what moves us in afghanistan.

it got rili silly. after the afghanis went on a rampage, over the alledged burning of korans, being shot by police or i don't know what, with 17 dead, to the great discomfort and exercise of laughing muscles of the rest of the world, some bloke went nuts, sneaked out in the night and started killing the family of an elder of the village that had so long and bloodily fought with the taliban, with 17 dead.

sad. ofcourse, certainly for the people involved, all these 34 dead, a suicide attack.

will he be the first usian to stand trial under afghan standards of truth finding?

perhaps he thought he dealt with a human shield once again. they don't let ppl. that first conquer a town like that occupy it for years to come do they?

maybe they do, that would be soooo stupid, i would not be surprised.

but i feel guilty a bit, the day before i wrote i would get mad if someone started shouting their religious fixes and lording from the towers and loudspeakers, and 'as their justice(?) representative said': these people still live in 1600s (as an excuse for extradition)(1).

i beg your pardon? no loudspeakers in 1600. not going to hand out a costy soldier to a barbarian that don't know theres no loudspeakers in the 16th century..;)

and since i am quite sure about it would drive me rather mad, probably that works for other people the same.

not that it is good, but it is similar to putting a bomb on a market, you'd wonder what contrary afghan justice actually sees.

or like he put it "still very much an eye for an eye", forgetting the shakesperean addition: "gets everyone blind", ofcourse.

i pitty that soldier;

tasked with the impossible, to achieve peace and maintaining a foothold on the open front of corporate war on any and all, the killing, the industry, the human shields, the escaping culprits, the lax punishment of battlestress, the lowly standard of a private, the infeasibility to burn a good koran now and then, the burning of schools but not churches, the people that never get out of the house and are probably preparing ied's, (they can be everywhere and must come from some). the feeling of an enemy allways on their necks, the mean officers that insult every and each starting with the afghans, 'smelly bearded hypocrite homosexual adultrists that they are',

the deathpenalty on someone that abolished koran, the endless hoovering of drones, and the ghastly laughter of their remote operators in your headphones, the rewarding of evil and punishment of bradley manning, the piss-on-you mentality of the marines, those admired super-soldiers, the security services allways watching your every step, do you have an identity card for the grocery?! the supermarket?! the street?! the coffee?! the camp?! the neighbours?!, the bus?!
the roadblock?! every other person officered and uniform?!

and all the harrasment by the soldiers fellow machos.. no really, i hope they get him back home soon, cure him (weapons are legal in usia) and publish a book.

(1) or a freak joke, not a very progressive one.

karzai's afghanistan

whats the highlights. not so much, today ali karzai was shot. i don't know if it is good or bad news, it depends things i don't know. keeping in mind they are. or so i assume, the first generation of the problem, the karzais, unlike assad, the khadaffi's or husseina, i figure he was trying to help his bro. now i dont actually admire karzai, i don't even think he is quite of the right mind, but he is an example of someone who can only loose with what afghanistan looses, and his campaign against civil deaths, what to say, lacks a lot of that, to put things into perspective.

so it was stupid of mine to support karzai's election. i guess, there would have been someone that dared to speak out, and would not all to obviously show a shimmery connection to several failed and succesfull 'terror attacks'.

where is your '360 degree life fire' of a limit so to say. for ali karzai, his limit wasnt his most famous asset.

that said the heroin trade was okish. in itself not an indication of his brutality.
99% of you will probably disagree, but that is just because you know sheet. i am not even supposed to be annoyed over that, it is why humanity features teachers and even prophets.

football, and monarchs, religion even, because people are told they know sheet and will never know a lot.

murdoch being on the same page , ali's sad and doomed face, did not so much venture into the question of his sudden death, (was it really that lethal spanish bankrobber, with the many connections? did he really use the same graphical programs as the corps of justice does?)

he wondered how much it mattered another but the cia tapped the monarchs and secretary's of state.

yeah just for security, you have to be sure they don't make the wrong acquaintances i suppose.

a good question, to my distress i must say, i dont think it is that bad, karzai got shot, was it over assad? money? dope? politics? who will tell.

what is sure is it leaves a tad more room for an alternative to develop, it is not that helpfull after a while when circles centre powers around them, and karzai was not only a brother but a very powerfull governor.

