Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

An extract from Chomsky's book:

Afghanistan was to force the Taliban to hand over people that the US suspected of involvement in the crimes of 9-11; the US refused, however, to provide any evidence. At the time when Taliban reluctance to comply was the lead story of the day, arousing much fury, Haiti renewed its request for extradition of Emmanuel Constant, leader of the paramilitary forces that had primary responsibility for the brutal murder of thousands of Haitians during the early 1990s, when the military junta was supported, not so tacitly, by the first Bush and Clinton administrations. The request apparently did not even merit a response, or more than the barest report. Constant had been sentenced in absentia in Haiti; it is widely assumed that the US is concerned that if he testifies, he may reveal contacts between the state terrorists and Washington.30

Does Haiti therefore have the right to set off bombs in Washington? Or to try to kidnap or kill Constant in New York, where he lives, killing bystanders in approved Israeli style? If not, why not? Why is the question not even raised in this case, or in that of other murderous state terrorists who enjoy safe haven in the US? And if the question is considered too absurd even to consider (as it is, by elementary moral standards), where does that leave the consensus on the resort to violence by one's own leaders?

Referring to 9-11, some argue that the evil of terrorism is "absolute" and merits a "reciprocally absolute doctrine" in response: ferocious military assault in accord with the Bush doctrine that "If you harbor terrorists, you're a terrorist; if you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist—and you will be treated like one."

It would be hard to find anyone who accepts the doctrine that massive bombing is a legitimate response to terrorist crimes. No sane person would agree that bombing Washington would be legitimate in accord with the "reciprocally absolute doctrine" on response to terrorist atrocities, or a justified and properly "calibrated" response to them. If there is some reason why this observation is inappropriate, it has yet to be articulated, even contemplated, as far as I have been able to discover.
Consider some of the legal arguments that have been presented to justify the US-UK bombing of Afghanistan. Christopher Greenwood argues that the US has the right of "self-defense" against "those who caused or threatened. . . death and destruction," appealing to the World Court ruling in the Nicaragua case. The paragraph he cites applies
far more clearly to the US war against Nicaragua than to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, so if it is taken to justify intensive US bombardment and ground attack in Afghanistan, then Nicaragua should have been entitled to carry out much more severe attacks against the US. Another distinguished professor of international law, Thomas Franck, supports the US-UK war on grounds that "a state is responsible for the consequences of permitting its territory to be used to injure another state"; the principle is surely applicable to the US in the case of Nicaragua, Cuba, and many other examples.

What does the US's involvement with other terror-related criminals in other countries throughout history have to do with whether the Taleban should be allowed to run Afghanistan again?

The Taleban have a crap record. It doesn't mean they didn't solve some problems in society or provide some stability (as any stable government provides). On the whole though, how would a return of the Taleban affect the lives of women and children. Don't forget, women make up 50% of the population. Some of you are only looking at what benefits the men, not what benefits the women and children.

Warlords are a problem, but they are also being dealt with. There are people in the Afghan government that are rotten, but how is that any different than any other government in the world? The question is which is the lesser of the evils? I believe that the Taleban is more evil.

Hegemony or Survival - that book looks interesting Shaf. I'm only used to reading Chomsky's linguistics books.

The question is under what conditions regime change is allowed. If the rules used by the US were applied to the USA, they are just as guilty.

Afghanistan wasn't bombed because it was oppressing it's people - if this was the criteria, then Zimbabwe, Burma etc should have been bombed ages ago. On the contrary, one of the charges levelled against the US is that it supports by and large despotic rulers and has actively acted against democracies that would not support it's rule (eg Chile, Algeria, Nicaragua)

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:rvp_legend, be careful about accusing me of only paying attention to media propaganda. I could accuse you of the same thing. Some of your arguments are tedious and refuted according to many reports. Did you read any of the links I gave about the women in Afghanistan?

