michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 13, 2006 10:41:12 GMT 4
The Other War By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Friday 08 September 2006 Most people in the United States haven't given a moment's thought to the war in Afghanistan in a very long time. That war is over, we are told, and we won. The Taliban was routed, and al Qaeda lost a safe haven. Seventy-four families have had a different experience, however. Seventy-four families have received the awful notification since the beginning of 2006, telling them their child was killed in Afghanistan. 333 American soldiers have died there since we first invaded. The war in Afghanistan, as it turns out, is far from over. On September 20, 2001, nine days after the attacks on Washington and New York, George W. Bush made a promise to the American people. "We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest," said Bush. "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Tough talk, right? These sentiments have been augmented ad nauseam, through the years and into this last week, with Bush ramming the rods in an attempt to remind people that only his administration and its Republican Congressional allies can protect us. At almost the exact moment during this past week that Bush was once again hammering home his terrorism talking points, a so-called ally in the War on Terror was cutting a deal with the Taliban. "In a move that some say appears 'a total capitulation' to pro-Taliban forces," reports the Christian Science Monitor, "Pakistan signed a peace deal with tribal leaders in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan Tuesday, and is withdrawing military forces in exchange for promises that militant tribal groups there will not engage in terrorist activities." The apparent surrender of Pakistan to the Taliban signals a dire turn of events for the region. Taliban forces will now feel emboldened to expand their reach and power in Afghanistan, which will further endanger American and international forces there. Even before this peace deal was cut, the Taliban was flexing its muscles. "The Taliban have regained control over the southern half of Afghanistan and their frontline is advancing daily," reported the Inter Press News Agency. "The report on the reconstruction of Afghanistan marking the fifth anniversary of 9/11 is based on extensive field research in the critical provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Herat and Nangarhar. 'The Taliban frontline now cuts halfway through the country, encompassing all of the southern provinces,' the Senlis Council report says. The Senlis Council is an international policy think tank with offices in Kabul, London, Paris and Brussels." The Senlis report also states that "A humanitarian crisis of starvation and poverty has gripped the south of the country," and blames "The U.S. and UK-led failed counter-narcotics and military policies" for this situation. Opium production in Afghanistan has increased 60% this year. A record crop of 6,100 tons of opium was harvested this year, amounting to 610 tons of heroin. This amount overtops global demand for heroin by a full third. "Officials warned that the illicit trade is undermining the Afghan government," reports the Associated Press, "which is under attack by Islamic militants that a U.S.-led offensive helped drive from power in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida bases. The bulk of the opium increase was in lawless Helmand province, where cultivation rose 162 percent and accounted for 42 percent of the Afghan crop. The province has been wracked by the surge in attacks by Taliban-led militants that has produced the worst fighting in five years." So, to recap: Bush promised us that not only terrorists, but any nation that aids terrorists, would feel America's wrath. Less than five years after the invasion of Afghanistan, that nation is being overrun once again by the Taliban. Their heroin production has reached historic peaks, thus leaving them flush with capital. Pakistan, meanwhile, enjoys ally status with the United States while cutting peace deals with the Taliban. Osama bin Laden, by the way, remains alive and free, and is far safer now that Pakistan has folded its cards. That the Bush administration pretends it has even a tiny handle on the wars it has unleashed, in Afghanistan and Iraq, is almost beyond comprehension. The United States, thanks to their fuzzy-minded leadership, is presently losing two wars at the same time. Everyone knows matters are dire in Iraq. Soon now, the unraveling situation in Afghanistan will begin making banner headlines. The body counts will rise. At some point soon, as with Iraq, the rhetoric from the White House will once again transmogrify from "Mission Accomplished" to "Stay the Course." But then again, there is an up-side to all this. The American economy is faltering, after all, while Afghan heroin production is exploding. What good is an economic downturn without a good supply of smack? Thank you, Mr. Bush. Source: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090806J.shtml*************************************************** Related Story:Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye AmericaBy Syed Saleem Shahzad 09/07/06 "Asia Times" -- -- MIRANSHAH, North Waziristan - With a truce between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad now in place, the Pakistani government is in effect reverting to its pre-September 11, 2001, position in which it closed its eyes to militant groups allied with al-Qaeda and clearly sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan.While the truce has generated much attention, a more significant development is an underhand deal between pro-al-Qaeda elements and Pakistan in which key al-Qaeda figures will either not be arrested or those already in custody will be set free. This has the potential to sour Islamabad's relations with Washington beyond the point of no return. On Tuesday, Pakistan agreed to withdraw its forces from the restive Waziristan tribal areas bordering Afghanistan in return for a pledge from tribal leaders to stop attacks by Pakistani Taliban across the border. Most reports said that the stumbling block toward signing this truce had been the release of tribals from Pakistani custody. But most tribals had already been released. The main problem - and one that has been unreported - was to keep Pakistan authorities' hands off members of banned militant organizations connected with al-Qaeda. Thus, for example, it has now been agreed between militants and Islamabad that Pakistan will not arrest two high-profile men on the "most wanted" list that includes Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Saud Memon and Ibrahim Choto are the only Pakistanis on this list, and they will be left alone. Saud Memon was the owner of the lot where US journalist Daniel Pearl was tortured, executed and buried in January 2002 in Karachi after being kidnapped by jihadis. Pakistan has also agreed that many people arrested by law-enforcement agencies in Pakistan will be released from jail. Importantly, this includes Ghulam Mustafa, who was detained by Pakistani authorities late last year. Mustafa is reckoned as al-Qaeda's chief in Pakistan. (See Al-Qaeda's man who knows too much, Asia Times Online, January 5. As predicted in that article, Mustafa did indeed disappear into a "black hole" and was never formally charged, let alone handed over to the US.) Asia Times Online contacts expect Mustafa to be released in the next few days. He was once close to bin Laden and has intimate knowledge of al-Qaeda's logistics, its financing and its nexus with the military in Pakistan. Militants at large "Now they [Pakistani authorities] have accepted us as true representatives of the mujahideen," Wazir Khan told Asia Times Online at a religious congregation in Miranshah. "Now we are no longer criminals, but part and parcel of every deal. Even the authorities have given tacit approval that they would not have any objections if I and other fellows who were termed as wanted took part in negotiations." Wazir Khan was once a high-profile go-between for bin Laden and one of his closest Waziristan contacts. He was right up there on the "wanted" list. Now he can move around in the open. "The situation is diametrically changed," he said. From a personal point of view, things have changed for Wazir Khan and others like him, but in the bigger picture things have also changed diametrically. Pakistan, the leading light in the United States' "war on terror" and a "most important" non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, is returning to the heady times of before September 11 when it could dabble without restraint in regional affairs, and this at a time when Afghanistan is boiling. "The post-September 11 situation [in Pakistan] was draconian," a prominent militant told Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity. "All jihadi organizations were informed in advance how they would be [severely] dealt with in the future and that they had better carve out an alternative low-profile strategy. But some people could not stop themselves from unnecessary adventures and created problems for the establishment. This gave the US the chance to intervene in Pakistan, and over 700 al-Qaeda mujahideen were arrested. "Now the situation changed again ... we know the state of Pakistan is important for the Pakistan army, but certainly we know that the army would never completely compromise on Islam." The truce between Islamabad and the Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan has been a bitter pill for Washington to swallow, although Pakistan's pledge to allow foreign troops based in Afghanistan hot pursuit into a limited area in Pakistan softens the blow a bit. Islamabad's overriding concern, though, is to earn some breathing space domestically, as well as get Uncle Sam off its back. The situation in Waziristan was becoming unmanageable - it's already virtually a separate state - and trouble is ongoing in restive Balochistan province, especially since the killing at the hands of Pakistani security forces of nationalist leader Nawab Akbar Bugti. Fractious opposition political parties have shown rare unity in attacking the government of President General Pervez Musharraf on the issue. Redrawing the map An article by retired US Major Ralph Peters titled "Blood borders" published in the Armed Forces Journal last month has given Pakistan some food for thought over manipulating the geopolitical game on its own terms and conditions. Peters, formerly assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he was responsible for future warfare, argues that borders in the Middle East and Africa are "the most arbitrary and distorted" in the world and need restructuring. Four countries - Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - are singled out for major readjustments. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are also defined as "unnatural states". Though the US State Department was quick to deny that such ideas had anything to do with US policymaking, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey read much between the lines of talk of restructuring their boundaries. Among Peters' proposals was the need to establish "an independent Kurdish state" that would "stretch from Diyarbakir [eastern Turkey] through Tabriz [Iran], which would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan". Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz recently visited Turkey and then Lebanon, where he announced that his country would not send any peacekeeping troops to the latter. Ankara then said that if peacekeeping forces tried to disarm Hezbollah, Turkey would pull out of the peace mission. These decisions are the result of back-channel diplomacy among Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan. Across Pakistan's border in Afghanistan, the Taliban have control of most of the southwest of the country, from where Mullah Omar is expected soon to announce the revival of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - the name of the country before the Taliban were driven out in 2001. Once the proclamation is made, a big push toward the capital Kabul will begin. The sounds of jail doors opening in Pakistan will jar with the United States, as will Islamabad adopting a more independent foreign policy and, crucially, aligning itself with the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, which once again could become a Pakistani playground. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com. Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd Source: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14880.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 20, 2006 15:16:47 GMT 4
Afghanistan: Time for Truthby Eric MargolisSeptember 19, 2006 DIGG THISDo not believe what OUR media and politicians are telling us about Afghanistan. Nearly all the information we get about the five-year-old war in Afghanistan comes from US and NATO public relations officers or "embedded" journalists who merely parrot military handouts. Ask yourself, when did you last read a report from a journalist covering Taliban and other Afghan resistance forces?Now, the official rosy view is being flatly contradicted by impartial observers. The respected European think-tank, Senlis Council, which focuses on Afghanistan, just reported the Taliban movement is "taking back Afghanistan" and now controls that nation’s southern half. This is an amazing departure from claims by the US and its NATO allies that they are steadily winning the war in Afghanistan. Or, more precisely, winning it again, since the Bush Administration claimed to have won total victory in Afghanistan in 2001. At the time, this column predicted that victory was an illusion and the war would resume in force in 4–5 years. According to the Senlis Council, southern Afghanistan is suffering "a humanitarian crisis of starvation and poverty…caused by "US-British military policies."