and so i am stuck, when i discuss syria with friends i try to point at the bigger picture, the geopolitical interesses in both khadaffi and assad, that turkey shouldnt involve for the sake of 100000s and for its ridiculous ottoman perspectives, do me ataturk any day. so i guess that would anyhow be okay, but make it unbloody, receive the refugees, instead of going to far..

assad has to go, i wont mind, all the monarchs do, they are the symbol for the collection of wealth in as few as possible hands, and when people accept a symbol like that their thinking obviously cannot yet reach further. should i applaud clinton?

perhaps it is nicer then i apreciate when she echoes my mind on the first possible opportunity.

i grew terribly suspicious over the years, to many interests and compromises make me think clinton, and by extension obama's kind of policy's will not reach far enough, and talking about their nukeR connection, cannot even be real.

shoring up Afghan war support in europe

as a result of a leaked video i looked into the wikileaks website once again. (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf)

i read a couple more and the publicity is about a helicopter attack on iraqi civilians and reuters journalists. the radio communications tell there are armed persons, but i actually didnt really see any. even if some were armed, that was really it, most weren't.

the video is revealing because it shows the deliberate killing of the journalists, or at least that is the impression i am stuck with. it is also revealing in that it shows you can get killed for picking up dead and wounded. the killing of the journalists is not explicit altho the pleasure in killing is.

all in all i would say the pictures are not to damaging for the usia forces. it might be easy (i am not sure of that) to make a point about the rules of engagement, they were with a group, a few of them were carrying something (camera's) its rather similar to some of the machismo youtube helicopter films i saw a year ago, when i was looking what of that kind of material could be found.

so you could say it is the kind of views you'd expect.

typical is that there is no mention of the cameras, that are pretty visible, but there is of guns, that i havent positively confirmed. also typical is it appears the journalists are specifically targetted, and killed. its not a nice thing to look at, and i dont feel like going over it and the radiomessages 10 times in the hopes of digging up an indication that they consciously target journalists. a peculiar detail is that the helicopters actions and presence don't seem to induce a reaction in the people moving about on the street. unsuspecting is the word, for the aftermath the same goes, the helicopter being there doesnt stop people from trying to pick up the wounded.
wich gets them shot. so it should have stopped them. how i interprete it is that the activity they were undertaking wasnt expected to invite fire, the recuers that appear aware of the journalists status before they are getting shot form no exception in this hard to understand show of naivety.

it makes me think the group of man was actually doing something they expected to turn into no harm, well perhaps one should wonder if that is weird, it might just have been they were accompanying the journalists to an interview, and i assume you can walk even through baghdad without being shot from the skies usually.

so its a bit of a puzzle but i expect it not to greatly support reuters or anyone in making claims about undue violence, no matter that it is just what the camera registered.

now for getting to the subject of how to influence european opinions, i must tell i first read the 'confidential' informations on the icelandic politicians. except for that the cia wants them to start a homedefence (or something) militia, that is not a very revaling document. if anything it is the focus with general anti-violent attitudes that is telling. it is almost as if they don't matter what people do as long they support usian wars and military violence. funny is the detail how one advisor covered for the usian 'diplomatical' effort to keep things out of the public icelandic domain.
good to know that kind of attitudes can be expected from european politicians and are more the rule then the exception..

so on with the topic.

my first remark is i am not absolutely the report is genuine, it's a bit to easy on the topic or sth.
a bit to much out to pose certainty's that need not be imposed on the official classified agents to have acces to them.

furthermore i'd guess its a genuine ofshoot of a more explicit report and intended if not for wikileaks, for some european readers, like perhaps eg. merkel, and sarkozy.

what i learned from the report is obama apparently can be made to say anything the cia wants to "shore up support" for war in afghanistan. at least it treats his statements as a token.
it is somewhat typical that such happens in a context of woman liberation (in afghanistan) wich is supposed to make an impression on the french but, surprisingly, not on the germans. perhaps because they tend to watch television with less sexual preference's , or otherways because they assume that for some reason (some information or way of looking into the matter) the germans can't be 'turned' that way.

so what it has in mind for the germans is national pride.
in making a comment about that i can end my treating of the matter, the germans will be turned by positively contrasting them with nations (the dutch) that make no such nato effort.

so thats next to expect, a whiny uncle sam that is ranting about the dutch in an effort to acces more german and french soldiers. of that indeed we have seen a shortlived example when usia started saying the dutch are an actually very discriminating (against muslims) society.