Well you could very well accuse me of doing so. But i have previously been called a Leftist, a communist apologist and pure anti establishment. but i take my position after reading left, and right wing views and also History which shapes the present.
Sure i read those articles, but CNN and CSM are no match for reality, they have always rolled the war bandwagon. I acknowledged that some girls and women were making progress. But it is no way near as many as is being represented by the media. As i said previously i know people on the ground in Afghanistan, esp in Kabul and Kandahar. And trust me, the reality is MUCH different to what is being braodcasted on TV.
A little bit of Robert Fisk, Henry Makow, Noam Chomsky wll help balace the CNN's and Fox's of the world.

kanelli wrote:Saying that Al Qaeda was created by the US is illogical and not relevant to this thread. Al Qaeda was created by Osama Bin Laden for many reasons - mainly because he wants to follow his own radical interpretation of Islamic jihad.

Not illogical at all and not irrelevant either, since it was you who said the Taleiban kepy dodgy friends. My point is that al qaeda is the b$stard child of the USA in 1973 when they funded the group and helped it become what it was. So they are no people to bring happiness. Esp with the curent friends they are keeping.

kanelli wrote: The Taleban fostering and supporting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden hating the US, but more to do with the Taleban also sharing radical Islamic ideologies and seeking out a partnership with Al Qaeda, even though it did nothing for the betterment of the Afghan population. The Taleban's cooperation with Al Qaeda is what brought on the invasion of their country. Hardly a smart move on their part.

Who said the Taleiban fostering them had anything to do with him Hating the US? his issue with the US was during the first gulf war, when he didnt want them on Saudi Soil! they did not foster him because they shared the same ideology. He was win Sudan and Somalia but then got kicked out. He then offered financial assistance to the Taleiban during civil war, so therefore exploited the situation...the taleiban faught a civil war with little support against warlords (the current government) who were supported by Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and uzbekistan far as they were concerned all help was welcome.

And their co operation wasnt the reason why they were invaded.
They were Ordered to hand over the terrorist leader. And as a guest living in their country, they did what all Tribal countries do, ask for proof.

The USA was arrogant in its approach, and these people do not like force hence they refused to bow down like leaders in the middle east would.

The USA then went all out attack as far as they were concerned "how dare they"

Shafique makes a great example of how Haiti requested a leader also, the US completely ignored them..... some inconsistency here?

kanelli wrote:Warlords are a problem, but they are also being dealt with. There are people in the Afghan government that are rotten, but how is that any different than any other government in the world? The question is which is the lesser of the evils? I believe that the Taleban is more evil.

Apologies if i am appearing like i am contesting yoru every point, but under the Taleiban, the children were much better off than in the previous generationg of Soviet invasion, Communist rule and warlord anarchy.

The druglords and warlords with thier actions were the reason why the taleiban managed to take power. people supported them.
Those same druglords and warlords are now back and have been empowered. and guess what? the taleiban are also returning, its a common trend it seems. and no, they are NOT being dealt with. they cannot be controlled by the central government at all as they all have their own private militia.

If you think the Taleiban is more evil than the warlords and druglords.. then i cannot change your opinion.

But if the Taleiban comes back, it cannot be without the peoples support.

shafique wrote:The question is under what conditions regime change is allowed. If the rules used by the US were applied to the USA, they are just as guilty.

Afghanistan wasn't bombed because it was oppressing it's people - if this was the criteria, then Zimbabwe, Burma etc should have been bombed ages ago. On the contrary, one of the charges levelled against the US is that it supports by and large despotic rulers and has actively acted against democracies that would not support it's rule (eg Chile, Algeria, Nicaragua)

Cheers,
Shafique

Safique, welcome back and Eid Mubarak to you and your loved ones.


Back on topic - Chile, Nicaragua (35+ years ago )

So if the Taleban comes into rural villages and takes over, threatening the people and forcing them into submission - this is according to their will?

The links I posted were from various sources besides CNN and CSM and the documentaries etc. have been shown on various sources. It is arrogant for you to assume that I am only reading propagandist media.