Deflating optimistic western reports, Senlis investigators found, "US policies in Afghanistan have re-created the safe haven for terrorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy." This is a bombshell.The US and NATO have been insisting any withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan – or from Iraq – will leave a void certain to be filled by extremists. These claims are nonsense, given that half of Afghanistan and a third of Iraq are already largely controlled by anti-western resistance forces. Were it not for omnipotent US airpower, American and NATO forces would be quickly driven from Afghanistan and Iraq. If Afghan and Iraqi resistance forces ever manage to obtain effective man-portable anti-aircraft weapons, such as the US Stinger or Russian SA-18, the US-led occupation of those nations may become untenable. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980’s was doomed once mujahidin forces obtained American Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Last week, Canadian and British commanders boasted they were about to annihilate Taliban forces "surrounded" around Panjwai and Zahri. They crowed an "estimated 500 Taliban," had already been killed. A storm of bombing and shelling did kill many Afghans, but most of the dead "suspected Taliban militants" turned out, as usual, to be civilians. NATO failed to show bodies of dead enemy fighters to back up its absurd claims.When NATO forces entered Panjwai after weeks of air strikes and shelling, the supposedly "surrounded" Taliban had vanished. Embarrassed British and Canadian commanders admitted "we were surprised the enemy had fled." Surprised? Doesn’t anyone remember the Vietnam War’s fruitless search and destroy missions and inflated body counts? Don’t NATO commanders know their every move is telegraphed in advance to Taliban forces? Don’t they see what’s going on now in Iraq? Did Canadian officers making such fanciful claims really believe Taliban’s veteran guerillas would be stupid enough to sit still and be destroyed by US air power? Now, Canadian-led NATO forces are crowing about having finally occupied Panjwai. "Taliban has fled!" they proudly announced. Don’t they understand that guerilla forces don’t hang on to fixed positions? Occupying ground is meaningless in guerilla warfare. Seemingly immune to history or common sense, Canada is sending a few hundred more troops and a handful of obsolete tanks to Afghanistan. Poland, which will send troops anywhere for the right price, is adding 1,000 more soldiers next year. US, British and Canadian politicians say they are surprised by intensifying Taliban resistance. They have only their own ignorance to blame. Attacking Pashtuns, renowned for xenophobia, warlike spirits, and love of independence is a fool’s mission. Pashtuns are Afghanistan’s ethnic majority. Taliban is an offshoot of the Pashtun people. Long-term national stability is impossible without their representation and cooperation.What the west calls "Taliban" is actually a growing coalition of veteran Taliban fighters led by Mullah Dadullah, other clans of Pashtun tribal warriors, and nationalist resistance forces led by Jalalladin Hakkani and former prime minister, Gulbadin Hekmatyar, whom the CIA has repeatedly tried to assassinate. Many are former mujahidin once hailed "freedom fighters" by the west, and branded "terrorists" by the Soviets. They represent national resistance to foreign occupation. In fact, what the US and its NATO allies are doing in Afghanistan today uncannily mirrors the brutal Soviet occupation during the 1980’s. The UN’s anti-narcotic agency reports Afghanistan now supplies 92% of the world’s heroin. Production has surged 40% last year alone. Who is responsible? The US and NATO. They now own narco-state Afghanistan. Dominating the main oil export route from Central Asia was a primary objective of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Ironically, instead of an anticipated oil bonanza, the US now finds itself mired deep in the Afghan drug trade. Washington and NATO can’t keep pretending this is someone else’s problem. Drug money fuels the Afghan economy and keeps local warlords loyal to the US-installed Kabul regime. Afghanistan’s north has become a sphere of influence of Russia and its local allies, the Uzbek-Tajik Northern Alliance led by notorious war criminals and leaders of the old Afghan Communist Party. The US and its allies are not going to win the Afghan war. They will be lucky the way things are going not to lose it in the same humiliating manner the Soviets did in 1989. In recent weeks, near panicky calls by British PM Tony Blair for more NATO troops to be sent to Afghanistan show that western occupation forces are on the defensive, fighting to hold their bases, and facing the specter of eventual defeat. Just, in fact, like every other invader that has ever occupied Afghanistan. A final point. US and NATO forces are not fighting "terrorists," as their governments claim. They are fighting the Afghan people. In the 1980’s, I saw mujahidin too poor to afford shoes strap 110 lbs of mortar shells on their backs, and climb 6–8 hours over mountains through snow to bombard a Communist base, then trudge home. These are the people we are fighting. Anyone who knows Afghans know they will not be defeated, even if they must resist for an entire generation.Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.
Copyright © 2006 Eric MargolisSource: www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis50.html**************************************************** September 20, 2006 Bloody but Unbowed: Canadians in Afghanistan From the editorial board of The Globe and Mail by Neil Kitson Canadian troops are not in Iraq, although this newspaper has consistently advocated sending them there. As we said at the time of the Coalition intervention in 2003, "much good should flow from it." Subsequent events have proved our position to be entirely wrong. It is now clear that Iraq is in a much more desperate situation than before the invasion, that there were no "weapons of mass destruction," and that the invasion was illegal and without justification. We at the Globe are therefore satisfied, like Col. Cathcart, that our genius for ineptitude has not been blunted. It is in this light that we wholeheartedly support the Canadian involvement in the Afghan catastrophe. We report that our troops are being killed and injured at quite respectable rates, enough perhaps to get us some credibility in Washington. It is indeed regrettable that some of these casualties have been from American bombing and strafing, but this is still honorable: war is a tough business. Afghanistan was known to be impoverished and littered with land mines after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, but of little interest until 9/11, The Cataclysm That Changed the World Forever. Then, when it became clear that the 9/11 hijackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan had to be dealt with promptly and aggressively. Since the subsequent, successful Afghan intervention in 2001, which even the previous lily-livered Liberal government was able to support, there has been marked improvement and benefit. Afghanistan has a democratically elected government, which is pretty influential out to Kabul's city limits, and opium production is up. Land mines are admittedly still a problem, and as reported by the Guardian (a gutless left-wing newspaper that probably supported Stalin, although Churchill supported Stalin, which is a bit of a problem for us, but nothing we can't work out), the current situation in Afghanistan is "close to anarchy with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption." This "stark warning came from Lieutenant General David Richards, head of NATO's international security force in Afghanistan, who warned that Western forces there were short of equipment and were 'running out of time' if they were going to meet the expectations of the Afghan people." Luckily, however, Operation Medusa has been a success (although there are a few flaky doubters who lower morale but can be easily ignored), and our Canadian troops will now be bravely engaged, with our UN-sanctioned NATO allies, in destroying the opium crop, and with it a major source of income for impoverished rural Afghans (the drought is taking care of the rest). We applaud this resolution. We are not deterred by the fact that European troops (and their colonial descendants) who have little knowledge of the local language, culture, or customs are once again trying to impose their objectives on a population that resents their presence. Neither are we discouraged by the lack of funding or planning for a realistic economic recovery. On the contrary, we on the Globe editorial board are determined to persevere to our objective: a democratic, stable, peaceful Afghanistan, sympathetic to the West, prosperous, and resistant to the mad mullahs in Iran and Pakistan, even though we have no idea how any of this can be accomplished. We support the Harper government's determination to see Canada's Afghan involvement through to its inevitable and disastrous conclusion. Source: www.antiwar.com/orig/kitson.php?articleid=9718**************************************************** Soldiers reveal horror of Afghan campaignBy Kim Sengupta 09/13/06 "The Independent" -- - -Soldiers deployed in Helmand province five years on from the US-led invasion, and six months after the deployment of a large British force, have told The Independent that the sheer ferocity of the fighting in the Sangin valley, and privations faced by the troops, are far worse than generally known. "We are flattening places we have already flattened, but the attacks have kept coming. We have killed them by the dozens, but more keep coming, either locally or from across the border," one said. "We have used B1 bombers, Harriers, F16s and Mirage 2000s. We have dropped 500lb, 1,000lb and even 2,000lb bombs. At one point our Apaches [helicopter gunships] ran out of missiles they have fired so many. Almost any movement on the ground gets ambushed. We need an entire battle group to move things. Yet they will not give us the helicopters we have been asking for."We have also got problems with the Afghan forces. The army, on the whole, is pretty good, although they are often not paid properly. But many of the police will not fight the Taliban, either because they are scared or they are sympathisers." British officers in Helmand acknowledge that the next few months will be crucial in this conflict, which they insist can still be won with an additional thousand extra fighting troops. Last week General James Jones, the Nato military chief, called for 2,500 extra troops, armour and helicopters from member states. But at the Warsaw summit currently under way, the countries with significant forces, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey, say they will have their hands full with Lebanese peacekeeping duties and have no troops to spare. The anxiety has been deepened by the decision of the Pakistani military to do a deal with militants and withdraw from some of the border areas. The government of President Pervez Musharraf said the Taliban had promised in return not to continue to cross into Afghanistan to mount attacks, a declaration that a senior British officer described as "risible". British forces in Helmand had not originally planned to go into Sangin. But when the provincial governor, Mohammad Daoud, appealed for help from President Hamid Karzai to counter increasing Taliban activity, the US commander in the country asked British troops to move in. The result has been that overstretched forces have come under constant attack. Lt Gen Richards, who says British forces have been involved in some of the fiercest fighting since Korea, has now decided to withdraw from outlying positions, which will be taken over by the Afghan forces. It is a decision that some have questioned. An officer who has served in Helmand said: "We have to ask, can we rely on them? Especially the police." He continued: "We did not expect the ferocity of the engagements. We also expected the Taliban to carry out hit and run raids. Instead we have often been fighting toe to toe, endless close-quarters combat. It has been exhausting. I remember when we had to extract a Danish recce group which was getting attacked on all sides; it was bedlam. We have greater firepower, so we tend to win, but, of course, they can take their losses while our casualties will invariably lead to concern back home.You also have to think that each time we kill one, how many more enemies we are creating. And, of course, the lack of security means hardly any reconstruction is taking place now, so we are not exactly winning hearts and minds."In the market town of Lashkar Gar, Afghan civilians are increasingly concerned about security. One man said: "We are not safe now; it is more dangerous than it was just a few months ago." Bodies of Nimrod crash victims return home The flag-draped coffins carrying the bodies of the 14 British servicemen killed when their reconnaissance plane crashed in Afghanistan were returned home yesterday to a sombre reception in Scotland. A ceremony for the victims of last week's Nimrod crash, Britain's worst single loss during its current deployment, was held at RAF Kinloss in Moray. Air force chiefs and the Duke of Edinburgh joined the families of the airmen for the repatriation, at which Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, described the 14 as "outstanding, brave and dedicated". He said: "They were working towards making Afghanistan a safe and secure place as well as protecting our nation and its interests. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude." © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited Source: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14955.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 26, 2006 3:46:00 GMT 4
