quote:

---

ABC News: Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a key US ally, contradicted US assessments of the threat posed by Iran and insisted in an interview that Tehran played a beneficial role in his region.

"So far, Iran has been a helper and a solution," Mr Karzai told CNN on the eve of a visit to the US to meet with President George W Bush for talks on the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan.

"Iran has been a supporter of Afghanistan, in the peace process that we have and the fight against terror, and the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan," said Mr Karzai, who became president with US backing in 2002.

---

Iran a helper, not a threat.

The US response? You'll love this:

quote:

---

Also interviewed on CNN, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates responded to Mr Karzai's comments by offering that Iran was "playing both sides of the street in Afghanistan."

---

Ahahahaha ha! A clear case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was.

[ 05 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Cook: There is an interesting problem with selling the "Iran as Nazi Germany" line. If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel's Jews as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American Jews?

---

Israel's Jewish Problem in Tehran: So Why Hasn't Iran Started by Wiping Its Own Jews off the Map?

Not that things are completely ducky for Iranian Jews. It's still the same regime that saw the death of a Canadian journalist in police custody. But, notwithstanding that, the Society of Iranian Jews wasn't about to be used as cannon fodder by Israel, no matter what bribes were offered:

quote:

---

To step up these efforts -- and presumably to avoid the embarrassing incongruence of claiming an imminent second Holocaust while thousands of Jews live happily in Tehran -- Israel is now backing a move by Jewish donors to guarantee every Iranian Jewish family $60,000 to settle in Israel, in addition to a host of existing financial incentives that are offered to Jewish immigrants, including loans and cheap mortgages.

The announcement was met with scorn by the Society of Iranian Jews, which issued a statement that their national identity was not for sale. "The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of money. Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran's Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Playing both sides of the street, huh? Like, say, arming both Iran AND Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war? Who was it who did that? Gee, my memory's a little foggy here, but...

Anyhow, this is really interesting - perhaps Karzai's trying to break out of puppet mode. Sounds like he's testing just how far he'll be allowed to be independent.

---

Without meeting with an unfortunate 'accident', you mean?

quote:

---

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Monday the Taliban was a defeated and frustrated force that poses no threat to the stability of his country's government.

"They're not posing any threat to the government of Afghanistan," said Karzai, who spoke during a news conference with U.S. President George W. Bush after wrapping up two days of talks at Camp David, Md.

---

OK, so why do we need thousands of Canadians fighting in Afghanistan, over 60 of whom have died, again?

quote:

---

"There is still work to be done, don't get me wrong," Bush said. "But progress is being made, Mr. President, and we're proud of you."

---

Oh. OK, Mr. Monkey. As long as "progress" is being made. Though it's pretty clear that what the US President thinks is "progress" is completely different from what most civilized human beings think it is - judging by the "progress" in Iraq. However, if you're a Korean family worried about your loved ones, forget about it. Time to make funeral plans.

quote:

---

Bush and Karzai also agreed they would not offer any incentives to the Taliban to free 21 South Korean hostages being held for more than two weeks, said a White House spokesperson. The Taliban has demanded the release of imprisoned militants.

---

Actually, the last I heard, the Taliban were demanding the release of some women who had provided assistance to their fighters in exchange for the release of the Korean hostages. The women had provided food and shelter for Taliban fighters and had been arrested and imprisoned by the Afghan regime as a result.

I wonder who's winning the hearts and minds here?

Karzai: The Taliban is no threat to Afghanistan.

[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has told his Afghan counterpart during a one-day visit to Kabul that Tehran is not arming the Taliban.

US and British officials have both recently claimed that Iranian weapons are reaching the movement's fighters who are fighting Afghan government and international troops in the country.

"I doubt seriously if there is any truth in it," Ahmadinejad said at a joint news conference on Tuesday with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.

"With all our force, we support the political process in Afghanistan," he said. "For us, a secure and stable Afghanistan is the best."

---

from al jazeera

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Perhaps then, the NATO role in Afghanistan should be seen not simply as a military force to support and guard current and future US oil and gas pipelines, but as a military force to prevent the construction of such pipelines that the US, or its "allies" do not control. divide et impera.

---

quote:

---

Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India - a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province - raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project.

To prepare for proposed construction in 2010, the Afghan government has reportedly given assurances it will clear the route of land mines, and make the path free of Taliban influence.

In a report to be released today, energy economist John Foster says the pipeline is part of a wider struggle by the United States to counter the influence of Russia and Iran over energy trade in the region.

The so-called Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because the U.S. government is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran.

The TAPI pipeline would also diminish Russia's dominance of Central Asian energy exports.

Mr. Foster said the Canadian government has long ignored the broader geopolitical aspects of the Afghanistan deployment, even as NATO forces, including Canadian troops, could be called upon to defend the critical energy infrastructure.

---

quote:

---

A Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement, signed by representatives of the four nations on April 25, 2008, commits the four nations to initiating construction of the $7.6 billion gas pipeline in 2010, supplying gas by 2015.

“Canada’s debate has been devoid of any discussion about how building a U.S.-backed pipeline through Kandahar would affect Canadian Forces’ efforts to build peace and stability in Afghanistan’s most troubled province,” said Bruce Campbell, CCPA Executive Director. “Will Canadian Forces become guardians of this pipeline?”

---

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape U.S. foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day. Maresca told U.S. Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."

Dana Rohrbacher, California congressman, then identified the Taliban as the ruling controllers among various factions in Afghanistan and characterized them as "opium producers."

Then Rohrbacher asked Maresca: "There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people?"