Yes, it is irrelevant to discuss Al Qaeda as being the bastard child of the US because it has nothing to do with our discussion as to why the Taleban is not fit to run Afghanistan. Well, nothing to do with it except that the Taleban made a huge mistake by befriending Al Qaeda and letting them use the country as a base camp. It is Al Qaeda and their terrorist attacks that brough the troops into Afghanistan, not the West wanting a regime change in Afghanistan.

I like debating and it is fine with me if people have opposing opinions. I just wanted to speak up about what I think is important, which is that women and children are being forgotten when people start arguing about how in hindsight the Taleban might not have been so bad compared to the current instability. I especially get annoyed when people just want to argue about how terrible the US is and not consider all factors involved in the complex situation that is Afghanistan right now. From what information I have, women seem to have hope without the Taleban, and I don't want to see them lose that. Politics is not just for men and about men's issues only. Women make up 50% of the population.

shafique wrote:An extract from Chomsky's book:

Afghanistan was to force the Taliban to hand over people that the US suspected of involvement in the crimes of 9-11; the US refused, however, to provide any evidence. At the time when Taliban reluctance to comply was the lead story of the day, arousing much fury, Haiti renewed its request for extradition of Emmanuel Constant, leader of the paramilitary forces that had primary responsibility for the brutal murder of thousands of Haitians during the early 1990s, when the military junta was supported, not so tacitly, by the first Bush and Clinton administrations. The request apparently did not even merit a response, or more than the barest report. Constant had been sentenced in absentia in Haiti; it is widely assumed that the US is concerned that if he testifies, he may reveal contacts between the state terrorists and Washington.30

Does Haiti therefore have the right to set off bombs in Washington? Or to try to kidnap or kill Constant in New York, where he lives, killing bystanders in approved Israeli style? If not, why not? Why is the question not even raised in this case, or in that of other murderous state terrorists who enjoy safe haven in the US? And if the question is considered too absurd even to consider (as it is, by elementary moral standards), where does that leave the consensus on the resort to violence by one's own leaders?

Referring to 9-11, some argue that the evil of terrorism is "absolute" and merits a "reciprocally absolute doctrine" in response: ferocious military assault in accord with the Bush doctrine that "If you harbor terrorists, you're a terrorist; if you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist—and you will be treated like one."

It would be hard to find anyone who accepts the doctrine that massive bombing is a legitimate response to terrorist crimes. No sane person would agree that bombing Washington would be legitimate in accord with the "reciprocally absolute doctrine" on response to terrorist atrocities, or a justified and properly "calibrated" response to them. If there is some reason why this observation is inappropriate, it has yet to be articulated, even contemplated, as far as I have been able to discover.
Consider some of the legal arguments that have been presented to justify the US-UK bombing of Afghanistan. Christopher Greenwood argues that the US has the right of "self-defense" against "those who caused or threatened. . . death and destruction," appealing to the World Court ruling in the Nicaragua case. The paragraph he cites applies
far more clearly to the US war against Nicaragua than to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, so if it is taken to justify intensive US bombardment and ground attack in Afghanistan, then Nicaragua should have been entitled to carry out much more severe attacks against the US. Another distinguished professor of international law, Thomas Franck, supports the US-UK war on grounds that "a state is responsible for the consequences of permitting its territory to be used to injure another state"; the principle is surely applicable to the US in the case of Nicaragua, Cuba, and many other examples.

What are the sources for the first senctence? For starters.

Any fool can write anything they want as they will surely find many more fools who will believe it.

The book likely has a reference list in the back for all the sources.

rvp_legend wrote:

kanelli wrote:Do you have any links or evidence of news stories where Afghan women are yearning for the Taleban to come back and curb their rights completely? Please show the evidence where women are itching to be removed from schools, jobs etc.

I was merely passing an opinion regarding the women asking for the taleiban back.