Editor's Note: Newsweek has scrubbed the cover of the United States edition for October 2, 2006. The cover of international editions, aimed at Europe, and other world regions has maintained the original title of the story, "LOSING AFGHANISTAN." The new cover for the United States edition features photographer Annie Leibovitz and is titled "My Life in Pictures." We offer the European edition cover and story here. -vh/TOLosing Afghanistan: The Rise of Jihadistan By Ron Moreau, Sami Yousafzai and Michael Hirsh Newsweek Monday 02 October 2006 Issue Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they - and al Qaeda's leaders - can operate freely. You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside waiting for two NEWSWEEK correspondents. It is midday on the central Afghan plains, far from the jihadist-infested mountains to the east and west. Without speaking, the sentinel guides his visitors along a sandy horse trail toward a mud-brick village within sight of the highway. As they get closer a young Taliban fighter carrying a walkie-talkie and an AK-47 rifle pops out from behind a tree. He is manning an improvised explosive device, he explains, in case Afghan or US troops try to enter the village. In a parched clearing a few hundred yards on, more than 100 Taliban fighters ranging in age from teenagers to a grandfatherly 55-year-old have assembled to meet their provincial commander, Muhammad Sabir. An imposing man with a long, bushy beard, wearing a brown and green turban and a beige shawl over his shoulders, Sabir inspects his troops, all of them armed with AKs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. He claims to have some 900 fighters, and says the military and psychological tide is turning in their favor. "One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power." Not long after NEWSWEEK's visit, US and Afghan National Army forces launched a major attack to dislodge the Taliban from Ghazni and four neighboring provinces. But when NEWSWEEK returned in mid-September, Sabir's fighters were back, performing their afternoon prayers. It is an all too familiar story. Ridge by ridge and valley by valley, the religious zealots who harbored Osama bin Laden before 9/11 - and who suffered devastating losses in the US invasion that began five years ago next week - are surging back into the country's center. In the countryside over the past year Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and US military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration. In Ghazni and in six provinces to the south, and in other hot spots to the east, Karzai's government barely exists outside district towns. Hard-core Taliban forces have filled the void by infiltrating from the relatively lawless tribal areas of Pakistan where they had fled at the end of 2001. Once back inside Afghanistan these committed jihadist commanders and fighters, aided by key sympathizers who had remained behind, have raised hundreds, if not thousands, of new, local recruits, many for pay. They feed on the people's disillusion with the lack of economic progress, equity and stability that Karzai's government, NATO, Washington and the international community had promised. NATO officials say the Taliban seems to be flush with cash, thanks to the guerrillas' alliance with prosperous opium traffickers. The fighters are paid more than $5 a day - good money in Afghanistan, and at least twice what the new Afghan National Army's 30,000 soldiers receive. It's a bad sign, too, that a shortage of local police has led Karzai to approve a plan allowing local warlords - often traffickers themselves - to rebuild their private armies. U.N. officials have spent the past three years trying to disband Afghanistan's irregular militias, which are accused of widespread human-rights abuses. Now the warlords can rearm with the government's blessing. Afghanistan is "unfortunately well on its way" to becoming a "narco-state," NATO's supreme commander, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, said before Congress last week. Jabar Shilghari, one of Ghazni's members of Parliament, is appalled by his province's rapid reversal of fortune. Only a year ago he was freely stumping for votes throughout the province. Today it's not safe for him to return to his own village. In a recent meeting he asked Karzai for more police and soldiers; he was rebuffed by the deputy director of intelligence, who told him the Taliban threat in Ghazni is minimal. "We have patiently waited five years for change, for an end to official corruption and abuse of power and for economic development," says Shilghari, who now lives in the increasingly sequestered capital of Kabul. "But we've received nothing." Not long ago, the Bush administration was fond of pointing to Afghanistan as a model of transformation. That mountainous landlocked country, we were told, was being converted from a "failed state" - Al Qaeda's base for the worst ever attacks on US continental soil - into a functioning, responsible member of the international community. In speech after speech, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior US officials ticked off the happy stats: the Taliban and Al Qaeda had been routed, democratic presidential and parliamentary elections had been held, more than 3 million refugees had returned and 1.75 million girls were attending school. But the harsh truth is that five years after the US invasion on Oct. 7, 2001, most of the good news is confined to Kabul, with its choking rush-hour traffic jams, a construction boom and a handful of air-conditioned shopping malls. Much of the rest of Afghanistan appears to be failing again. Most worrisome, a new failed-state sanctuary is emerging across thousands of square miles along the Afghan-Pakistan border: "Jihadistan," it could be called. It's an autonomous quasi state of religious radicals, mostly belonging to Pashtun tribes who don't recognize the Afghan-Pakistan frontier - an arbitrary line drawn by the British colonialists in 1893. The enclave's fluid borders span a widening belt of territory from mountainous hideouts in the southernmost provinces of Afghanistan - Nimruz, Helmand and Farah - up through the agricultural middle of the country in Ghazni, Uruzgan and Zabul, and then north to Paktia and parts of Konar. It extends well across the Pakistan border where, despite close cooperation between the US and Pakistani militaries, jihadist militants in Waziristan province have begun calling themselves "Pakistani Taliban." No longer worried about interference from Islamabad, they openly recruit young men to fight in Afghanistan, and they hold Islamic kangaroo courts that sometimes stage public executions. There are not nearly enough US, Western or Afghan troops or resources in the field to counter them. At a time when the American president has resurrected Osama bin Laden as public enemy No. 1 - comparing him recently to Lenin and Hitler - Bush's own top commander in the field, Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, says not enough money is being invested in creating a new Afghanistan. Improving Afghan lives is the only way to drive a stake through the Taliban or put the elusive Qaeda leader out of action, he says. "We need more in terms of investment in Afghan infrastructure. We need more resources, for road building, counternarcotics, good governance, a justice system," Eikenberry told NEWSWEEK last week. As the general is fond of saying: "Where the roads end, the Taliban begin." Indeed, the aid numbers for the past five years are grim. In the first years of reconstruction, aid amounted to just $67 a year per Afghan, says Beth DeGrasse of the government-funded US Institute of Peace. She compares that figure with other recent nation-building exercises such as Bosnia ($249) and East Timor ($256), citing figures from the International Monetary Fund. "You get what you pay for in these endeavors, and we tried to do Afghanistan on the cheap," she says. "And we are going to pay for it." International conferences since 2002 have pledged some $15 billion, but countries have ponied up less than half of that so far. And the Afghan government estimates it will need $27.5 billion through 2010 to rebuild the country and its institutions. Some critics point to a jarring mismatch between Bush's rhetoric and the scant attention paid to Afghanistan. Jim Dobbins, Bush's former special envoy to Kabul - he also led the Clinton administration's rebuilding efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and Somalia - calls Afghanistan the "most under-resourced nation-building effort in history." Former Bush reconstruction coordinator Carlos Pascual, who retired in December 2005, does not dispute this assessment. He says the State Department has "maybe 20 to 30 percent" of the people it needs. Even Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, fretted last week that for five years the administration and Congress have failed to create a powerful nation-building czar, despite their enthusiasm for regime change. "We have a long way to go," he said. The dangers of allowing Afghanistan to become a jihadist haven again are too many to count. It's not merely that bin Laden and Zawahiri may now die peacefully in their beds, safe among Pashtun tribesmen, as a senior US military official conceded to NEWSWEEK last week, speaking anonymously because he was discussing classified operations. (A French intelligence report leaked over the weekend suggested bin Laden had done just that in August, dying quietly of typhus, but like many such rumors in the past it could not be confirmed.) Nor is the problem simply that the increasingly confident Taliban is launching ever more brazen attacks - in recent weeks, bombing a convoy scarcely a block from the US Embassy in Kabul and assassinating a major provincial governor. No: it's that Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups now have a place from which to hatch the next 9/11. "This standoff could go on for 40 or 50 years," says a retired US general who served in Afghanistan, speaking only on condition of anonymity. "It's not going to be a takeover by the Taliban as long as NATO is there. Instead this is going to be like the triborder region of South America, or like Kashmir, a long, drawn-out stalemate where everyone carves out spheres of influence." Eikenberry disagrees, though he refused to put a time frame on Afghanistan's recovery. "It won't be decades," he says. The Taliban doesn't always share Al Qaeda's goals or tactics, although some units have taken up suicide bombing. But a guerrilla calling himself Commander Hemat, a former anti-Soviet mujahedin fighter who now works closely with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, says foreign Arabs are being welcomed again. "Now the money is flowing again because the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan are producing results," he told NEWSWEEK. Zabibullah, a Taliban operative who has proved reliable in the past, says the Qaeda operatives "feel more secure and can concentrate on their own business other than just surviving." Pakistan fostered the Taliban movement in the 1990s as a way of holding sway over Afghanistan and undercutting India's influence there. Those ties persist. Despite Bush's praise of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf - "We're on the hunt together," Bush said at a joint news conference on Friday - US and British military officials say Musharraf has allowed the Taliban to set up headquarters near the southwestern city of Quetta. Musharraf has also cut a deal giving militants free rein in north Waziristan; since then cross-border attacks have increased. Senior US officials say that Musharraf caved in to Qaeda sympathizers who fiercely resisted the Pakistani Army's incursion into the tribal