Maresca answered: "If it is the person I am thinking of, he is there in the Taliban area." This testimony obviously alluded to Osama bin Laden.

Then Rorhbacher asked: "... in the northern area as compared to the place where the Taliban are in control, would you say that one has a better human rights record toward women than the other?"

Maresca responded by saying: "With respect to women, yes. But I don't think either faction here has a very clean human rights record, to tell you the truth."

So women's rights were introduced into Congressional testimony by Congressman Rohrbacher as the wedge for UNOCAL to build its pipeline through Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened the Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept sending money to the Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it "on side" for possible use in a war against China.

The 9/11 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases -- which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route -- and installed former Unocal "consultant" Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight "Islamic terrorism," liberate women, build schools and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was weapons of mass destruction and democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an "energy protection force."

---

quote:

---

The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida

---

Furthermore, I think Margolis is mistaken for another reason. The alleged objectives in Afghanistan have been moved around like goalposts by a team that habitually cheats. The original "objective" in Afghanistan was to capture bin Laden. However, the Taliban offer of turning over bin Laden if the US could provide evidence of the latter's guilt was angrily rejected in favour of an indiscriminate bombing campaign.

The doctrine of war against an abstract noun (The War on Terror) developed further down the road. al Qaeda, whether it actually exists or not, is simply one target in this War on Terror. I would just add that a war against an abstract noun, like "The War on Terror", like "Operation Enduring Freedom" (which Canada is a part of, to this day, in Afghanistan), is a war without end, against poorly defined enemies, for unclear goals, by whatever means possible.

quote:

---

I would just add that a war against an abstract noun, like "The War on Terror", like "Operation Enduring Freedom" (which Canada is a part of, to this day, in Afghanistan), is a war without end, against poorly defined enemies, for unclear goals, by whatever means possible.

---

I agree.

By the way, mocking the Bush administration's "War on Terror" is something that I have borrowed from Zbignew Brezhinski. It's not my original idea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Fidel, I think Chalmers Johnson's term (blowback) simply refers to unforseen consequences of covert activity, regardless of a parting of ways or not.

---

And I'm not sure that Chalmers Johnson says blowback is an honest description for what's happened. Chomsky is one of the few on the left who does believe it. This is the CIA we're talking about. A European Union parliament has formally condemned cold war era Gladio terror units with ties to U.S. intel and NATO, and all the while the U.S. and Britain maintain there was no such terror organization. Needless to say, there were people in those countries who were suspicious of 9-11 events well before North Americans were. Hmmm a fictive terror organization eh?

Blowback is also an inside CIA term for when an intelligence asset turns on them with unintended consequences. They've already admitted to creating al Qaida, and funding and training the mujahideen in their proxy war with the Soviets and then the Soviet-backed PDPA after the Soviets pulled out. 1992 is approximately when the CIA and Pentagon claim to have divorced themselves from bin Laden and ruthless mercenaries they helped create. The question is, who believes it? I'm sure Luis Posada Carilles, a retired Cuban-Gladio terrorist now living in the U.S., has his own opinions on blowback.

But as I was saying, there is ample evidence now that high-ranking army intelligence under both Clinton and Bush administrations were aiding and abetting al Qaida in the Balkans, and protecting an al-Qaida specialist for hijacking airliners, and with help from the RCMP in 1999. Putin accused the Gladio gang of aiding mujahideen terror in Chechnya in recent years. How do we know 9-11 was blowback at all and not an intended consequence of their ongoing collaboration with al Qaida assets? How do we know they've made a break with al Qaida assets today? Blowback is what the CIA tells Congress what went wrong, and it legitimizes the phony war on terror. Canada's parliament has swallowed the blowback fable whole as well. The Soviets walking away from the cold war left big shoes for Pentagon capitalists to fill in creating a new enemy to justify the war economy - huge annual sums of money for which a handful of embedded plutocrats and Pentagon capitalists might kill for.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Fidel: Blowback is what the CIA tells Congress what went wrong, and it legitimizes the phony war on terror.

---

I think you're mistaken here. A foreign policy that led to the consequences of a few thousand dead in New York City in such a horrific way, foreseen or unforeseen, rather than legitimize the "War on Terror", actually seems to invite public scrutiny and question. The foreign policy that led to 9-11 was an interventionist, interfering set of premises that have not been abandoned.

Therefore, what a thoughtful person CAN say, is that if the US continues interfering in the same way that they did prior to 9-11, then future 9-11's are possible. This simple idea, that the US is creating future terrorists with its current policy, is now commonly accepted.

quote:

---

Please note that I did not emphasize, nor consider essential, whether the events of 9-11 were an intended consequence, understood by the US, or not. For the purposes of the argument I'm making here ... it hardly matters.

---

It matters to them and people who believe it. It's the one shred of credibility they've been clinging to all along.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I mean, that just narrows the base of people that are going to agree with you. The wider argument, that includes the possibility that 9-11 was an unintended consequence of US foreign policy, and that asserts, for example, that the War on Terror will create new terrorists, is something that many more people could agree with, including those who are not the kind of critic of US foreign policy that you are (or I am).

Many Americans, for example, who would never, ever approach our critical view of their government could be persuaded that the current War on Terror is a wrong-headed approach to foreign policy that is, also, harmful to the US as well as harmful to other countries.

And I think Chomsky, the second co-author of Manufacturing Consent, is a renowned commentator on the left who is simply uninterested in 9-11 conspiracy. That doesn't necessarily make him a lone authority on the subject.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]