Pathetic: Intially you did not even hint that it was your opinion but only did so after being asked for facts and evidence Not surprising though.

Concord - thanks, good to be back posting. I'm hoping to shed more light and less heat in my posts now

You ask for references for Chomsky's extract - as kanelli rightly points out, there are extensive notes/references in the book.

He does not give a reference for the first line - about the motive for the bombing (that is common knowledge, surely) or that the US did not provide evidence (they didn't provide any evidence - there is a later quote from the FBI report into 9/11 sometime later that stated that they still, at that time, did not know for certain who exactly were behind the planning etc. The planning, training, execution of 9/11 was carried out by Saudis and Egyptians in - Germany being a base. )

Emmanuel Constant being harboured by the US and a renewed request for extradition took place after 9/11 is also presented as a fact. I'm sure a reference to prove/disprove this fact won't be hard to find.

References aside, Chomsky makes a very good point - was the bombing of Afghanistan justified for the crime of not handing over Osama Bin Laden?

Kanelli - America did not bomb Afghanistan to liberate the women. I think at best you can argue that the side-effect of the US bombing was the 'liberation' of the women from Taliban rules. The other side effects are well documented - a return to massive opium production, government/official corruption, lack of security in most areas (war lords back in power) - and that is not to mention those directly killed by the bombing.

Let's not kid ourselves that the US did this for the Afghan people. Let's also remember that the path is now clear (at least for now) for US control of any oil/gas pipelines through Afghanistan.

If the US were concerned about women's rights - surely they would do something about the country from whom the majority of the 9/11 bombers came from?

Cheers,
Shafique

Concord wrote:

rvp_legend wrote:

kanelli wrote:Do you have any links or evidence of news stories where Afghan women are yearning for the Taleban to come back and curb their rights completely? Please show the evidence where women are itching to be removed from schools, jobs etc.

I was merely passing an opinion regarding the women asking for the taleiban back.

Pathetic: Intially you did not even hint that it was your opinion but only did so after being asked for facts and evidence Not surprising though.

quote
"I bet those same women are now begging for the Taleiban to return. " unquote.
So unless the whole world of language has changed and i am not aware, then "I BET" means what "I" , yes "I" Concord, think and bet.
This was the point Kanelli was contesting. argument closed.
As mentioned previously i made many points, not just on the subject of women, but poppy... warlords with worse records than the taleiban...and privided links....there will be more to follow.

shafique wrote:Let's not kid ourselves that the US did this for the Afghan people. Let's also remember that the path is now clear (at least for now) for US control of any oil/gas pipelines through Afghanistan.

Call me crazy but I thought what happened in Afghanistan might have had something to do with the events of 9/11.

Concord wrote:

shafique wrote:Let's not kid ourselves that the US did this for the Afghan people. Let's also remember that the path is now clear (at least for now) for US control of any oil/gas pipelines through Afghanistan.

Call me crazy but I thought what happened in Afghanistan might have had something to do with the events of 9/11.

Ok Concord. Hello Crazy.





I agree with you - the point I was making was that it wasn't a humanitarian mission to liberate the Afghan people. The question Chomsky poses is whether the bombing and invasion was justified - no Afghanis, for example, took part in 9/11 and there's no evidence that the Taliban were involved in the planning or execution of the act either.

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:So if the Taleban comes into rural villages and takes over, threatening the people and forcing them into submission - this is according to their will?

Yes there will be some. Many Maybe. Even most perhaps. And what if some villages dont? i.e Kandahar, where they enjoy enormous support. and then another town endorses, then another? it looks that way at the moment.

kanelli wrote:The links I posted were from various sources besides CNN and CSM and the documentaries etc. have been shown on various sources. It is arrogant for you to assume that I am only reading propagandist media.

