History:
How did we get from there to here
Seemorerocks
Seemorerocks
When
I was growing up Islam looked very different to what it does now and
there were left-wing liberation struggles in all th countries of the
region.
It
was common for young New Zealanders to travel overland to Europe
through Afghnaistan and iran.
All
that finished in 1979 with the Russian intervention in Afghanistan
and the Islamic revolution in Iran.
Look
here at Gadaffi's warning to the west. He was warning about what in
fact tranpsired.
Gaddafi's Prophecy, 2011 - "Europe will turn black"
“All
is fair in love and war” – where nothing is out of bounds and all
the rules of ‘hard play’ are acceptable. The story of Muammar
Gaddafi vs. West reminded me of this saying – it is one of the
ultimate betrayal and manipulation. Once upon a time, Libya was every
Capitalist’s nightmare. Its people didn’t exist simply to pay the
bills – there were no rental costs, there were no electricity and
utilities costs, education and medical care was free. Much like the
Soviet Union, for a number of decades Libya was a flourishing
socialist state.
But the West has a serious issue with authoritarian leaders. Current democracies require disposable leadership, in order to obliterate responsibility. In a parallel reality however - a “leader” is not one who spends the most on an election campaign and wins. A leader is not one who comes into office for 4 years, to look important. A leader is not one who is cleared of any responsibility for the reforms or policies that were pushed through under their administration.
Democracies corrupt our terminology – using “authoritarian” and “dictator” interchangeably – when it’s not the same thing at all. A true leader comes around once in a blue moon – and when the people recognise it, he stays for a long time. Democracies go nuts trying to discredit him [unless they installed him themselves].
The US 1986 attempt to assassinate Gaddafi failed. In 1992, they took a different approach by imposing sanctions for being “a dictator.” We now know that sanctions are never about taking the moral high ground – it is about asserting force, it is about bankrupting a country, it is about attacking their revenue streams – in this case, oil – it is about freezing its financial assets, just so that they will do as they are told.
As Libya’s economy was so dependent on oil – the only option was to mend ties with the West, agreeing to dismantle the majority of Libya’s armed forces. Gaddafi wrapped up his military programmes and the oil trade resumed. However, as we continue to learn, the West’s appetite for control in countries not their own is insatiable. “The only mistake I made was trusting the Westerners” – Gaddafi is quoted as saying.
Sarkozy was the first to launch a blow against Gaddafi; the very man who had funded him, helping him to become the President of France. It is said that the Sarkozy campaign received around 50 million Euros from Gaddafi in 2007.
Having orchestrated the government coup, the Western coalition killed the Colonel and plunged the country into chaos. The authoritarian leader once ruled Libya’s many clans “with an iron fist”, providing the closest thing to anti-capitalist utopia. Today inter-ethnic conflict prevails and the country is in shambles. Hillary Clinton cackles wildly.
But that is where the Western ‘outwitting’ of Gaddafi stops. The Colonel had warned that Libya is the only real gatekeeper between Africa and Europe. Without a hard stance on human traffickers, Gaddafi prophesised that “the European continent will turn black.” The Libyan government used to patrol its coasts, often dealing to traffickers harshly. Gaddafi was criticised for this by predominantly Soros’ “human rights” NGOS. In 2016, traffickers do business uninterrupted, and can make up to a million dollars per boat load of refugees into Europe.
[Caution: The video gets loud at 12.10 – but watch for the Westerner who is probably US special forces. They should not have been in Libya at the time – this was against international law. As explained by Putin in the video after, the Western coalition, using the appropriate tools of international law – the United Nations - imposed a No Fly Zone over Libya. In complete and blatant contravention to it, they took out Gaddafi’s regiment using drones.]
International law is officially for honest suckers.
(at 7.48 is a typo - it should say 2003 not 2013)
But the West has a serious issue with authoritarian leaders. Current democracies require disposable leadership, in order to obliterate responsibility. In a parallel reality however - a “leader” is not one who spends the most on an election campaign and wins. A leader is not one who comes into office for 4 years, to look important. A leader is not one who is cleared of any responsibility for the reforms or policies that were pushed through under their administration.