region last year. Musharraf reassured Bush last week that the Waziristan tribal leaders had agreed not to permit Taliban or Qaeda cross-border activity, but the militants say no such commitment was made. "Instead of eliminating the militants, the Pakistani military operation only added to their strength," says Ayaz Amir, a respected political columnist for the daily Dawn newspaper. The Afghan Taliban's recent offensive has only raised the morale of their Pakistani brethren. General Eikenberry says that Al Qaeda or its successors have nothing like the liberty that allowed them to plot 9/11 in the open. "They have no safe haven inside Afghanistan that if we find it, we will not strike against them," he said. But conclusive victory will depend on a "political solution" arising from a far more effective Afghan government, Eikenberry says. Asked whether terrorists will always have a place to root there, Eikenberry pauses for long seconds before answering. "You reach a tipping point" where military superiority no longer counts as much, he said. "There's always going to be another valley for terrorist forces or extremists to hide in." No one knows this better than Eikenberry himself, a genial soldier-scholar with degrees from Harvard and Stanford. Two weeks after NEWSWEEK's visit to Ghazni province's Andar district, the American general passed through the same area and urged Afghan security forces to be more active in combating the increasingly aggressive, large and visible Taliban presence. Days later, Eikenberry launched his major Afghan-US operation in Ghazni, code-named Mountain Fury. Most of the Taliban had easily escaped to the east while a number of insurgents remained behind to engage the enemy, firing automatic weapons and RPGs. According to Afghan officials, about 38 Taliban were killed that day. Interviewed after the action, Momin Ahmad, the Taliban's deputy commander for a cluster of Andar villages, disputes that number. He says he lost only four men: a Pakistani, an Iraqi and two local insurgents who were killed by an Apache helicopter that shot up a local vineyard. And while Ahmad's unit is now regrouping to the east, at least 35 Taliban have stashed their weapons and stayed in the village posing as farmers. They will lay ambushes and plant IEDs to harass Afghan and US troops, Ahmad says, and the larger Taliban force will return when it's safe. He shrugs off the setback, saying it's only temporary. "We never expected the success we've had," says Ahmad. Nor, five years ago, did anyone else. With Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and John Barry in Washington. NOTE: go to this source and notice Newsweek's covers in Europe, Asia, and Latin America then look at the cover for the United States.....Unbelievable!www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092506R.shtml**************************************************** Kandahar Women's Affairs Head Assassinated IRIN News Monday 25 September 2006 Safia Hama Jan, a leading women's rights advocate and outspoken critic of the Taliban, was killed in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar on Monday. Gunmen on a motorcycle opened fire at Hana Jan, provincial director of the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs in insurgency-hit Kandahar province, as she was leaving for work early on Monday, Daud Ahmadi, a spokesman for the Kandahar governor confirmed, adding that she had died on the spot. Local officials have launched an investigation into the incident, blaming the ongoing Taliban insurgency in the area for the attack. "This is the work of the enemies of peace, democracy and development in the country," Ahmadi maintained. The attack follows scores of others carried out by the Taliban who, though toppled by US-led coalition forces in 2001, are now waging an increasingly deadly insurgency in the war-battered nation. Hundreds have died this year alone. On 10 September, Taliban militants killed the governor of southeastern Paktia province in a suicide bombing. Commenting on Monday's attack, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) that oversees development in the post-Taliban country expressed outrage over what it described as a meaningless death. "UNAMA is appalled at this senseless murder of a woman who was simply working to ensure that all Afghan women play a full and equal part in the future of Afghanistan," UNAMA spokesman Aleem Siddique said in the Afghan capital, Kabul. "What we need to see in Afghanistan is peace, development and progress," Siddique stressed. "We share the sentiment of the majority of Afghan people who are appalled at this killing." Hama Jan was an active supporter of women's rights and a very dedicated woman, said Abdul Quadar Noorzai, regional head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) in Kandahar. "Her death will have a serious impact on women's activities in the south where women are already suffering from various problems due to the deteriorating security and conservative traditions," Noorzai told IRIN. Hama Jan had held the position of provincial women's affairs chief since Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs was established in 2002. According to local media reports, Hana Jan's requests for secure official transport and personal bodyguards had not been granted by the government. At the time of the attack she was travelling in a taxi. Such attacks are hardly new in the restive south, where Taliban militants have threatened the lives of anyone working for the government or foreign troops in the area. Just last week, the Taliban ambushed and killed 19 Afghans employed in reconstruction in the province. Source: www.truthout.org/issues_06/092506WA.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 14, 2006 16:07:57 GMT 4
Insurgent activity rising in Afghanistan; 3,700 deaths this yearThe Associated PressPublished: November 12, 2006 KABUL, Afghanistan: Insurgent activity in Afghanistan has risen fourfold this year, and militants now launch more than 600 attacks a month, a rising wave of violence that has resulted in 3,700 deaths in 2006, a bleak new report released Sunday found. In the volatile border area near Pakistan, more than 20 Taliban militants — and possibly as many as 60 — were killed during several days of clashes, officials said Sunday. The new report said insurgents were launching more than 600 attacks a month as of the end of September, up from 300 a month at the end of March this year. The violence has killed more than 3,700 people this year, it said. Afghanistan saw about 130 insurgent attacks a month last year, said the report by the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, which consists of representatives from Afghanistan and the international community, including the United Nations. "It threatens to reverse some of the gains made in the recent past, with development activities being especially hard hit in several areas, resulting in partial or total withdrawal of international agencies in a number of the worst-affected provinces." The report said that the rising drugs trade in Afghanistan has "significantly helped fuel" the insurgency in four volatile southern provinces. The slow pace of development is contributing to popular disaffection and ineffective implementation of the drug fight, it said. Afghanistan's poppy crop, which is used to make heroin, increased by 59 percent in Afghanistan this past year. Insurgents have launched a record number of roadside bombs and suicide attacks this year, and there have been heavy clashes all year between insurgents and Afghan and NATO security forces, particularly in the southern and eastern provinces near the border with Pakistan. In the east, meanwhile, Gen. Murad Ali, the deputy Afghan army commander for Paktika province, said 20 bodies were recovered from fighting in Bermel district the last several days. In addition, he said, two trucks carrying Taliban fighters were destroyed by airstrikes or artillery fire, and officials estimated 40 fighters were killed in those strikes. Four NATO soldiers and three Afghan soldiers were injured, he said, though a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force said he wasn't aware of any serious injuries among NATO troops. Maj. Luke Knittig said the operations in Bermel, which borders Pakistan, were part of an ongoing Afghan-NATO mission to root out Taliban militants before winter settles in. "We know we've engaged in successful operations in Bermel with a purpose, and we think those have had a very positive effect against insurgent activity there," Knittig said. Knittig said Ali's estimate of 60 dead fighters "sounds about right to me," but he didn't have an independent estimate of the number killed. "We are not into the numbers game here lately," he said. Death tolls in remote areas of Afghanistan are almost impossible to verify and often vary widely. Abdul Baqi Nuristani, the provincial police chief, said only 25 militants have been killed in Bermel the last couple days. He said three Afghan and three NATO soldiers were injured in what he called "a very big battle." Ali said tribal elders took the bodies of eight Pakistani fighters back over the border to be buried. Afghan officials have repeatedly accused Pakistan of not doing enough to prevent Pakistani or other foreign fighters from crossing the border to launch attacks. Pakistan says it does all it can, though border attacks have increased since a September agreement led the Pakistani military to pull out of its lawless tribal region. Bermel is home to a military base that hosts both Afghan and U.S. soldiers. NATO-led troops aided by military aircraft killed 15 suspected insurgents in the district on Tuesday after troops on patrol came under attack. js Source: tinyurl.com/vch3h
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 11, 2006 8:49:25 GMT 4
A GROWING THREAT IN AFGHANISTAN The Taliban Gets Closer to KabulDecember 04, 2006 CLIP:A report from the German military, the Bundeswehr, warns that the Taliban is approaching Kabul and that attacks on the capital city are likely to increase. Security in nearby districts is already deteriorating. The leadership of Germany's military, the Bundeswehr, fear that Taliban attacks on the Afganistan capital of Kabul will likely increase in the coming months. According to a classified report on the state of Afghanistan obtained by SPIEGEL, "militant opposition forces" have made it clear that they will focus fighting during the winter "on the country's largest cities." Read it all: www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,452290,00.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Extra firepower called for to rescue Nato from quagmireDeclan Walsh in Kabul and Jonathan Steele Thursday December 7, 2006 The Guardian News that the Iraq study group recommends a fresh injection of US combat troops for Afghanistan will come as sweet relief to embattled Nato commanders.Once the White House's proudest foreign policy success, Afghanistan is slowly starting to resemble the sort of quagmire the US is struggling to escape in Iraq. This year's dramatic Taliban resurgence has seen record numbers of suicide attacks and roadside bombs, a booming drugs trade and almost 4,000 deaths including 190 foreign soldiers. While the US provides about half of the 40,000 outside troops in Afghanistan, the Iraq study group highlights a glaring fact facing soldiers on the ground - it is not enough. It says: "The huge focus of US political, military, and economic support has necessarily diverted attention from Afghanistan. We must not lose sight of the importance of the situation inside Afghanistan and the renewed threat posed by the Taliban. If the Taliban were to control more of Afghanistan, it could provide al-Qaida the political space to conduct terrorist operations ... It is critical for the US to provide additional political, economic, and military support." Read more: www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966000,00.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 3, 2007 16:27:12 GMT 4