Although my responses may appear arrogant, i was only suggesting that the reality is much diferent to those painted by CNN and CSM. Sure your articles make some vital points, and i acknowledged (even previously) the fact that some women are progressing.

kanelli wrote:Yes, it is irrelevant to discuss Al Qaeda as being the bastard child of the US because it has nothing to do with our discussion as to why the Taleban is not fit to run Afghanistan. Well, nothing to do with it except that the Taleban made a huge mistake by befriending Al Qaeda and letting them use the country as a base camp. It is Al Qaeda and their terrorist attacks that brough the troops into Afghanistan, not the West wanting a regime change in Afghanistan.

If you look back i didnt start talking about Al qaeda. You started that topic as about the Taleiban kept dodgy company, and my reponse was to show the US did the same. In fact as Shafique points out. The US government were ready to deal with the Afghans via UNOCAL(waving all the humans rights, womens rights, childrens rights abuses), even though they had OSAMA in their country! i can quite happily stop talking abotu Al Qaeda as that opens a massive debate on its own.

kanelli wrote:I like debating and it is fine with me if people have opposing opinions. I just wanted to speak up about what I think is important, which is that women and children are being forgotten when people start arguing about how in hindsight the Taleban might not have been so bad compared to the current instability. I especially get annoyed when people just want to argue about how terrible the US is and not consider all factors involved in the complex situation that is Afghanistan right now. From what information I have, women seem to have hope without the Taleban, and I don't want to see them lose that. Politics is not just for men and about men's issues only. Women make up 50% of the population.

See my problem that is not that i think the Taleiban were not so bad, but the fact that the guys "We" have on "our" side are recognised as much worse by Human rights watches.

Below is a small link ive posted before, also found on wikipedia - under afghan northern alliance.
http://www.amirbutler.com/archives/2001/11/03/17

What annoys me is that people actually think the current government and warlords will make the country Prosper. When in fact the warlords and the lawlessness were the reason why the Taleiban gained so much support! And is doing so AGAIN!
Karzai only controls Kabul. His own appointed warlords even have skirmishes with themslves - Karzai and US and NATO were helpless!
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n14573919
If you read up about the Northern alliance (posted earlier) you will see that they were worse than the Taleiban when it came to abuse of women and children. They have for years tried to prevent women from going to school, as a strong womans voice is a threat to them. The taleiban achieved it so there is no way the Warlords will change that. The only success stories have been in Kabiul, under the national army and NATO, but its the same as saying Iraq is now in peace just because its quiet in the green zone. what about the rest of the country? hence i say the situation is much worse than before.

For the Ordinary afghan they will ask the simple questions.

Taleiban and the current government have now had 5 years each.

What has the Government done, even those its in civil war? Few more female attendees in school and a few became entreprenuers.

then
What did the taleiban do in those 5 years while also being at civil war?

"The Taliban made some progress in three areas: centralizing the government, national security, and a de-weaponized Afghanistan. Another issue the Taliban addressed was drug issues. Some Afghanis supported the Taliban because they brought peace and subdued the ferocious people of Afghanistan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taleban

You make some very good points RVP.

This is not a black and white issue - there are shades of Grey.

I still condemn the interpretation of Islam that the media said the Taliban had imposed on Afghanistan - the banning of females working and going to school, banning of music, television and kite flying (!) - the forcing of men to wear beards and women to cover up totally. And that they blew up the Buddha because it was an idol and against Islam (insulting, let alone destruction of idols of idol worshippers, is forbidden by the Quran).

Had I not made more research into the subject, that is where my knowledge of the Taleban would have stopped and I would still be condemning them for carrying out acts contrary to Islam and the Quran.

Now I read, for example, that they protected Hindu temples and forbade any idols that were being worshipped from harm - and that they brought order from chaos.

I therefore find that not all I read about them was true in totality... and as a result my attitudes have changed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Totally agree with you Shafique about the disagreements of their interpretations. All of my Muslim friends do the same.

But if the Taleiban was replaced by a government with a clean slate i would be all for it. instead the warlords have been chosen. and the Afghan people will make their own choice. Even though much of the hysteria turned out to be propaganda, they still commited terrible crimes in some areas. Women's right to education and health amongst the worst.

