SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | USA Provokes Russia into War Against Georgia


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: Searle Sennett3/10/2012 7:13:30 AM
1 Recommendation   of 6878
 
In Afghanistan it's lies that are really killing our soldiers

The phoney oratory of British national security so beloved of Cameron and his generals has lost all contact with reality.


guardian.co.uk 



People lay floral tributes at the barracks of the 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment in Warminster, Wiltshire. Photograph: Tim Ireland/PA

Sometimes they have to lie. As the British death toll in Afghanistan rises past 400, every news item tells of reverses, mistakes and a desperation to withdraw. Someone has to hold the line. Those whose job is to fight and possibly die for their country need to believe they do so for a purpose. A nation bidding them to die needs it too.

Hence the prime minister has to assert the six-year attempt to cleanse Taliban from Helmand province as " vital to our national security", when everyone knows that this is absurd. The defence secretary, Philip Hammond, has to say: "We owe it to the all too many who have sacrificed their lives to see this mission successfully concluded." The chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, has to claim that "truly impressive" progress has been made, and " We will hold our nerve". The former head of the army, Sir Richard Dannatt, asserts that we have "exposed al-Qaida's cynical manipulation of Islam, and so made the UK and the west safer". The general on the ground, James Bucknall, says that "now is not the time to blink".

So far, so obligatory. But the impression is of a speak-your-war machine that has has lost any contact with reality. Preparing the nation for defeat may require the phoney oratory of national security. But when the trumpets and drums depart, the country is left with grim facts. Far more true was Thursday's remark of a service widow, Wendy Rayner, who protested that, after this is all over, "the poor people who are left will go back to the same crappy lifestyle that they had before our lot went in".

General Richards declares that the Afghanistan operations "did not start out of nothing, or from vainglorious adventure, they were triggered by a terrorist atrocity which still casts a shadow over our world" – a world united, he said, in the need to remove the perpetrators of 9/11 from their bolt hole in Afghanistan. Although they were only a "fringe movement", they were still a threat. The threat would continue, said the general, as long as Afghanistan lacked "institutions that ensure a country can govern and take responsibility for itself". Therefore British arms should create such institutions.

These assertions are empty of meaning, sent to smithereens by the blast of an exploding Warrior. They have been trotted out for a decade in Afghanistan, along with the usual drivel of corners being turned and lights at the end of tunnels. States hate other states bossing them about, and hate it more the longer the bossing continues, especially when done with the cruelty and incompetence on daily display in Afghanistan. They give support to anti-occupation insurgents, and resent being told by pompous generals that such support endangers the "national security" of distant peoples. The war the Taliban fighters are waging with vigour and success is to regain the integrity of Afghanistan, no more or less.

The postimperial claim that a Taliban Afghanistan poses an existential threat to Britain is so daft that only very intelligent men would dare try it on a public they regard as stupid. Osama bin Laden pulled off a coup on 9/11, but it never threatened any state as a nation. And if anyone or anything can take credit for it not being repeated, it is domestic security, not Nato's global reach. If anything, the much vaunted safety of Britain's streets has been diminished by Tony Blair's obsessive wars against Islamic states. Look round fortress London.

The reason British troops are still dying in Afghanistan is because a shocked Bush administration felt in 2001 that it had to fight someone to avenge the humiliation of 9/11. It did so not in a futile attempt to eradicate "bolt holes" (which can be anywhere) but as a retaliatory class action against a country too weak to fight back. It had all the subtlety of the Third Crusade. Rather than counsel restraint, Britain recklessly joined in, and an unemployed Nato did likewise. The price has been paid by the poorest people on earth, but even America can now ill afford the $100bn a year it is costing. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is most certainly fighting back.

There is no conceivable reason for Britain to remain in Afghanistan. The Afghan army and police are unable to assert Kabul's control over the country, and thus offer any reassurance that there will be no bolt holes. Pakistan is blatantly pursuing its own Afghan agenda, now in alliance with the Taliban. Their reported dominance over more and more provinces is a wretched comment on 10 years of campaigning by the world's most sophisticated military powers. Even in the capital, Kabul, foreigners can no longer roam free outside their fortified enclaves.

Britain desperately needs to engineer a dignified retreat. It does not own Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is not its business. The ambition to bring Afghanistan democracy, security and gender awareness was unjustified and has failed. Its internal government is for Afghans (and their neighbours) to ordain, and is not a feasible task for British soldiers and taxpayers.

Even now, British strategy is puzzling. Aid is being poured into the country, much of it stolen, wasted or departing in suitcases on the next plane to Dubai. Both Britain and America have signalled their exit by 2014, leaving Afghans to make peace with whomever they regard as the enemy. Meanwhile, American marines are planning to leave Helmand this summer, which puts British soldiers back in an exposed position, mentoring an unreliable Kabul army to keep Pashtun fighters at bay. The prospect is of a retreat as depressing as from Basra in 2007, with local troops expected to continue a civil war that Nato began. Everyone knows the Taliban will just take over.