Taliban commander vows bloody 2007 in Afghanistan02 Jan 2007 10:37:47 GMT By Saeed Ali Achakzai SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan, Jan 2 (Reuters) - The Taliban will step up attacks on foreign troops in Afghanistan this year and kill anyone who negotiates with the government, a top rebel commander said on Tuesday.Taliban fighters staged a surprise comeback last year with the bloodiest violence since U.S.-led troops forced them from power in 2001. More than 4,000 people were killed on both sides in 2006 including nearly 170 foreign troops. Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah said the new year would see more attacks on NATO and U.S. forces. "Suicide and guerrilla attacks on NATO, American and coalition forces will continue and increase this year. The Taliban will inflict heavy casualties on them," Dadullah told Reuters by satellite telephone from an undisclosed location. Dadullah did not refer to the death last month of Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, the most senior Taliban commander to be killed by U.S. forces since 2001. Osmani was killed in a U.S. air strike in the south, and another rebel commander, who declined to be identified, said earlier his death would be a blow to the Taliban. About 40,000 foreign troops are in Afghanistan, some 32,000 of them under NATO command. They are trying to ensure enough security to enable development projects to get started. Dadullah said the Taliban had used a winter lull in fighting to draw up new war plans to inflict maximum damage on foreign forces. Afghan fighting traditionally falls off during the bitter winter when snow blocks mountain passes. "They will soon come to know about the Taliban's strength and war strategy. We will attack with such a force they will have no time to settle," Dadullah said. The rebel commander ruled out any negotiations while foreign troops were in the country and threatened dire consequences for anyone who did so. "Those who negotiate in the name of the Taliban will be killed," he said. He did not elaborate. The government has a reconciliation programme aimed at persuading Taliban members to give up their fight and rejoin society but few insurgents have taken up the offer. Some Afghan politicians have said peace will be impossible unless elements of the Taliban are included in talks. A Taliban spokesman said last month the rebels might take part in planned tribal councils that Pakistan and Afghanistan aim to hold on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. But other Taliban members quickly denied there was any chance of the insurgents attending the councils. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar was reported to have denounced the proposed meetings as an American trick in a message last week. Source: www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL148796.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 11, 2007 13:19:03 GMT 4
Troops in fiercest Afghanistan fight so farJASON CUMMING (jcumming@scotsman.com) Thu 11 Jan 2007 BRITISH troops encountered some of the fiercest fighting in Afghanistan so far yesterday as they launched an offensive against Taleban forces that were terrorising a market town. About 100 Royal Marines - including members of Arbroath-based 45 Commando - clashed with militants in a four-hour desert firefight after setting out on a dawn mission dubbed Operation Bauxite. At times, they were only 40 metres from black-turbaned Taleban fighters as the Marines brought the battle to the "doorstep" of the insurgents. Two laser-guided 1,000lb bombs were dropped on insurgents holed up in 10ft deep irrigation ditches near Gereshk in southern Helmand. Anti-tank weapons, 105mm artillery guns and mortars were also used. Apache attack helicopters targeted Taleban positions in walled compounds, while some of the new breed of £1 million Viking armoured personnel carriers took direct hits from rocket-propelled grenades. Troops led by Major Ewen Murchison, a former Scotland under-21 rugby internationalist, also found a cache of assault rifles and grenade launchers as well as explosives, wires and batteries that could be made into roadside bombs. British forces were confronted by about 50 insurgents employing Taleban "shoot and scoot" tactics at around 6:45am local time yesterday near the village of Habibolah-Kalay. Speaking after returning from the battlefield to Forward Operating Base Price, Major Murchison said he had set out to "neutralise" Taleban forces. "This is one of the fiercest firefights we've been in to date in terms of weight of fire and proximity to our troops," he said. "We went out there at first light. During the course of four hours, I used the full range of military weapons available to me - namely air attack helicopter, mortars and artillery, machine guns and a couple of anti-tank weapons. A couple of 1,000lb bombs were dropped by GR7 Harriers on what we considered to be a trench system. "I was trying to stop these men from shooting at my men. They can run away if they want, but if they continue to fight I have to kill them." From a 40ft observation tower at the joint US-British outpost at around 10am, a huge mushroom cloud could be seen erupting after Harrier jump jets were called in to dislodge Taleban fighters from their positions about 10km from the base. The contingent was mostly made up of J Company of Plymouth-based 42 Commando, but about 100 Estonian troops and some Danish units provided backup. Afghan National Army soldiers were also involved. British military officials could not say last night how many militants had been killed. Major Murchison, 38, from Bearsden, near Glasgow, said: "We're trying to create a buffer zone to essentially take Gereshk town centre out of the range of mortars." No British personnel were injured, but one member of the fledgling Afghan National Army suffered a gunshot wound. Hi-tech fighting vehicle hailed as life-saverA NEW version of an elite fighting vehicle has been credited with preventing the deaths of dozens of British troops in Taleban bomb attacks and fierce firefights in Afghanistan. Featuring an array of hi-tech gadgets and weaponry, a state-of-the-art model of the Viking armoured personnel carrier has made its operational debut in the war-torn country. Designed by Royal Marines, it is capable of firing 350 grenades a minute and jamming roadside bombs. It has emerged from gun battles in Afghanistan with paint barely chipped - while allowing up to seven to make tea while being transported. Although some initially questioned whether the new vehicle was a betrayal of the Royal Marines' Commando ethos and well-earned reputation for "yomping" on foot, it has won over most on the front-line for its ability to get soldiers to battle more quickly and better protected than in Land Rovers and other alternatives. It can climb a 45-degree incline, is amphibious and can even be dropped from a C-130 Hercules transport plane. Sergeant Major Simon Williams, part of the team that redesigned the vehicle, said: "In the three months it's been here, it's proven itself superbly and we would have lost a lot more blokes without it. "It has survived direct hits from rocket-propelled grenades. You could lose a tank from a mine strike, but this will continue on its way even with just two tracks. There are blokes walking on this earth today because of this vehicle. It's a rock-hard bit of kit." Its two turrets can be equipped with a choice of weapons - including grenade launchers, which can fire six rounds a second, and .50 calibre machineguns. Both can hit targets more than 2km away. The Vikings have been equipped with "stand-off bar armour", which prevents RPGs from striking the vehicle by either catching the round or deflecting it to reduce the impact of any such explosion. The Vikings have been used in every British operation in Afghanistan since September, with only one sustaining any major damage. In November, after surviving a number of RPG attacks, a "lucky shot" left a vehicle disabled on the outskirts of Gereshk in southern Helmand province. All crew escaped without injury. DEATH OF THE INNOCENTSAMONG the troops serving in Afghanistan is leading medical assistant Allan McNeil, from Dollar in Clackmannanshire. Yesterday, he recalled an experience which left him mentally scarred after a British patrol fired a warning shot at a car speeding towards them. The bullet ricocheted off the road and hit the vehicle, killing three civilians - including a child. The Royal Navy medic, who was accompanying the patrol, rushed to the scene to find the two-year-old boy had been hit in the head. "I was willing him to live. It was very distressing. The bloke who pulled the trigger was beside himself. I couldn't help but think of my own young son," said Allan, adding: " The boy got immediate care of a standard equivalent to a British hospital." But he died about two days later. Two adults - believed to be his grandparents - were pronounced dead at the scene in southern Helmand. Source:thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=54052007
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 13, 2007 21:55:46 GMT 4
Hillary pushing for troop surge in Afghanistan Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton presses to add troops in Afghanistan, which she'll visit, along with Iraq over the weekend.BY GLENN THRUSH Newsday Washington Bureau January 12, 2007, 10:17 PM EST WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to Iraq and Afghanistan this weekend -- and calling for a troop "surge" in Afghanistan even though she opposes a similar measure in Iraq. Clinton's surprise trip isn't surprising politically. As the top Democratic contender in 2008 who voted for the war -- and hasn't recanted -- Clinton needed to emphasize her foreign policy strengths: gravitas, affection for the troops and on-the-ground experience in a war zone. On Wednesday, as President George W. Bush delivered his address on his plan for a 21,500-troop increases in Iraq, Clinton was about the only serious contender in either party to turn down an invitation to dissect the speech on TV. Clinton landed in Kuwait on Friday night with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) and upstate Rep. John McHugh and will meet Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Shia cleric Ayatollah Abd Al-Aziz Al-Hakim in Baghdad Saturday. She also plans a Saturday sit-down with Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is training Iraqi security forces; a visit to the New York-based Army 10th Mountain Division; and a meeting with a delegation of Iraqi women. Before leaving, Clinton, who voted to authorize the Oct. 2002 Iraq invasion, cautioned against paying too much attention to Iraq at the expense of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. "I wish we were discussing additional troops for Afghanistan. We are hearing increasingly troubling reports out of Afghanistan and we will be searching for accurate information about the true state of affairs both militarily and politically," she told the Associated Press. She'lll spend Sunday in Afghanistan. On Monday, she heads home, with a stopover in two German military hospitals to visit wounded American troops before returning to the U.S., aides said. Clinton's third trip to Iraq comes as she faces pressure from her party's left wing to renounce her vote. Her first trip to the country was in November 2003; her last was in February 2005, when she traveled with Arizona Sen. John McCain, one of the GOP's 2008 presidential frontrunners. Source:www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill0113,0,6894208.story
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 19, 2007 16:58:11 GMT 4
U.S. ponders more troops for AfghanistanBy Robert Birsel January 17, 2007 - 6:27 PM From: swissinfo.org KABUL (Reuters) - U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday he would consider more troops for Afghanistan where U.S. commanders say the Taliban insurgency, controlled from Pakistani sanctuaries, is expected to intensify. Gates, on his first trip to Afghanistan since taking office last month, spoke bluntly about the problem of Taliban infiltration from Pakistan following the bloodiest year of fighting since U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001. International concern has grown about the prospects for a country that was seen as a success in the war on terrorism. But a French proposal to create a "contact group" to coordinate Afghan operations had won little backing from NATO allies, the alliance's secretary-general said. Afghanistan's NATO force also said it has seized a prominent Taliban commander in a raid in the southern province of Helmand. Gates, speaking to reporters in Afghanistan shortly before his departure, said the commander of Afghanistan's NATO force, General David Richards, and others had made a case for more troops and he would consider that. "If the people who are leading the struggle out here believe that there is a need for some additional help to sustain the success that we've had, I'm going to be very sympathetic to that kind of a request," he said. There are more than 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the most since 2001. About 23,000 of them American. U.S. Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. military's joint chiefs of staff, said America would also discuss troop levels in Afghanistan with other NATO countries. U.S. commanders said attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan had surged, several-fold in some areas last year. A fresh Taliban offensive is expected in the spring after a winter fall-off in attacks. PAKISTANI SANCTUARIES Gates' visit focussed attention on insurgent infiltration from Pakistan, which has also been battling militants in its lawless border lands. U.S. military officials in Kabul told reporters travelling with Gates that command and control of the Afghan insurgency came from the Pakistani side of the border. Gates said Pakistan was "an extraordinarily strong ally" in the war on terrorism but militancy on the Pakistani side of the border would have to be dealt with. Pakistan was the main backer of the Taliban during the 1990s but officially stopped help after the September 11 attacks, when it joined the U.S.-led war on terrorism. While Pakistan has arrested or killed hundreds of al Qaeda members, Kabul and some of its allies say it has failed to take action against Taliban leaders, their networks and sanctuaries. The Pakistani army attacked a militant camp near the Afghan border on Tuesday, killing up to 20 people. But the timing of the attack raised speculation Pakistan was seeking to deflect U.S. criticism it was not doing enough to stop the Taliban. It also enraged pro-Taliban Pakistani tribesman and appeared to put in jeopardy peace deals in the Waziristan border region aimed at quelling attacks on Pakistani security forces and incursions into Afghanistan. "You should get ready. We can't trust the government anymore. Fighting can erupt any time," one militant leader, Qari Hussein, told followers in a Waziristan town, a witness said. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer repeated calls on Pakistan to do more to stop the insurgents, suggesting NATO allies could help Pakistan boost border surveillance. Scheffer also said an idea from French President Jacques Chirac to create a new body including Afghanistan's neighbours, troop contributing countries and other international organisations, to coordinate operations had won little support. NATO said a prominent Taliban commander was arrested in a Tuesday night raid in the southern province of Helmand. The force declined to identify him but said he was the first known Taliban leader arrested by NATO and Afghan forces. NATO also said help from Pakistan led to the killing of a top Taliban commander in a U.S. strike in Afghanistan last month. (Additional reporting by Andrew Grey, Simon Cameron-Moore in Islamabad, Mark John in Brussels)Source: tinyurl.com/2kplsg
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 21, 2007 16:03:36 GMT 4
Tribe: U.S., not Pakistan, hit villageISHTIAQ MAHSUD Associated Press Fri, Jan. 19, 2007 ZAMZOLA, Pakistan - Tribesmen from a Pakistani mountain village where an airstrike hit a suspected al-Qaida hideout claimed Friday that missiles were fired from an American plane and denied the dead were terrorists. Locals were still digging through the rubble of homes destroyed in the Tuesday airstrike of Zamzola village in South Waziristan where Pakistan's army says its helicopter gunships killed eight suspected militants. "This is a pack of lies," said Jalandhar Khan, 40, holding a shovel near the ruins of a neighbor's ruined house. "There was no al-Qaida man. Those killed or injured in this attack by America were innocent woodcutters." Reporters were taken to Zamzola, a remote village located in a forest about two miles from the Afghan border, by supporters of Baitullah Mehsud, a local militant leader who has vowed to avenge the airstrike. About 70 tribesmen chanted slogans against Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf and President Bush. Body parts still littered the ruins of three wrecked compounds, and two unexploded missiles were half buried near two others. One was labeled "AM York 0873." Their provenance was unclear. "I swear that innocent people died here," another villager Bashir Mehsud, 70, said. "God will punish Bush and Musharraf for it." He said he was preparing for his morning Islamic prayers at his home when he heard the sound of a plane. "I saw one American plane. It fired five missiles and went away," he said. It wasn't clear how he knew it to be American. He said that 15 minutes after the attack, five Pakistani helicopters arrived and started firing at the destroyed homes. Shortly after the attack, Mehsud said he saw mutilated and burned bodies. The wounded were taken to a local hospital, he said. Pakistani army officials were not immediately available for comment. Source: www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/16498800.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 5, 2007 10:32:03 GMT 4
More US war crimes, threats to silence journalists, and angry protestsU.S. Military Kill 16 Civilians in Afghanistan 04 Mar 2007
U.S. forces in Afghanistan opened fire on civilians while fleeding a militant ambush involving a suicide car bomb and gunmen. U.S. forces in Afghanistan opened fire on civilians while fleeding a militant ambush involving a suicide car bomb and gunmen, Afghan witnesses said. Up to 16 people were killed and 24 wounded in the shooting, U.S. military said. A U.S. soldier was also injured. U.S. forces fired on cars and pedestrians along a three-mile stretch of one of eastern Afghanistan’s busiest roads, eyewitnesses said. The death toll varies greatly depending on the source. Afghan officials say 8 people were killed, including a woman and two boys, and 34 were wounded. After the suicide attack by an explosives-filled van, U.S. soldiers treated every car and person along the road as a potential attacker, though none of the people showed hostile intent, said Mohammad Khan Katawazi, the district chief of Shinwar. US military spokesman Major William Mitchel said militants firing at the coalition forces from three different points after the suicide bomb explosion. U.S. soldiers fired in self defence, a military statement said. NATO and U.S. forces are often accused of firing at Afghan civilians they fear may be about to launch an attack. Though officials say the shootings are done in self defence, they often injure or kill innocent civilians. Meanwhile, two British soldiers serving with NATO forces in Afghanistan were killed during combat operations in the south of the country on Saturday. Source: TorontoDailyNews.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Afghan journalists say U.S. soldiers deleted photos, video after bomb attack and shootings 04 Mar 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghan journalists covering the aftermath of a suicide bomb attack and shooting in eastern Afghanistan Sunday said U.S. troops deleted their photos and video and warned them not to publish or air any images of U.S. troops or a car where three Afghans were shot to death. Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road in Nangarhar province following a suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said militants also fired on American forces during the attack. The U.S. military and Afghan officials said eight Afghans died and 34 were wounded in the violence. One Marine was also injured. A freelance photographer working for The Associated Press and a cameraman working for AP Television News said a U.S. soldier deleted their photos and video showing a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing. The AP plans to lodge a protest with the American military. The photographer, Rahmat Gul, said witnesses at the scene told him the three had been shot to death by U.S. forces fleeing the attack. The two AP freelancers arrived at the site about a half hour after the suicide bombing, Gul said. "When I went near the four-wheel drive, I saw the Americans taking pictures of the same car, so I started taking pictures," Gul said. "Two soldiers with a translator came and said, 'Why are you taking pictures? You don't have permission."' It wasn't clear why the accredited journalists would need permission to take photos of a civilian car on a public highway. Gul said the U.S. troops took his camera, deleted his photos and returned it to him. The journalists came across another American, showed their identification cards, and he agreed that they could take pictures. A Western military official who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to release the information said the troops were Marine Special Operations Forces, the Marine Corps component created in February 2006 of the U.S. Special Operations Command. "The same soldier who took my camera came again and deleted my photos," Gul said. "The soldier was very angry ... I told him, 'They gave us permission,' but he didn't listen." Gul's new photos were also deleted, and the American, speaking through a translator, warned him that he did not want to see any AP photos published anywhere. The American also raised his fist in anger as if he were going to hit him, but he did not strike, Gul said. Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman, said he did not have any confirmed reports that coalition forces "have been involved in confiscating cameras or deleting images." Khanwali Kamran, a reporter for the Afghan channel Ariana Television, was in a small group of journalists working alongside Gul. Kamran said the American soldiers also deleted his footage. "They warned me that if it is aired ... then, 'You will face problems,"' Kamran said. Taqiullah Taqi, a reporter for Afghanistan's largest television station, Tolo TV, said Americans were using abusive language. "According to the translator, they said, 'Delete them, or we will delete you,"' Taqi said. A freelance cameraman for AP Television News said that about 100 yards from the bomb site, a U.S. officer told him that he could not go any closer to the scene but that he could shoot footage. The cameraman asked not to be named for his own safety. "Then I started filming the suicide attack site, where there was a body and U.S. soldiers, and farther away, there was a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death," he said. As he was filming, he said, a U.S. soldier and translator "ordered us not to move." The cameraman said they were very angry and deleted any footage that included the Americans, as well as part of an interview from a demonstration. Hundreds of Afghans had gathered to protest the violence. Reporters Without Borders condemned the actions of the U.S. forces, saying they dealt with the press poorly. "Why did the soldiers do it if they don't have anything to hide? The situation is very tense in Afghanistan, and the media should be able to report about it freely and safely," said Jean-Francois Julliard, a spokesman for the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)Source: www1.whdh.com/news/articles/world/BO45086/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Protests after US troops kill 16 Afghans By Kim Sengupta Published: 05 March 2007 Thousands of angry demonstrators took to the streets in Afghanistan yesterday after US forces were involved in a panicked shooting which left 16 civilians dead and 23 injured. Local people as well as a number of Afghan officials accused the American marines of opening fire indiscriminately following a suicide bomb attack on their convoy in Nangarhar province. With protests continuing to grow, and the police coming under attack from stone- throwing crowds, the US military maintained that the casualties were the victims of a "complex ambush" in which gunmen had carried out a synchronised attack following the blast in which a marine was injured. But Mohammad Khan Katawazi, the district chief of Shinwar district, where the deaths took place, insisted that they "treated every car and person along the highway as a potential attacker" as they attempted to speed away from the scene of the explosion. Abdul Ghafour and Noor Agha Zwak, speaking on behalf of the Nangarhar police and government, and Zemeri Bashary, the Interior Ministry spokesman in Kabul, also claimed the deaths and injuries were due to American fire. Four months ago, British Royal Marines were also accused of shooting bystanders after their convoy had been hit by a roadside bomb in Kandahar. On that occasion the British authorities maintained that most of those shot had been trying to prevent the convoy from leaving the scene. The killings in Nangarhar came just a few days after a suicide bombing at Bagram airbase, near Kabul, during a visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, killing nine people. Both the Taliban and Nato forces in Afghanistan had said that a comparative lull in fighting during the winter would be followed by renewed campaigning in the spring. Yesterday, as crowds blocked roads shouting "death to America" and "death to Karzai", some of those who were injured related their version of what had happened. "They were firing everywhere, and they even opened fire on 14 to 15 vehicles passing on the highway," said 38-year-old Tur Gul, who was shot twice in his right hand. "They opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot." Some said that they were fired upon although they took care to get out of the way of the departing convoy.