I remember during the invasion i was still living in Stockholm, and soon as it was mentioned that the warlords with karzai were to be the new head of an already war torn nation , documentary after documentary was shown in regards to warlords such as Ahmed Shah Masood, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Ismail Kham, Abdul Rahid Dostum and others. So therefore i was against this invasion from the off Especially also learning of the oil deals such as
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

The US painted a picture of Masood as a hero (much like they did with Saddam in the eighties) after he got killed but his militia commited some of the worse abuses in Afghan history.
If only the media did their duty...

AND OH, it is also believed in certain circles that Hamid Karzai was an advisor to UNOCAL...

rvp_legend

You have made some excellent points! Wow. Now if those points would only get across to some people...

To those that support the coalition troops, who are you? I mean, we know it's Concord (aka Mr. & Mrs Enquirer) and Arnie and those other um... highly informed and completely impartial (ha! ) members.

Are you coalition supporters like afraid of saying who you are in the forum? If so, why?

yea ...

why dont those 9 members say who u is....
9 ppl that support arab brothers/sisters being killed an u livin in arab land .. ??? no wonder ppl say arab's are fag's cause they actually allow them coallition troops in there lands to begin with .. then secondly they allow ppl like u supporters to reside here.. bunch of puni's yes they truly are.

lets see u representing what u claim

Shafique, why were the Afghan women holding classes for girls in secret if the Taleban supposedly let women go to school? Are all those women liars?

Sorry, but I believe what the Afghan women say they were subjected to - not what the men have to say about it.

rvp_legend has definitely made some good points, but it is still my opinion that things will improve and that a new government will be the lesser of the evils when compared to the Taleban. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Anyhow, this thread was supposed to be about coalition troops in Iraq. I'm sorry for my part in shifting the discussion to Afghanistan.

kanelli wrote:Shafique, why were the Afghan women holding classes for girls in secret if the Taleban supposedly let women go to school? Are all those women liars?

Sorry, but I believe what the Afghan women say they were subjected to - not what the men have to say about it.

rvp_legend has definitely made some good points, but it is still my opinion that things will improve and that a new government will be the lesser of the evils when compared to the Taleban. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Anyhow, this thread was supposed to be about coalition troops in Iraq. I'm sorry for my part in shifting the discussion to Afghanistan.

Kanelli - I'm sorry, but I must not have communicated clearly enough.

I don't think that the Taliban were the best rulers - in my post above I clearly state that I don't agree with the reported policies of stopping women from working, schooling, banning of music etc. It was reported they banned make-up as well (but if you are covered up, how would they know?? - that didn't make sense to me).

However, I've discovered that I did not get the whole truth about the Taliban (eg the destruction of the Buddha) and whilst they weren't good, they did do a lot of good things for the country and the security situation has gone backwards since their over-throw.

As for women in education - Lionheart explained once that it was all schools that were closed for security purposes, then when it was safe to open them, only boys were allowed back - girls being held back for safety. Now, this does not tie in with the media reports and I still believe in the reports that the Taliban did forbid women from working and getting an education.

The puzzling part for me is the NYTimes article from 2001 where at the end the spokesman speaks of his daughters and says he of course wants them to go to university and better themselves! This is where the article ends, intriguingly.

In summary, kanelli, I object to the unnecessary killing of innocent Afghans, and do not now think that the bombing of the country was justified - either from a legal perspective or a moral one. The overthrow of the Taliban has actually made things worse for the populace - including the women. If things were rosy, everyone secure and women playing a full role the whole society, then I perhaps would be less critical of the invasion - but it isn't, so there aren't really any good 'side-effects' of the invasion. Women are as oppressed as ever and now have a security problem - but, on the other hand, yes the schools are open.