The one hope now is that those in authority and with influence over authority (which includes the media) might stop lying. The language of reassurance may be needed by troops at the front, given the obscenity of their continuing to die for a pointless cause. Greater assurance would come from knowing that such language does not privately deceive those using it in public, those responsible for this defeat. When, as must be the case, there is a Chilcot-style inquiry into the Afghan fiasco, leaders of Labour and Conservative governments have serious explaining to do. They must explain not just what they did but what they said they were doing, and why.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Searle Sennett who wrote (6689)3/10/2012 12:12:04 PM
From: swivel-eyed loon
   of 6878
 
Perhaps....the lawyers are sharpening their litigious knives.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Searle Sennett3/17/2012 5:11:25 PM
2 Recommendations   of 6878
 
CIA Agent Exposes How Al-Qaeda Doesn't Exist


youtube.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Searle Sennett3/23/2012 6:24:03 PM
   of 6878
 
Former Israeli spy chief: Jews facing 'wave of terror' worldwide



JERUSALEM – A former head of Israel's Mossad spy agency says a shooting attack on a Jewish school in France is part of a "wave of terror" being directed against Jews and Israelis worldwide.

Danny Yatom spoke to Israel Radio after a gunman opened fire at a school Monday in the French city of Toulouse, killing a rabbi, his two sons and another child.

Yatom says he believes Iran or its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah is likely behind the attack, but did not elaborate. He says assailants prefer Jewish civilian targets because they are easier to hit than Israeli ones.

It was not clear who carried out Monday's attack.

Israel views Iran as an existential threat because of its nuclear program, support for militant groups and calls for the Jewish state's destruction.




Read more: foxnews.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Searle Sennett who wrote (6693)3/24/2012 7:20:10 AM
From: SARMAN
   of 6878
 
He forgot to mention Hamas. Oops. Sarkozy denied the Jewish state the satisfaction to blame Iran. Instead he blame it on AQ.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SARMAN who wrote (6694)3/24/2012 9:55:10 AM
From: Searle Sennett
   of 6878
 
Sharky screwed up comprehensively - the AQ story is bullshit.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/23/despite-claims-no-sign-french-attacker-had-al-qaeda-ties/


Despite Claims, No Sign French Attacker Had al-Qaeda Ties

Before Being Killed, Merah Insisted He Trained With al-Qaeda

Despite his claims to the contrary, French officials today say they have found no evidence that Mohamed Merah actually had al-Qaeda ties before his death yesterday in a gunfight with police.

During the standoff, Merah had claimed to have attended an al-Qaeda training camp in Waziristan, and also cited the group as “inspiration” for his attacks, though he didn’t appear to have claimed he was taking orders from them.

Merah’s multiple shootings have led to questions for President Nicolas Sarkozy about why his government wasn’t more closely surveilling him. So far, the only answer has been a threat to mass imprison those caught reading websites like the ones Merah read.

It has also led the European Union to talk more about “lone wolves”— potential attackers who are not affiliated with any terrorist group. EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove claimed some 400 “lone wolves” in the EU, and insisted that all are “obviously monitored.”





Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Searle Sennett who wrote (6695)3/24/2012 2:07:40 PM
From: SARMAN
   of 6878
 
Yes, more importantly Sarkozy screwed Bibi for not linking him to Iran. What I found a bit odd is the communication between the killer and the French authorities were never broadcasted, it was only the government spokesperson telling us about what was the conversation about. It will be said day for Israel if mossad gets implicated.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: SARMAN who wrote (6696)3/24/2012 5:23:14 PM
From: Searle Sennett
1 Recommendation   of 6878
 
Impossible for Mossad to be implicated, certainly by the Western media.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SARMAN who wrote (6696)3/24/2012 5:54:27 PM
From: Searle Sennett
1 Recommendation   of 6878
 



Successful military exercises


xymphora.blogspot.com 


" Robert Bales – Lone Nut or Scapegoat?" by Justin Raimondo:

". . . it is certainly possible Bales went to two residences, killed 16 women and children, and then gathered up the bodies and burned them in the space of a couple of hours, with no assistance from anyone - but how likely is it?"

" Is it an Israeli False Flag Again?" by Gilad Atzmon:

"Israeli press reported this evening that French gunman Mohamed Merah had been on a trip to Israel in the past.

According to the report, Merah's passport had Israeli stamps in it. The purpose of his visit is unknown. Israeli analysts suspect he was either trying to visit the Palestinian territories or preparing for a terror attack.

However, I won’t rule out the possibility that Merah was actually trained by Israeli forces. Marah may have conducted a false flag operation. By way of deception is, after all, the Mossad’s motto."

Don't these life-long losers get around? He may have received training in Israel, but it seems his main training was in Afghanistan, probably in a camp run by the CIA (that's how the Americans had him in custody in Afghanistan, and returned him to France). He was about to be sent back to jail, and help with that problem is probably the hold they had over him. The very peculiar overnight stay attempting to join the Foreign Legion (!) was probably how he received his final instructions. In the duality peculiar to patsies, he had some acquaintances saying they can't imagine how he could have been involved in such a thing, and others describing in great detail how he was involved in proselytizing jihad (ostentatiously building a legend about his being a devout radical Islamist that seems to have had absolutely nothing to do with the man himself). The French government didn't have to kill him, but if they took him alive they would have had to jackruby him before he could talk. The exercise worked: Sarko jumped in the polls.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Searle Sennett who wrote (6697)3/25/2012 12:01:09 AM
From: SARMAN
   of 6878
 
The French intelligence go a black eye. They were supposed to be following the guy and failed to stop him. Something should come out of an investigation.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.