"We parked our vehicle, but when they passed us, they still opened fire on our vehicle," said 15-year-old Mohammad Ishaq, who was hit by two bullets, in his left arm and his right ear, at a local hospital.
Ahmed Najib, 23, lying in the next bed, was hit by a bullet in his right shoulder. He said: "One American was in the first vehicle, shouting to stop on the side of the road, and we stopped. The first vehicle did not fire on us, but the second opened fire on our car. My two-year-old brother was grazed on the cheek by a bullet."The US Marines involved in the shooting are part of a force operating along the Pakistani border under a separate command from the main Nato force in the country. The convoy was passing through the highway near the provincial capital, Jalalabad, when a minibus packed with explosives was detonated. The military convoy subsequently came under fire from several directions. Major William Mitchell, a spokesman, said: "We certainly believe it's possible that the incoming fire from the ambush was wholly or partly responsible for the civilian casualties." Ajmel Pardus, the provincial health chief, said the initial number of those killed was eight, but others had later died from their injuries. He added that women and children were among those wounded.Yesterday's violence came at a tense time in Nangarhar, with a number of protests against the opium poppy eradication programme now under way. Nato and Afghan government officials have said the Taliban are exploiting anger among local farmers to fuel the insurgency. Last night Hezb-e-Islami, a group linked to the Taliban, claimed responsibility for the suicide attack on the American convoy and identified the bomber as Haji Ihsanullah. Source: news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2328819.ece
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Mar 6, 2007 1:23:17 GMT 4
Afghanistan is the war we are supposed to be winning... Yet we have lost the moral high ground,if we ever had it. Eight centuries ago,the Emperor Takeda of Japan besieged his rival,Shingen,in Kai. At the height of the conflict,he unexpectedly broke his own blockade, supplying essential food and supplies to his enemies,averting mass starvation of the lower class. When asked why,he simply replied; War is to be faught with blade and spear,not rice and salt... When one compares that noble reasoning with the despicable Neocon practice of dropping aid packages which are identical to cluster-bombs,The need for a second American Revolution becomes quite clear. The power structure they have created will not be given away in 2008...Elections be damned. Only fools fight in a burning house. We have to take it back... Reluctant?So am I. At stake is nothing less than the soul of this nation. We are rational human beings united under a decent government,or we are not... No damn signing statements.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 9, 2007 15:29:32 GMT 4
Heroin is "Good for Your Health": Occupation Forces support Afghan Narcotics Trade
Multibillion dollar earnings for organized crime and Western financial Institutionsby Prof. Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, April 29, 2007 The occupation forces in Afghanistan are supporting the drug trade, which brings between 120 and 194 billion dollars of revenues to organized crime, intelligence agencies and Western financial institutions.
The proceeds of this lucrative multibllion dollar contraband are deposited in Western banks. Almost the totality of revenues accrue to corporate interests and criminal syndicates outside Afghanistan.
The Golden Crescent drug trade, launched by the CIA in the early 1980s, continues to be protected by US intelligence, in liason with NATO occupation forces and the British military. In recent developments, British occupation forces have promoted opium cultivation through paid radio advertisements. "A radio message broadcast across the province assured local farmers that the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) would not interfere with poppy fields currently being harvested. "Respected people of Helmand. The soldiers of ISAF and ANA do not destroy poppy fields," it said. "They know that many people of Afghanistan have no choice but to grow poppy. ISAF and the ANA do not want to stop people from earning their livelihoods." ( Quoted in The Guardian, 27 April 2007) While the controversial opium ads have been casually dismissed as an unfortunate mistake, there are indications that the opium economy is being promoted at the political level (including the British government of Tony Blair). The Senlis Council, an international think tank specialising in security and policy issues is proposing the development of licit opium exports in Afghanistan, with a view to promoting the production of pharmaceutical pain-killers, such as morphine and codeine. According to the Senlis Council, "the poppies are needed and, if properly regulated, could provide a legal source of income to impoverished Afghan farmers while, at the same time, depriving the drug lords and the Taliban of much of their income." (John Polanyi, Globe and Mail, 23 September 2006) The Senlis Council offers an alternative where "regulated poppy production in Afghanistan" could be developed to produce needed painkillers. The Senlis statement, however, fails to address the existing structure of licit opium exports, which is characterised by oversupply . The Senlis' campaign is part of the propaganda campaign. It has contrbuted to providing a false legitimacy to Afghanistan's opium economy. (See details of Senlis Project), which ultmately serves powerful vested interests. How much opium acreage is required to supply the pharmaceutical industry? According to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which has a mandate to exame issues pertaining to the supply of and demand for opiates used for medical purposes, "the supply of such opiates has for years been at levels well in excess of global demand".(Asian Times, February 2006) The INCB has recommended reducing the production of opiates due to oversupply.At present, India is the largest exporter of licit opium, supplying approximately 50 percent of licit sales to pharmaceutical companies involved in the production of pain-killing drugs. Turkey is also a major producer of licit opium. India's opium latex "is sold to licensed pharmaceutical and/or chemical manufacturing firms such as Mallinckrodt and Johnson & Johnson, under rules established by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the International Narcotics Control Board, which require an extensive paper trail." (Opium in India) The area allocated to licit State controlled opium cultivation in India is of the order of a modest 11,000 hectares, suggesting that the entire demand of the global pharmaceutical industry requires approximately 22,000 hectares of land allocated to poppy production. Opium for pharmaceutical use is not in short supply. The demand of the pharmaceutical industry is already met. Soaring Afghan Opium Production The United Nations has announced that opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has soared. There was a 59% increase in areas under opium cultivation in 2006. Production of opium is estimated to have increased by 49% in relation to 2005. The Western media in chorus blame the Taliban and the warlords. Western officials are said to believe that "the trade is controlled by 25 smugglers including three government ministers." (Guardian, op. cit).
Yet in a bitter irony, US military presence has served to restore rather than eradicate the drug trade. Opium production has increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 under the Taliban to 6100 tons in 2006. Cultivated areas have increased 21 fold since the 2001 US-led invasion.
What the media reports fail to acknowledge is that the Taliban government was instrumental in 2000-2001 in implementing a successful drug eradication program, with the support and collaboration of the UN.
Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban's drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.
The Vienna based UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that the 2006 harvest will be of the order of 6,100 tonnes, 33 times its production levels in 2001 under the Taliban government (3200 % increase in 5 years).
Cultivation in 2006 reached a record 165,000 hectares compared with 104,000 in 2005 and 7,606 in 2001 under the Taliban[/b] Multibillion dollar tradeAccording to the UN, Afghanistan supplies in 2006 some 92 percent of the world's supply of opium, which is used to make heroin. The UN estimates that for 2006, the contribution of the drug trade to the Afghan economy is of the order of 2.7 billion. What it fails to mention is the fact that more than 95 percent of the revenues generated by this lucrative contraband accrues to business syndicates, organized crime and banking and financial institutions. A very small percentage accrues to farmers and traders in the producing country. (See also UNODC, The Opium Economy in Afghanistan, www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf , Vienna, 2003, p. 7-8) "Afghan heroin sells on the international narcotics market for 100 times the price farmers get for their opium right out of the field".(US State Department quoted by the Voice of America (VOA), 27 February 2004). Based on wholesale and retail prices in Western markets, the earnings generated by the Afghan drug trade are colossal. In July 2006, street prices in Britain for heroin were of the order of Pound Sterling 54, or $102 a gram. Narcotics On the Streets of Western EuropeOne kilo of opium produces approximately 100 grams of (pure) heroin. 6100 tons of opium allows the production of 1220 tons of heroin with a 50 percent purity ratio. The average purity of retailed heroin can vary. It is on average 36%. In Britain, the purity is rarely in excess of 50 percent, while in the US it can be of the order of 50-60 percent. Based on the structure of British retail prices for heroin, the total proceeds of the Afghan heroin trade would be of the order of 124.4 billion dollars, assuming a 50 percent purity ratio. Assuming an average purity ratio of 36 percent and the average British price, the cash value of Afghan heroin sales would be of the order of 194.4 billion dollars. While these figures do not constitute precise estimates, they nonetheless convey the sheer magnitude of this multibillion dollar narcotics trade out of Afghanistan. Based on the first figure which provides a conservative estimate, the cash value of these sales, once they reach Western retail markets are in excess of 120 billion dollars a year. (See also our detailed estimates for 2003 in The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade, by Michel Chossudovsky, The UNODC estimates the average retail price of heroin for 2004 to be of the order of $157 per gram, based on the average purity ratio). Narcotics: Second to Oil and the Arms TradeThe foregoing estimates are consistent with the UN's assessment concerning the size and magnitude of the global drug trade. The Afghan trade in opiates (92 percent of total World production of opiates) constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion. (Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000). Based on 2003 figures, drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004). Afghanistan and Colombia (together with Bolivia and Peru) consitute the largest drug producing economies in the world, which feed a flourishing criminal economy. These countries are heavily militarized. The drug trade is protected. Amply documented the CIA has played a central role in the development of both the Latin American and Asian drug triangles. The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics, one third of which is tied to the Golden Crescent opium triangle. Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Source: globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070604&articleId=5514
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 8, 2007 18:29:03 GMT 4