Democracies corrupt our terminology – using “authoritarian” and “dictator” interchangeably – when it’s not the same thing at all. A true leader comes around once in a blue moon – and when the people recognise it, he stays for a long time. Democracies go nuts trying to discredit him [unless they installed him themselves].
The US 1986 attempt to assassinate Gaddafi failed. In 1992, they took a different approach by imposing sanctions for being “a dictator.” We now know that sanctions are never about taking the moral high ground – it is about asserting force, it is about bankrupting a country, it is about attacking their revenue streams – in this case, oil – it is about freezing its financial assets, just so that they will do as they are told.
As Libya’s economy was so dependent on oil – the only option was to mend ties with the West, agreeing to dismantle the majority of Libya’s armed forces. Gaddafi wrapped up his military programmes and the oil trade resumed. However, as we continue to learn, the West’s appetite for control in countries not their own is insatiable. “The only mistake I made was trusting the Westerners” – Gaddafi is quoted as saying.
Sarkozy was the first to launch a blow against Gaddafi; the very man who had funded him, helping him to become the President of France. It is said that the Sarkozy campaign received around 50 million Euros from Gaddafi in 2007.
Having orchestrated the government coup, the Western coalition killed the Colonel and plunged the country into chaos. The authoritarian leader once ruled Libya’s many clans “with an iron fist”, providing the closest thing to anti-capitalist utopia. Today inter-ethnic conflict prevails and the country is in shambles. Hillary Clinton cackles wildly.
But that is where the Western ‘outwitting’ of Gaddafi stops. The Colonel had warned that Libya is the only real gatekeeper between Africa and Europe. Without a hard stance on human traffickers, Gaddafi prophesised that “the European continent will turn black.” The Libyan government used to patrol its coasts, often dealing to traffickers harshly. Gaddafi was criticised for this by predominantly Soros’ “human rights” NGOS. In 2016, traffickers do business uninterrupted, and can make up to a million dollars per boat load of refugees into Europe.
[Caution: The video gets loud at 12.10 – but watch for the Westerner who is probably US special forces. They should not have been in Libya at the time – this was against international law. As explained by Putin in the video after, the Western coalition, using the appropriate tools of international law – the United Nations - imposed a No Fly Zone over Libya. In complete and blatant contravention to it, they took out Gaddafi’s regiment using drones.]
International law is officially for honest suckers.
(at 7.48 is a typo - it should say 2003 not 2013)
Something that is generally well-known but for which it is hard to find direct evidence.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.
And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Translated from the French by Bill Blum
Modern
Afghanistan Women before 1992 Mujaheddin and Taliban
By
Julie Lévesque
Women’s
rights are increasingly heralded as a useful propaganda device to
further imperial designs.
Western
heads of state, UN officials and military spokespersons will
invariably praise the humanitarian dimension of the October 2001
US-NATO led invasion of Afghanistan, which allegedly was to fight
religious fundamentalists, help little girls go to school, liberate
women subjected to the yoke of the Taliban.
The
logic of such a humanitarian dimension of the Afghan war is
questionable. Lest we forget, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were supported
from the very outset of the Soviet-Afghan war by the US, as part of a
CIA led covert operation.
As
described by the Revolutionary
Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA):
The
US and her allies tried to legitimize their military occupation of
Afghanistan under the banner of “bringing freedom and democracy for
Afghan people”. But as we have experienced in the past three
decades, in regard to the fate of our people, the US government first
of all considers her own political and economic interests and has
empowered and equipped the most traitorous, anti-democratic,
misogynist and corrupt fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan.
It
was the US which installed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 1996,
a foreign policy strategy which resulted in the demise of Afghan
women’s rights:
Under
NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channelled through
Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also
supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely
to secure the demise of secular institutions. (Michel
Chossudovsky, 9/11
ANALYSIS: From Ronald Reagan and the Soviet-Afghan War to George W
Bush and September 11, 2001,
Global Research, September 09, 2010)
Religious
schools were generously funded by the United States of America:
Education
in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was
largely secular. The US covert education destroyed secular education.
