- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com -
Obama’s blurry vision for Afghanistan
Posted By admin On December 1, 2009 @ 9:29 am In Featured Stories,Old Infowars Posts Style | Comments Disabled
December 1, 2009
How complicated really is it to understand why the US doesn’t belong in Afghanistan? We invaded the country illegally after 9/11, supposedly in search of Osama bin Laden. Eight years later we haven’t found him. David Ray Griffin, America’s leading scholar on 9/11 has written a book, Osama Bin Laden – Dead or Alive, which presents a great deal of factual proof that Osama died at the end of December, 2001 in Pakistan and was buried there in an unmarked grave, according to Muslim tradition. Theoretically that should collapse our entire reason for being there. Yet we are still there.
|Obama should be booed off the stage with his slick political patois: give them anything but promise them change.|
And of all sources, Israel’s daily HAARETZ.com, ran an article, Senate report: US decided to let bin Laden slip through their fingers. Well swell. I could have told you so. It was in the mountains of Tora Bora where “Osama bin Laden was unquestionably with reach of US troops…when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader (itals mine) with massive force, a Senate report reveals.” This was in late December 2001, according to the report, “when he was at his most vulnerable.” Yes, he was sick unto dying.
But the Senate’s spin on it is that “Bin Laden’s escape laid the foundation for today’s reinvigorated Afghan and inflamed the internal strike now endangering Pakistan.” No, dear Senators, it was the unmerited attack on Afghanistan to “smoke him out,” i.e., “bomb Afghanistan back into the stone-age” that angered Afghans, and the pressure we put on Pakistan to cooperate with the US via deposed puppet President, General Musharraf. Our initial attack was arbitrary, that is not even based on having real evidence that bin Laden was the leader of the 9/11 attack. In fact, the FBI removed him from their Most Wanted Terrorist List for that particular crime for lack of evidence.
Scroll down the linked document and it clearly reads “CAUTION – Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.” Right, he’s Mr. Terror, but he’s not credited with 9/11.
Yet, Osama Bin Laden had a history of working as an asset for the C.I.A. His asset name was Tim Osman. Bin Laden was receiving kidney dialysis at a U.S. hospital in Dubai just prior to 9/11. He also stated on Al Jazeera Television on September 16, 2001 that he had no knowledge of the attacks, and that they appeared to be carried out by individuals with their own motivation. And what could that be, but to instigate “The War on Terror” via the false-flag op of 9/11. P.S: That interview was aired once, and never heard of again.
Bin Laden was in fact recruited by the CIA in 1979 to partake in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Mujahedeen (holy warriors) jihad against the Russians who invaded Afghanistan as the US fomented trouble against the then-Russian leaning Afghanistan government. The Mujahedeen were subsequently trained, weaponized, and paid for by the CIA. “Al Qaeda” appeared first as the name on file in bin Laden’s laptop. “Al Qaeda” means “the base” of fellow fighters that bin Laden thought worthiest in that struggle. They were worthy enough to drive the Soviet Union out after a decade of bloody fighting.
Is this what the US is looking for again—or a defeat like the one that Afghanistan handed to the British Empire, or Alexander the Great centuries before that. It boggles the mind the way we forget the lessons of history.
As to Pakistan, historian Webster Tarpley in an interview with Russia Today spoke of “very plausible Taliban charges that the CIA and Blackwater are behind the recent bombing atrocity in Peshawar, Pakistan. This attack is coherent with the US policy of provoking all-out civil war in Pakistan to break up that country to prevent it from serving as an energy corridor between Iran and China.”
He went to say that “The Pakistani Taliban are a proxy of the CIA. If the government in Islamabad collapses completely, or especially if Taliban forces appear to be taking control of some of Pakistan’s nuclear forces, Wall Street could also get something it would like very much: a spectacular world shock that could send the world’s hot money fleeing into the supposed safe haven of the US dollar, which is otherwise near collapse.”
He noted that the current “wave of Islamophobia…being ginned up with the Fort Hood shootings, the KSM trial in New York CIty, the seizure of allegedly pro-Iranian mosques, the Zazi case, and the incendiary anti-Moslem statements of Pat Robertson, the patron of the new reactionary governor of Virginia,” were the cherries on the deadly cake.
He predicted that “Obama is about to announce another massive escalation of US forces in Afghanistan within days. If a Wall Street-CIA Operation Safe Haven is indeed at hand, it could also include a coup in Saudi Arabia, or a clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran over the civil war in Yemen. An Israeli attack on Iran, although much discussed, remains the least likely variation, with Pakistan still at the top of the US hit list.” What a dirty laundry list of priorities.
As to Osama’s subsequent announcements, these would have been made with one of bin Laden’s doubles which have been used for years. Osama’s statements have been created with a voice-morphing technology that could allow a sample of General McChrystal’s voice (or anyone else’s) to sound exactly like Osama’s. This technology is duly noted and explained in Griffin’s book.
