charge us to take him back???

No, I actually find the BBC to be an excellent news source, an opinion I have had for many, many years. We used to try to listen to BBC radio broadcasts, when I was in the service, to get the real news as opposed to the politically skewed, or popularity driven news broadcast by our native news agencies. Even today, I most often give British based news organizations more creedence than US based ones. My habit is, when following a news story or looking into a topic, to read a number of sources on the same topic, choosing a sampling of left leaning, right leaning, centrist, domestic and foreign. Determining where they all agree, (these are usually the facts), adjusting for editorial or national bias, re-evaluate using common sense and personal real world experience, and then using that as my base, follow the story with that starting point as my point of reference. When the sons were in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa, I often would read Al Jazeera and actual Jihadists postings on the web. By doing so and comparing it against US government press releases, and commercial news sources, applying common sense and reason to your analysis, you can usually get really close to the truth.

 

Dear Scipio, I guess you understand that I respect you and your point of view in general. I also respect other members of this community very highly..

With all respect, you can get a stunner for 100EURO too and she can be "very good and reasonably inexpensive." But that ain't journalism anymore. Prostitution, perhaps.

Exactly what I'm telling you: "a bang for a buck".

Again, that's what I am telling you, but these poor Asian shepards have no money for a real solicitor. Hence, I want to be their "pro bono".

Respectfully,

Tamino

 

I d give you a like pricey but all out...And no you can keep that character...we have enough of them still...in fact You can have some more of em..they seem to like travelling...we should never let them back in.

No I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the guys writings. I only know that the Taliban did as reported by the BBC visit Texas at a time none of us should have been entertaining the Taliban. They didn't just spring up around ali q on 9/11 as you for one know...Having any dealings with them when both our int communities were fully knowledgeable of what they were, who they were and virtually being in a cold to warm off therails war with them even at that time precludes giving them the welcome they then received in Texas...You've seen the pictures and the film, I know your not daft. The fact they were inviited is no conspiracy that is a fact that could and should not be hidden.

The rest of his writing...Like Pravda of old and kill the messenger...it would be more interesting to explain what in his piece actually was not true or did not happen..They didn't come to visit the Alamo mate.

 

Tamino....you'll find many of us understand the innocents and their plight...There are always innocents and their plight. That fact in many conflicts will always be with us...we will always be making more enemies through this route also.

But I do not think for one moment the innocents are intentionally targetted.

None should die or be injured...we should not be there and no innocents or our own should be in the line of fire.

However we are...The only was to stop harming the innocents is to stop the war..not just getting out...uav and remotely targetting will still cary on long after last combat troops leave so inncents will still get killed and maimed.

The question we must ask if we are still bombing them or hellfiring or brimstoning them from Reapers in 5 years time...is surely ....why?

Will it be because ali q are there...or just we don't support the Taliban...if its the latter we have no business there...if Afghans don't want the Taliban, they won't have the Taliban...it may be bloody...but we need to step back...something we should have done after initial mission and Northern Alliance victory...at that point we had no business there and still don't.

We have won nothing...We ultimitly will change nothing...only the Afghans can do that...and not some corrupt puppet we install or place on an election list for them to install..

Is our problem now with Taliban? If so we are stupid. If its with Ali q then Pakistan etc is where we should be covertly doing the business...The Taliban are and never have been a threat to Liverpool, Innsubruck or Alberta...We have made a mess and our own stupid religious fundamentalists born in our own countries have been given a cause to look up to and fight for.

But hey ho...lets go to Syria...Biological weapons apparantly....but lets forget the release of such weaponry by our new friends the rebels...soon to be our new enemies...but lets arm em anyway.

 

British defence secretary..some admittance at last...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10121753/Philip-Hammond-Afghanistan-war-is-our-Vietnam.html

 

Odd that you don't consider the non-Taliban Afghani's as the weaker side...? The Taliban has never represented Afghanistan, they were just the most ruthless group. They took power by murdering the opposition and they kept power by murdering the opposition.

I'm reminded of a story that came out a year or so ago. A Talibani leader was engaged to a young village woman. Another Talibani leader wanted her and had a "one hour marriage" performed. He raped her and then divorced her. The first Talibani was outraged, so they had the local Talibani cleric decide the case. He decided that since the woman had been engaged she had committed adultery, so she was taken to the village dump and executed. This satisfied everybody.

And you support these people?

 

That is sad:

 

Saudi Arabia has the same Shariat law but they are a "friendly" nation???

I just wouldn't bother "changing" them. That's their culture, their rules, their internal matters.

 

There is an argument that they, the radical Islam, intend to change our countries. About a week ago I watched on PBS (not a conservative voice in America) the last half of a Indipendent English film where the film maker was interviewing a former mate (Anglo-English) both who converted to Islam and his new circle of friends. It was quite clear that their goal was not live and let live, but to creat a Shariat state in Great Britain.

This does not represent every muslim to be sure, but it is not a matter that if we leave them alone, they will stay peacably within their own homelands.

 

The language thing again.........The Taliban I think we'll find were the agressors...not maybe against the west as such...but providing logistics and comforts to Ali Q when they knew they were taking their fight rightly or wrongly to the west makes them as much the initial agressor as Ali Q...

Our use of the words insurgents though is equally wrong...The Taliban in Afghanistan unless they are not Afghani are not insurgents..they are local guerillas. Give them that at least...

The term insurgent, is bandied round so much now that it is worthless...protesters in the UK have been labelled insurgents for the very fact they protest legally in the UK...its a badge of pride to some of them now...