Cheers,
Shafique

This is not a black and white issue - there are shades of Grey.
No there are no shades of grey the Americans have gone soft they should carpet bomb and if that does not work NUKE they can still get the oil and the joos will be very happy and we will not have to read all the whineing from the repressed r*ghe*ds Go George Go!

i just wanted to add this post i found on
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon10172006.html

It touches on many of the points myself and Shafique have commented on.



October 17, 2006
The Taliban Aren't Gone, Women Haven't Been Liberated
Afghanistan Reconsidered

By SHARON SMITH

The October 7 anniversary of the war on Afghanistan passed virtually unnoticed on U.S. soil. Mainstream news outlets spared the Bush administration the embarrassment of accounting for the subsequent fate of Afghanistan's 30 million people five years after the U.S. launched the first "regime change" in its never-ending war on terror.

But an honest accounting is long overdue, not merely among those who have prosecuted this disastrous war-but also for the U.S. antiwar movement, whose sole focus on opposing the war in Iraq continues to sustain the fiction that the war on Afghanistan was a justifiable response to 9-11.

It was not.

Perhaps most damning is a BBC News report issued on Sept. 18, 2001-long ignored by the U.S. media-showing that the U.S. was planning to bomb Afghanistan well before Sept. 11. The BBC reported, "Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by mid-October."

The events of Sept. 11 provided the U.S. with an excuse to set its sights higher, using the war against Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacking Iraq, with the aim of militarily reshaping the entire Middle East to suit its own interests.

With the benefit of hindsight, even a cursory examination of Afghanistan five years on provides ample evidence that the U.S.' stated goals in Afghanistan were based upon a set of lies equivalent in scale to those used to justify the war on Iraq.

Lie number one: The overthrow of the Taliban brought a flowering of democracy to Afghanistan.

During his gloating 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed the U.S. victory over Afghanistan "saved a people from starvation and freed a country from brutal oppression." He then introduced former Unocal consultant and Afghan President Hamid Karzai as "the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan" to thunderous applause.

In reality, the U.S.' swift victory over the Taliban in 2001 involved striking a deal with the "Northern Alliance"-the same Mujahideen warlords, drug kingpins and mass rapists who ruled Afghanistan immediately before the Taliban seized power in 1996. To bolster the puppet Karzai's wobbly government, Northern Alliance warlords were offered important government posts. Defense Minister Abdul Rashid Dustum was described by journalist Robert Fisk in 2001 as "one of the most powerful Alliance gangsters, whose men looted and raped their way through the suburbs of Kabul in the Nineties. They chose girls for forced marriages, murdered their families Dustum had a habit of changing sides, joining the Taliban for bribes and indulging in massacres alongside the Wahhabi gangsters who formed the government of Afghanistan, then returning to the Alliance weeks later."

With drug-trafficker and warlord Gen. Mohammed Daoud installed as Afghanistan's Deputy Interior Minister (in charge of "cracking down" on poppy production), it is no wonder that Afghanistan is now setting record levels of heroin exports-supplying up to 92 percent of the world's heroin.

Meanwhile, "Afghanistan's people are starving to death," according to a comprehensive report by the British-based Senlis Council issued last month. "One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five, and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world," the report added.

Lie number two: The war on Afghanistan aimed to liberate Afghan women.

After the fall of the Taliban in November 2001, President Bush gallantly ceded airtime in his weekly radio address to First Lady Laura Bush, who claimed:

"Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."

U.S. bombs were never meant to bring about the liberation of Afghan women. Indeed, five years later, President Hamid Karzai's cabinet has formally resurrected the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice-the Taliban's notorious religious police renowned for beating Afghan women for revealing their wrists, hands, or ankles, or venturing in public without a close male relative.

Late last month, the Burqa-clad Safia Ama Jan, director for Kandahar's Ministry of Women's Affairs, was gunned down outside her home as she left for work. As a member of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) observed in an October 7 speech, in toppling the Taliban, the U.S. "just replaced one fundamentalist regime with another."