So, through Obama’s blurry vision, the real, sharp-edged bottom line of US thinking really seems to be the destabilization of the entire Mid-East, not the making of peace but of havoc, which is the CIA’s way of controlling world situations. Unfortunately, as with using the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and subsequently inviting the Taliban to Texas in 1999 to talk with Unocal about oil and gas pipelines for that country, there was a formidable “blowback” from the victorious Mid-Eastern fighters.
[efoods]The realization that they succeeded against the Russians gave them the ‘audacity’ to challenge us, the US, for our continued presence on their soil, dictating the rules of the game, including the disposition of oil and the opium crop, the latter of which the Taliban had managed to cut down to 2% of what it was. It has since soared back up 98% since our arrival and its revenues undoubtedly finance the CIA off-book dark ops in the region. So the Mujahedeen victory strengthened a sense of insurgency in Afghanistan as it has in Iraq, people fighting for their independence, their lives.
You remember Iraq? The country we attacked to save it from Saddam Hussein, who was about to nuke us any day with his invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was more like the mass deception of an ADHD administration, distractible to its death. And you remember George Bush, declaring victory in 2003, in his calculated carrier landing, in his tailor-made flight-suit, with an armada of cheering sailors behind him. Well, seven years later we’re still at it, now dealing with a troubling insurgency that has no intention of going away, especially as we re-distract ourselves to Afghanistan, this time under Barack Hussein Obama. The ironies are crippling, mind-boggling, but somehow thoroughly expected.
The trouble is, this is a tough game we’re playing with seasoned veterans of endless war. Thus, the New York Times headline, Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan to Envision Exit, seems to be at odds with the realities of the situation we’ve created. And a new surge of 30,000 plus troops could be ushering in another Iraq, only worse. We’ve already been in Afghanistan for eight years. How many more years will it take to extricate ourselves from what Santa’s Helpers have been creating? Another decade, or two or more? Our economy can’t bear it, even though Wall Street will make money, along with the defense and oil industries, and the entire military-industrial and now mercenary complex.
Yet sanity, that rarer than radium element in US politics, would dictate packing up the circus tent, withdrawing Blackwater and the other clowns from the region, and ship the whole show home, including those battle-worn soldiers and the still innocent, in-one-piece fresh meat. Of course there’s one chance in a million that the simple, sane reality could come about. After all, for the most part it is not Congress’s sons that are falling, but those struggling young men and women who have to think of military service as a job ‘opportunity,’ not endless war.
The notion of rebuilding a peace-time economy and the creation of jobs with the monies saved on war-making, to be used for government infrastructure projects, would be a more likely plan for reviving America. But as the on-going Empire of the New World Order, the marching orders are coming from the top, from those who vetted the green Obama as they did the born-again Junior—those ever-present elites, the money, the banksters, Streeters, the Rockefellers, et al. You know who you are.
And, of course, Obama will bring all the powers of his rhetoric to reconcile what one of his senior officials called his mission: “He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down.” Good luck. We know all about time frames. We’re in the middle of several, being squeezed, right now. And winding down to what, Karzai and his banditos, stuffed election boxes, hands in the tills. Our war-making creates this excrescence of soured humanity wherever we go.
Yet the Times paraphrases Obama’s thinking as, “how the American presence would be ratcheted back after the buildup (ratcheted back?) after the buildup, while making clear that a significant American presence in Afghanistan would remain for a long while (a really long while). That is designed in part to signal to Pakistan that the United States will not abandon the region and to allay Pakistani fears that India will fill the vacuum created as America pulls back.” Well, let them have their own little nuclear stand-off, I suggest, and work it out. I’m quite sick of hearing this crap.
And let Obama give his speech not at West Point, the US Military Academy, in front of hundreds of cadets, trainees for new and grander wars, cheering him on; but let him give his speech at an abandoned car factory in Detroit, with thousands of workers on unemployment benefits, welfare and (thank god) food-stamps to keep their families bellies full. Let this government and its real rulers be shaken by the awful reality they have created in the U.S. Poverty, homelessness, blown-up credit rates, foreclosures, and derivatives rising again exponentially, for another round of bursting financial bubbles. Obama should be booed off the stage with his slick political patois: give them anything but promise them change. Change this!
You haven’t delivered peace, Mr. President. You are delivering more bad news. Even to a believer who voted for you, you are a vast disappointment, so much the flip side of Bush, so much the Muppet whose words and mannerisms are manipulated. Some of your Democratic colleagues are even talking “a surtax,” yes, a war “surtax” to pay for this disaster, whose keystone is, was, and always will be “the inside job of 9/11.” You see I don’t believe the Afghans are the people who killed my fellow New Yorkers, fellow Americans, on that awful day. I believe it was your flip-side, the stumbling, numbing George Bush & Company, which you seem to have joined, right at the hip.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obamas-blurry-vision-for-afghanistan/
Copyright © 2013 Infowars. All rights reserved.