The number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrassas) increased
from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000 [in 2001]. (Ibid.)
Afghan women now. (AFP
Photo / Shah Marai)
Afghan women in the 1970s
before the CIA-led intervention
Unknown
to the American public, the US spread the teachings of the Islamic
jihad in textbooks “Made
in America” developed
at the University of Nebraska:
… the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books…
The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books “are fully in compliance with US law and policy.” Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.
… AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.
“It’s not AID’s policy to support religious instruction,” Stratos said. “But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.”
… Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.” (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
Historical
Flashback
Before
the Taliban came to power, Afghan women lived a life in many
ways similar
to that of Western women
In
the 1980s, Kabul was “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies
flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and
business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government
jobs.” There were female members of parliament, and women
drove cars, and travelled and went on dates, without needing to ask a
male guardian for permission.
Ironically,
the rights of women as described by RAWA prior to the US sponsored
jihadist insurgency is confirmed in a 2010 article published by
Foreign Policy (2010), a Washington Post mouthpiece founded by Samuel
Huntington:
The
physical campus of Kabul University, pictured here, does not look
very different today. But the people do. In the 1950s and ’60s,
students wore Western-style clothing; young men and women interacted
relatively freely. Today, women cover their heads and much of their
bodies, even in Kabul. A half-century later, men and women inhabit
much more separate worlds.
In
the 1950s and ’60s, women were able to pursue professional careers
in fields such as medicine. Today, schools that educate women are a
target for violence, even more so than five or six years ago.
So,
too, were record stores, bringing the rhythm and energy of the
Western world to Kabul teenagers.
“Hundreds
of Afghan youngsters take active part in Scout programs.”
Afghanistan
once had Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. In the 1950s and ’60s, such
programs were very similar to their counterparts in the United
States, with students in elementary and middle schools learning about
nature trails, camping, and public safety. But scouting troops
disappeared entirely after the Soviet invasions in the late
1970s. (Mohammad Qayoumi Once
Upon a Time in Afghanistan…,
Foreign Policy, May 27, 2010)
The
acute reader will have noticed the insidious disinformation in the
previous caption. We are led to believe that the liberal lifestyle of
Afghan women was destroyed by the Soviet Union, when in fact it was
the result of US support to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Acknowledged by
US foreign policy Advisor Zbignew Brzezinski, Moscow’s action in
support of the Kabul pro-Soviet government was to counter the
Islamist Mujahedin insurgency supported covertly by the CIA:
Indeed,
it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive
for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.
And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I
explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a
Soviet military intervention [...]
That
secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing
the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The
day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to
President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR
its Vietnam war. (The
CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Nouvel
Observateur,
1998, Global Research, October 15, 2001)
In
1982, President Ronald Reagan even dedicated
the space shuttle Columbia to
the US supported Islamist “freedom
fighters” in
Afghanistan, namely Al Qaeda and the Taliban:
Just
as Columbia we think represents man’s finest aspirations in the
field of science and technology, so too does the struggle of the
Afghan people represent man’s highest aspirations for freedom.
Ronald
Reagan meeting with the Taliban in 1985: ’”These gentlemen
(the Taliban) are the moral equivalents of America’s founding father.”
Yet,
both the US and the governments of NATO members claim the US-NATO
military presence in Afghanistan was instrumental in promoting
women’s rights. The fact of the matter is that those rights were
abolished by the US-backed Taliban regime which came to power with
the support of Washington.
The US State Department’s Syrian Women’s Network
How
does the history of women in Afghanistan relate to women’s rights
in Syria in the context of the current crisis?
The
undeclared US-NATO war on Syria (2011-2013) in support of Al Qaeda
affiliated rebels appears to have a similar logic, namely the
destruction of secular education and the demise of women’s rights.
Will
Syrian women be facing the same grim future as that of Afghan women
under the Taliban regime?