Lie number three: The Taliban could not be negotiated with--and was therefore overthrown--for providing a "safe haven" for terrorists.

Five years later, the U.S. appears ready to negotiate with the undefeated Taliban. Senate majority leader Bill Frist admitted this in early October, arguing that the war against the Taliban can "never" be won militarily because the Taliban were "too numerous and had too much popular support." It might be time, he added, to include "people who call themselves Taliban" in the Afghan government.

This idea has clearly gained some traction among policy wonks. With more than 3,000 Afghans killed so far this year, Afghan expert Peter Bergen from the New American Foundation argues that the Taliban is using insurgent attacks as bargaining leverage. "The fact that they are using these tactics doesn't mean that you shouldn't be thinking about ways of dealing with them," said Bergen. Asked whether bringing the Taliban into government is a good idea, he responded, "I think it's an excellent one."

Stephen P. Cohen of the Brookings Institution agrees that making deals with the Taliban might work. "Our true interest is in ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a haven for al Qaeda," he told the Council on Foreign Relations. "The Taliban, under Pakistani pressure, might ensure this if its own position was secured. This is distasteful, and might mean Karzai's departure, but it does preserve our one core interest in Afghanistan."

As the Senlis Council bluntly concluded, "U.S. policies in Afghanistan have re-created the safe haven for terrorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy."

Sharon Smith is the author of Women and Socialism and Subterranean Fire: a History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States.

freza wrote:rvp_legend

You have made some excellent points! Wow. Now if those points would only get across to some people...

To those that support the coalition troops, who are you? I mean, we know it's Concord (aka Mr. & Mrs Enquirer) and Arnie and those other um... highly informed and completely impartial (ha! ) members.

Are you coalition supporters like afraid of saying who you are in the forum? If so, why?

When you quote someone Freza, at least have the intellegence, decency and respect to make sure what you quote is correct and factual. I have no where said on this forum i support the collition troops.

The way you write is indicative of your immaturity and ignorance. You laugh and make funny references when you write, are you unsure of what you write or just nervous or slightly highly strung ??

arniegang wrote:
When you quote someone Freza, at least have the intellegence, decency and respect to make sure what you quote is correct and factual. I have no where said on this forum i support the collition troops.

The way you write is indicative of your immaturity and ignorance. You laugh and make funny references when you write, are you unsure of what you write or just nervous or slightly highly strung ??

Where did I quote someone? I did not quote, I assumed, do you know the difference? I assumed because your past statements speak for themselves, I mean c'mon now, you're trying to be neutral now? Yeah, so believable.

It's interesting how you use what others criticize about you against me now, very original. Am I getting to you? You play the laid back and fresh bloke but you do seem to get jumpy rather easily...

oh, and that whole intelligence, decency, maturity reference - as my grandmother would say - like a donkey criticizing someone's ears

(don't bother with your reply, I know that it's going to read: Predictable)

Kanelli,

A few years ago the LA Times ran a series on the crimes committed by the US backed war lords and the US itself in Afghanistan. The bombing of a "Taliban school" by US air forces was something that was particularly striking; the school was literally a school full of kids, and this was a known fact to the US forces, the kids burned to death. War lords killing their prisoners by placing them in metal boxes and leaving the boxes in the hot sun. Kidnapping and imprisonment of children - children getting raped in prison.

The fact that Afghanistan has sunk into even more danger, become even more splintered and has essentially become a drug state run by feuding war lords and criminal gangs has been known for a while, but the media and international attention has mostly eluded these facts. HRW and Amnesty International have a good record of what's been going on, you should check their reports.

*sigh*

I may be 10 years younger than Freza but...

freza wrote:Kanelli,
War lords killing their prisoners by placing them in metal boxes and leaving the boxes in the hot sun. Kidnapping and imprisonment of children - children getting raped in prison.

They (the Northen alliance) also killed them in other, more direct ways. The dead guy was later proven to be NOT part of the Taleiban, but only a suspect.
(apologies for the graphic nature)