Afghan Civilians Caught in Crossfire By Kim Barker Chicago Tribune Sunday 08 July 2007 Casualties could undermine allies. Kabul, Afghanistan - The men told the same story, of how foreign troops bombed their villages long after the Taliban fighters had left, how the bombs killed women and children, goats and sheep, and how if they had one wish, it would be for the foreigners to leave. One man said 60 civilians had been killed in the air strike June 29 in a village in southern Helmand province, one of the most remote and dangerous areas of Afghanistan. Another villager, likely a Taliban sympathizer, exaggerated that as many as 500 innocent people had died, according to video of the bomb's aftermath provided by Ariana TV station, one of the few media outlets to visit the insurgent stronghold. "Our children are being killed," said Abdul Qader, who said he lost at least seven family members. "Our homes are being destroyed. We are bombed. They destroy us and they kill us. What should we do?" The air strike, near the village of Hyderabad, came after fighting between the Taliban and Afghan soldiers supported by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. The video showed shrapnel- riddled tractors and mangled cars and homes that looked like piles of crushed crackers. Such bombings and the allegations of civilian casualties, exaggerated or not, are now the biggest challenge facing foreign forces trying to prop up Afghanistan's government. More than any suicide bombing or insurgent offensive, this issue has the potential to undermine foreign troops and ultimately hurt the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Western diplomats and Afghan officials say. In interview after interview, ordinary Afghans say they increasingly distrust NATO's motives and increasingly blame their government for failing to stem civilian casualties. A recent United Nations report said 593 Afghan civilians have been killed by violence linked to insurgents this year. But more of those deaths-314-were caused by international or Afghan security forces than by insurgents, who caused 279 deaths. The number does not include the civilians who may have died in the Hyderabad fighting. Most of the insurgents' victims were bystanders of suicide bombings, while most civilian deaths from Afghan and Western troops were casualties from combat operations NATO officials say they always try to protect civilians and are increasing their efforts. They caution that any numbers are not necessarily accurate. Determining whether a corpse is a Taliban fighter or a farmer is not an exact science-there are no Taliban uniforms, no roster. Often, only children or women are certain to be civilians. And some of these areas are simply too dangerous to do a thorough investigation. Officials also say any civilian deaths are not intentional and are always regretted. "What we've all been saying in recent days-every ISAF soldier, every service person-is that we have to understand we are guests, and that's a status that's hard won in a country like Afghanistan and it's a status we'd like to keep," said Nicholas Lunt, the chief NATO civilian spokesman in Afghanistan. "And clearly, civilian casualties is an issue that could put that status at risk." ISAF troops have made mistakes - shooting civilians after roadside bombings or when cars get too close to military convoys. But Taliban- led insurgents are targeting civilians to try to drive a wedge between average Afghans and international troops, military and Afghan officials said. Insurgents now deliberately attack from civilian areas, even hoping to draw fire, officials said. A recent memo from the NATO commander in Afghanistan to lower-level military commanders reminded them of the need to protect civilians at all times and to use force with discretion, two NATO officials said. Another recent directive established a new policy in searching Afghan homes, long a sore spot with Afghans, according to a UN official and a military official. In the future, searches will need to be justified by more than just one piece of intelligence, the officials said. In terms of winning hearts and minds, the NATO mission has a lot of ground to make up. In the past few months, reports of civilian casualties have emerged every few days. At least 19 civilians were killed March 4 when U.S. Marines, fleeing a bombing near the eastern city of Jalalabad, opened fire. On June 17, seven children were killed by a U.S.-led coalition air strike in southeastern Paktika province. Ghulam Reza and Ashuqullah Wafa, workers at a Kabul salt factory, were shot June 16 on the street in front of their factory, near NATO troops investigating an earlier suicide bombing. Their friend, Azizullah Mawlawizada, was killed. Reza, Wafa, witnesses and police blamed Western troops. "Sometimes we think they are trying to invade our country, that they just don't like us," said Reza, 28, who has 5 inches of stitches on his back and X-rays showing the bullet in his right side. "I saw them. They didn't care. Sometimes, it comes to my mind that I am Muslim and they are not. And that is why they shot me and that is why they don't care." NATO spokesman Maj. John Thomas said there was no evidence of any shots being fired at the scene, especially by ISAF troops. But Col. Mangal Zalmai, the commander of the police district, blamed foreign forces for shooting the three men. The anger against foreign troops has grown to the point that any report of civilian casualties, even by the notoriously unreliable Taliban, is treated as fact. In a speech June 23, after more than 100 civilians had allegedly been killed by Western forces in a week, President Hamid Karzai tapped into the emotions of Afghans and lashed out at NATO. "Afghan life is not cheap, and it should not be treated as such," Karzai said. "There is a big hatred in the heart of our people against NATO already," said Haji Abdul Khaleq Mojahed, a parliament member from southern Uruzgan province, near the site of several bombings that allegedly killed civilians. "If it grows bigger and bigger, I don't know what will happen." Last week, a government team including Mojahed visited Qaleragh and nearby villages to investigate claims of civilian casualties. In total, 78 civilians were killed in fighting between insurgents and Afghan and foreign troops, he said. Only 10 were killed by the Taliban, he said. While Afghan and NATO officials take time to investigate claims of civilian casualties, Taliban representatives quickly get in touch with reporters to push their own, often inflated claims, officials said. "The first reports grab the headlines, and there isn't a lot of interest in further investigation," Thomas said. There's also a reluctance to publicly defend NATO. In May, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission spent a week investigating allegations that Afghan army and foreign troops had killed more than 55 civilians near the western town of Shindand. The commission found that fewer than half the victims were definitely civilians and that the force used was not indiscriminate. But that report has not yet been released in Afghanistan, primarily because of fears that Afghans won't like it and could retaliate. A team of Afghan officials is now in the Gereshk district of Helmand province, investigating the recent bombing near Hyderabad, a Taliban hotbed where insurgents often are sheltered by villagers, officials said. Right after the bombing, NATO officials said that fewer than a dozen people died, though they later acknowledged that could be low. The Taliban said 105 civilians had been killed. The government investigation results will not be released for days or even weeks. By that point, the truth may not matter very much to Afghans. They have been conditioned to believe the worst. Source: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070707Y.shtml
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 10, 2007 16:50:02 GMT 4
UK officer calls for US special forces to quit Afghan hotspot
High civilian toll as teams rely on air strikes to provide cover Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Richard Norton-Taylor Friday August 10, 2007 The Guardian Tension between British and American commanders in southern Afghanistan erupted into the open yesterday as a senior UK military officer said he had asked the US to withdraw its special forces from a volatile area that was crucial in the battle against the Taliban. British and Nato defence officials have consistently expressed concern about US tactics, notably air strikes, which kill civilians, sabotaging the battle for "hearts and minds" and infuriating Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.Des Browne, the defence secretary, recently raised the issue with Robert Gates, his US counterpart, and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary general, admitted last month that an increasing number of civilian casualties was undermining support for alliance troops. He said Nato commanders had changed the rules of engagement, ordering their troops to hold their fire in situations where civilians appeared to be at risk.Yesterday, a senior British commander was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in Sangin, in the north of Helmand province, which had been calm for a month, there was no longer a need for special forces. "There aren't large bodies of Taliban to fight any more," he said. "We are dealing with small groups and we are trying to kick-start reconstruction and development."Twelve-man teams of US special forces had been criticised for relying on air strikes for cover when they believed they were confronted by large groups of Taliban fighters and their supporters.Unnamed British officers were quoted yesterday as saying the US had caused the lion's share of casualties in their area and that after 18 months of heavy fighting since British forces arrived in Helmand they were finally making headway in securing key areas, but were now trying to win back support from people whose lives had been devastated by bombing. The newspaper estimated the number of civilian casualties this year in Helmand at close to 300 - most caused by foreign and Afghan forces, not the Taliban. Human rights and aid groups estimate that 230 Afghan civilians were killed throughout the south of the country last year. Nato officers admit they are troubled by the high toll. One medic told the Guardian that during a 14-day period last month, British soldiers rescued 30 Afghan civilians wounded in bombings or firefights - half of whom were children. The US and Nato yesterday denied the British commander had asked US special forces to leave his area of operations. However, Mr Browne, visiting British and Nato troops in Afghanistan, said the commander was expressing a personal view. "It is the reporting of an observation of a British officer on a particular part of the American military," he told reporters in Kabul. "That may be his view, but it is not the view of the Helmand taskforce commander, it is not the view of our government, it is not the view of the Americans, it is not the view of the alliance. These things can be said in the heat of battle. These are very difficult circumstances." After a meeting with Mr Karzai, Mr Browne said the British-led Helmand force has made "enormous progress in driving back the Taliban in the north of the province". He added: "The forces' progress has been followed by targeted development projects that are making a difference to ordinary Afghans' lives." British officers say US special forces are cavalier in their approach to the civilian population. The tensions were illustrated by an incident the Guardian witnessed in Sangin earlier this summer.A British patrol was abandoned by its American special forces escort in the town for several hours. Stranded in central Sangin, British officers tried to establish radio contact with the Americans, who had disappeared without warning, and swore impatiently when they could not. The British criticisms intensified after the Americans led them to their proposed site for a new Afghan patrol base in the town - beside a graveyard and a religious shrine. "Sensitivity is not their strong suit," said one British officer. Most British soldiers work well with regular American troops and some speak admiringly of them. But US special forces units are a different matter.
They operate under a different chain of command, with their own rules on everything from dress code to the use of weapons. Whereas the British troops operate under Nato command, the American special forces are commanded from the US-led coalition in Bagram airbase outside Kabul. That means the Americans can call on a wider range of airstrikes, and also that British officers have little control over which munitions are dropped in populated areas.The British military spokesman in Helmand, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, said the special forces had supported seven British-led operations in Helmand since last April. He said that relations between the two sides were "excellent". "To work together effectively we have to have bloody good cooperation and we have to mutually support each other," he said. Col Mayo stressed that the British commander who had a problem with special forces had requested them to leave Sangin town only, not all of Helmand. Officers also argue that where Taliban fighters mount ambushes from inside heavily populated areas, civilian deaths are unavoidable. "When you are working in a high intensity counter insurgency environment like this, regrettably you are going to have civilian casualties," Col Mayo said. In London, British officials confirmed UN forecasts that southern Afghanistan's opium poppy crop, based in Helmand, will exceed last year's record. Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch Brown described the figures as "extremely disappointing". Source:www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2145873,00.html
|
|