If there may exist a more insane war than all others the world has ever known, it has to be the one currently being waged by the West in Afghanistan. With no end in sight, Americans as well as Europeans persist in occupying a country and killing its population which have done nothing to them and didn't even think of doing anything against them.
A war that was launched in October of 2001 with one stated goal only: to get hold of one single man, possibly 2, counting Molah Omar. Yeah, a war launched to catch one single man!!! Ain't that rich?
And since then we've been brain washed into thinking the survival of the West was at stake, terrorists had to be eliminated from the surface of the earth and the only way to achieve these objectives was to stay in Afghanistan as long as it would take to finish the job and on and on and on…
Been there before? Yeah, right, the Iraqi terrorist regime had to be put to death in order to protect civilized countries from the devilish WMDs S. Hussein was about to launch and which could reach Europe within 40 minutes! (Or was it 20?)
So far this whole madness has cost America the sum of… see here, it changes every tenth of second and soon over 2.000 casualties among all members of the NATO (which actually is meaningless in terms of war casualties)
This morning, General Secretary of the NATO, Anders F. R. Rasmussen, writes another text in the New York Times where he assures the NATO-led alliance is on the good track, there has been unexpected difficulties and more are to come but it the end everything will be fine since "our strategy" is the right one!
Each paragraph of this text is a fraud and exposes the sheer hypocrisy of the West with no ultimate responsibility of the author. The same goes of course for all the politicians who acquiesced to this war, be it Bush, Blair, Chirac and their ilk.
A text you could have read in the Pravda 30 years ago when the Russians were there in order to protect the Afghan population from anti-social forces and help it construct a democratic and vibrant democracy (Soviet style).
The arguments used by all politicians and members of the military regarding Afghanistan are copied/pasted on those used by the French and other Europeans colonists in the XIXth century! We're in your country in order to help you and facilitate your accession to a life style worth your country etc. (See "Y'a bon la France").
To make it short, we're here to help you construct a democratic and vibrant democracy (American style).
Fact is the West is in complete disarray and knows not how to withdraw without losing face and admitting it was wrong from the very first day. Main beneficiaries: the industrial-military complex, whether American or French (Thales, Dassault etc.).
I should take some time to do a research and see how all those companies have fared on the international markets since 2001…
The NATO-led alliance is in Afghanistan in order to build a nation, yeah, right… I've read that line before. For what I remember, these same nations didn't blink an eye when the Taliban regime exploded the Bâmiyân statues for example or when Afghani women had been imposed subjugative way of life upon them for centuries.
But rest assured, this war is a democratic one since it has been launched by democratic countries whose populations have democratically elected their leaders. Although said populations never elected their leaders for the purpose of waging wars, no matter what, it's democratic and the trick's done!
Ain't nation-building great?
16 commentaires:
Please Flocon, it is "losing face". "loosing" is completely different.
But anyway, have you seen the film "Charlie Wilson's War"? It is well worth it, excellent dialogues and a good ending.
Thanks Ned, typo corrected.
This one's for you only...
If that's the only mistake that is to be found in this post then I'm flying really high!
A war that was launched in October of 2001 with one stated goal only: to get hold of one single man, possibly 2, counting Molah Omar. Yeah, a war launched to catch one single man!!! Ain't that rich?
Bien que t'exagère un peu*, I feel as frustrated by all of this as you do. The loss of lives of innocent civilians is horrible and it is the economy of the country that I live in which is being destroyed by all of the military expenditures. My friends and I talk all the time about who is profiting from this madness and how powerful the military industrial complex is. I am disappointed that Obama is in the clutches of the military and seems to do their bidding.. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is also a factor as she seems to be a rather hawkish Democrat.
*
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
a) the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The Taliban were harboring the terrorist camps of OBL. The Afghans were caught in the cross fire of all of this madness.
Souviens-tu que ta petite américaine avais remarque:
En anglais une faute que je vois souvent avec les français, c'est 'loose' au lieu de 'lose' pour qqchose qui est perdu. 'Loose' veut dire 'pas serré' (not tight).
Et pour la prononciation:
lose = luz
loose = lus
Now, both of you want to spoil my evening I can see ;-)
This damn typo will follow me until my very last day I'm afraid -:(
Last year and 2 years ago I wrote 2 posts about Obama and the Afghanistan war.
J'avais dans l'idée d'écrire un billet sur les déceptions qui ont suivi l'élection d'Obama but as a foreigner, what do I know?
Guantanamo, Israèl, Afghanistan... Quel que soit le POTUS in charge il est à la merci de certains lobbies dont le moindre n'est pas le complexe militaro-industriel hélas.
C'est lui qui fait marcher l'économie.
Regarding the purported training camps in Afghanistan, c'est une totale fumisterie!
N'importe quel terrain vague avec quelques rochers suffit à des types pour s'entraîner à courir, sauter, grimper des palissades ou tirer à la Kalachnikov sur des cibles peintes sur des cailloux.
Le monde entier est fait de camps d'entraînement comme ça. Resorting to the notion of training camps in Afghanistan or anywhere in order to justify an invasion is sheer propaganda and brain washing.
I'me sure there are such training camps some miles away from where you live as well as all over the country in France and Europe for that matter.
Those so-called training camps aren't exactly sophisticated stadium. They're mere derelict grounds.
Regarding Mrs Clinton, there was also a post about her that I wrote 2 years ago when she threatened to "obliterate" Iran! No less!!!
Yes, but what kind of training camps are you talking about here? Are you comparing U.S. military training camps to Al Qaeda training camps ? Are you comparing sports training camps boyscout training camps to Al Qaeda training camps? I don't get your point.
Yes, but what kind of training camps are you talking about here? Are you comparing U.S. military training camps to Al Qaeda training camps ? Are you comparing sports training camps boyscout training camps to Al Qaeda training camps? I don't get your point.