Last
January, “a
diverse group of Syrian women” said
to be “representing
the leading opposition movements” attended
a conference hosted by the Women’s Democracy Network (WDN),
in coordination with the U.S. Department of State’s Office of
Global Women’s Issues in Doha, Qatar.
WDN
is an initiative of the International
Republican Institute,
well-known for supporting dissidents in various countries defying US
imperialism. The US State Department is clearly using “women’s
rights”as
a tool, while at the same time it is funding an
Islamist “opposition” with
a view to undermining the secular state and eventually installing an
Islamist government in Damascus.
The
Syrian Women’s Network was formed at the US-sponsored conference
and a Charter was written“to
ensure women are included in the conflict resolution and transition
of their country“:
In the charter, participants call for equal rights and representation for all Syrians, demanding equal participation of women at all international meetings, negotiations, constitution drafting and reconciliation committees and in elected governing bodies. The charter also covers topics including prevention of and prosecution for acts of violence against women, access to education and the overall need for women’s participation in ongoing conflict resolution while ensuring women’s future participation in the rebuilding of Syria. U.S. government leaders also participated in the conference, underscoring their support of the Syrian women [...] In her remarks, Carla Koppell, senior coordinator for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the United States Agency for International Development [USAID], advised, “If the most diverse group of women can find a common agenda, it will have enormous strength.” (Women Demand Role in Syria’s Transition and Reconciliation, January 28, 2013, emphasis added.)
Monica
McWilliams, founder of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition
(left) and Deputy Prime Minister of Kosovo Edita Tahiri (right) share
their experiences with participants of a conference in Doha, Qatar,
where Charter of the Syrian Women’s Network was adopted by a
diverse group of Syrian women representing the leading opposition
movements in the country.(Photo from wdn.org)
The
first striking paradox of this conference is that it is being held in
Qatar, a country where women’s rights remain limited, to say the
least. In mid-March, the Qatar government even expressed
concerns“about
references to women’s sexual and reproductive rights“ which
are contained in the UN Declaration of the Commission on the Status
of Women called Elimination
and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls.
Second
paradox: USAID, which contributed to the demise of women’s rights
by promoting religious indoctrination in Afghanistan, is now
promoting women’s rights to bring about regime change in Syria. In
the meantime, the US along with Qatar and Saudi Arabia is supporting
Islamist extremist groups fighting against the secular Syrian
government. Some so-called “liberated
areas” in
Syria are now
run by religious extremists:
“Religious
Wahhabi school and women’s rights in a ‘liberated’ area
of Aleppo run by the US-Saudi backed ‘opposition’, ‘a definite
improvement’ when compared to the prevailing system of secular
education in Syria.” (Michel
Chossudovsky, Syria:
Women’s Rights and Islamist Education in a “Liberated” Area of
Aleppo,
Global Research, March 27, 2013.)
Were
a US proxy regime to be installed in Damascus, the rights and
liberties of Syrian women might well be following the
same “freedom-threatening
path” as
that of Afghan women under the US-backed Taliban regime and
continuing under the US-NATO occupation.
Julie
Lévesque is
a journalist and researcher with the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG), Montreal. She was among the first independent
journalists to visit Haiti in the wake of the January 2010
earthquake. In 2011, she was on board “The Spirit of Rachel
Corrie”, the only humanitarian vessel which penetrated Gaza
territorial waters before being shot at by the Israeli Navy.
Another country wrecked by the United States was Laos. Obomber on his recent visit stepped short of apologising for war crimes.
Obama
visited Laos after rubbing elbows with world leaders at the G20 in
China.
“Given
our history here, I believe that the United States has a moral
obligation to help Laos heal,” he said.
Between
1964 and 1973 the Pentagon dropped over two million tons of ordnance
on Laos during 580,000 bombing missions making Laos the most heavily
bombed country per capita in history. The massive bombing raids—equal
to a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes, 24-hours a day, for 9
years—were launched because the US was unable to defeat the Pathet
Lao on the ground. The Pathet Lao went to war after they were
excluded from the government and jailed by CIA-installed strongman
Phoumi Nosavan
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.