Those so-called training camps aren't exactly sophisticated stadium. They're mere derelict grounds.
Well, I'll provide just one example, among many others.
By the spring of 2000, Hanjour was back in Afghanistan. According to KSM, Hanjour was sent to him in Karachi for inclusion in the plot after Hanjour was identified in al Qaeda's al Faruq camp as a trained pilot, on the basis of background information he had provided. Hanjour had been at a camp in Afghanistan for a few weeks when Bin Ladin or Atef apparently realized that he was a trained pilot; he was told to report to KSM, who then trained Hanjour for a few days in the use of code words.
Profiles of 911 Saudi Hijackers
Wail Mohamed Al-Shehri:
In Afghanistan he trained in Al-Farooq camp in Khandhar.
AbdulAziz AbulRahman Alomari:
He was trained in AlFarooq camp in Qandahar.
Nawaf AlHazmi:
He was trained in Afghanistan in Alfarooq camp in Khandhar, a camp used by Osamea Ben Laden to train his followers. He was on American Airlines #77 that crashed into the penatagon..
and on and on and on for the rest of the saudi hijackers
AbdulAziz AbdulRahman Alomari:
He left to Afghanistan in December 2000. He was trained in AlFarroq camp in Qandahar and was appointed its religious lead due to his education.
Nawaf Al-Hazmi:
He was trained in Afghanistan in Alfarooq camp in Khandhar. He was on American Airlines #77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
Salem AlHazmi:
He left with his brother Nawaf March 2000 to Afghanistan. he was on American Airlines #77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
Fayez Mohamed AlShehri:
He left the country approximately late 2001 to Pakistan then to Afghanistan. He was on board United Airlines #175 that crashed into South Tower of World Trade Center.
Hamza Saleh AlGhamdi:
He left... to Pakistan then to Afghanistan. He spent a year there before returning to Saudi Arabia and obtaining US visa to travel to USA. He called his parents in July to ask them for forgiveness and to pray for him. He was on board United Airlines #175 that crashed into South Tower of World Trade Center.
Anijo,
"but what kind of training camps are you talking about here?"
That's the core of the question indeed.
Everybody speaks of training camps but what are they actually?
Certainly not like U.S. military training camps as you suggest I may believe they are.
My point is that the word "training camp" has been used ad nauseam in order to persuade the world public opinions that there existed places in Irak, Afghanistan , Pakistan, Yemen etc. where would-be terrorists were intensively trained military like so that they'd be able to perform the most destructive attacks againt the West.
Here is a video, courtesy FoxNews, where they try to bring "evidence" of the existence of a terrorist training camp in Irak where the guys would be taught how to murder, fly an airplane etc.
That was 7 years ago... And now, what is left of this supposed training camp in Irak which was meant to bring evidence of the implication of S. Hussein in the 9/11 attacks? Totally bogus home made propaganda.
I don't doubt a second that the 9/11 terrorist you list were said to have been in those places called "training facilities" or whatever.
But what are training camps actually?
Here's another video (CNN) where we see "terrorists" training for the Jihad.
I see mountainous landscapes with 2 Range Rovers and a moped, about 12 guys running awild while shooting around with their submachine guns.
Such "training grounds" can be found all over the world which means "terrorist training camps" is a word used by the media in order to have Americans, Europeans etc. inconsciously make a comparison with the professional training camps of their respective armies.
Another "training camp" of Al Qaida where we see another montainous landscape with hardly 100 guys waving flags, reciting prayers, jumping and crawling and at the end they even jump into the water and ride horses!
I'm terrified by this video where Al Qaoida says to the West: Look how strong and united and dangerous and professionnaly trained we are!
I still can tell propaganda when I see it.
Since the 9/11 attacks occured we've been shown images of purported training camps where O.B.L himself was using some kind of Kalachnikov.
Given the post 9/11 trauma context, it's easy to understand how powerfully these images worked in the western psyche but things mut be put in perspective.
I don't doubt one second that those guys are dangerous and must be taken care of but my guess is that there are far more firearms in the hand of private persons in the US than there are in Afghanistan.
Besides, there are now 140.000 Nato soldiers in Afghanistan and one would think they've taken control of these supposed training camps which, we are told, are the breeding place of terrorism.
And yet, one American soldier gets kill each day whether by mean of I.E.D or else. "Insurgents" (As far as I know, they're in their country) don't have to be trained in any sort of facilities in order to wage their war against the invaders.
Well, as a matter of fact this whole country is a training camp and I have a strong suspiscion that the association of the words terrorists,training and camps is a substitute for WMDs when Irak was invaded.
Since it's impossible to fool the world twice with the WMDs lunacy they now resort to the terrifying "terrorist training camps" set expression.
I see it as another piece of subliminal brainwashing from politicians (Americans as well as Europeans!) and the military they're supposed to have authority upon. And you sometimes wonder who's got authority on who...
Our Minister for foreign affairs (Kouchner, no need to learn his name) declared last March when one French soldier died in Afgha. that he died for the freedom of the World!
And I'm supposed not to see crass B.S here?
The faster we leave the better. In the end the Russians had to leave and they were better off with it.
Here is an American training camp for firearms nuts and here is Sarah Palin training.
There are numerous videos on YouTube showing triggers Happies (or Happy-triggers?) training just the way Islamists train.
Both scare me the same.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a matter of America vs. the others but those terrorists training grounds for Islamic terrorists is another trick of politicians to get their country lead another colonial war under the pretence that they mean well for the country they want to subjugate.
We can't lie again with WMDs? What about terrorist training camps? Sounds OK doesn't it?
And no, I didn't write this one...
Enregistrer un commentaire