we do have the rightwingers supported by the media, but on the whole in the streets the atmosphere is still relaxed. that is not to say incidents dont happen, or the anti constitutional attitudes of the dutch parlementarians are not to blame for that, just that explicit discrimination is less a trait of 70-80 percent of the dutch underclass then it ever was.

the discrimination we witness is caused through the anticonstitutional attitudes of parliament and for the rest typical rightwingers tapping in to their cruelty, prejudice and latent xenophobia as it exists evrywhere.

nevertheless i think usia was right in so far the atmosphere has been significantly worsened through the rulingclass efforts (of selfenrichment). their most serious followers generally belong to the category hopeless, and did even in nazism not find a job outside deathsquads etc.

then again, usia is just the same, where we sink boats with refugees they dehydrate them in mexican deserts, wich is also deadly.

afghanipakistan

yesterday i finished an old draft, called afghanistan, but for some reason i cannot reset the date. so if you didn't notice, it is at 24 january 2009.

why not... pakistan,

today i read hizbul al islam is the western allie for south somalia.. because (look it is not my idea to make it this ridiculous) it is now "al queida representative in somalia'.
apparently there used to be another thus labelled..

when usia talks about hizbul in lebanon or palestine.. oj,oj.. meany beastyness nastism is all they have to offer.. but here..

soo, once again a serious problem with many important causes and roots is al kaidaished.

al queda is an usian invention, the first mention of the name is in cia documents about setting up terror attacks to blame cuba. like hamas is first mentioned in israeli notitions.

however it seems it has been drawn from the cupboard more recently then the cuba crisis,
and.. since now we have to read that word in the papers daily, it better gets an explanation.

so: what is an al quada??

firstly every movement of people against repression is often called the "base". like in grass'roots'.

as soon as you want to talk about basic matters, you are 'an al quaida'. the animal cruelty al kaidah, that is against torture of animals, the environment al kajda that thinks a healthy environment is a human right, the baskish al quaeda that speaks baskish, the kurdish al quadai,
that now has a safe haven in irak finally, the irish al queda that is a defaitist movement anouncing peace every 3 months, the myanmar al quajda that wants either uniforms or macdummolds, whenever you are something against it, it is basically the base of your offence.

basic.. al quaidah.

there is a famous writer, who invented an al qaida, "the foundation" that would try to take care for humankind.. for this militarist / capitalist system drives her to the deepest spaces in the universe, but in the end.. they succeed, the ideal human is born, (or perhaps they had a better objective)

I think it is not a coincedence cia took this name to paint an enemy.. the vision of asimov is very powerfull and indeed a organisation that would persecute ideal targets, their greatest fear.

so there you have "al quaidah" or? or should we really make the distinction tribalistically, the south somali al queda, the north somalian el qaida, the east somalian al koueidah. etc???

and when we want to throw a bomb, we just throw it somewhere, and someone would allways be hit that does something capitalism doesn't like.. usually people with ideals are on the receiving side of bombs.

Afghanistan

In fact this covers some conflict in pakistan as well, nowadays.

Afghanistan is a country struck by death and destruction through the past 60 or so years. dictators, occupations, absolutism, occupation.

Meanwhile it is hard to figure out what exactly would justify the occupations. The sovjet one was the typical sovjet one, with attention to social services etc. but it also remained a period of, partly civil, war.

At one point, i for me still don't quite get why, i think it were the budha's,
the propaganda that emphasized the harsh circumstance for women, and the absolutist , 'undemocratical', aspects of the Taliban rule was quite succesfull once again to start a bush instigated war, as if he hadn't had his revenge ahead in irak.

Basically reason would be to await quite some incidents before a thus violent war.
Try to adopt measures in between etc. but not feature the 'reichstag promise'.

I forgot the incidents, but i once saw a list of how almost every usian war was preceded by suspect incident, so perhaps a better name is "9-11-syndrome".

These are well known and ancient tactic anyway, false flag operations, provocations, false accusations and complicity. Usia is not the only one guilty, and probably also not in historical times. In kongo for example, the accusation of provocation was/is mutual. Things in danger of escalation, would rightly or wrongly usually happen after something concerned a provocation, but it's a distraction, in a way, in congo there are more villages and the people are more unsettled.

So what happened is Nato bombed afghanistan. The fear to be considered inhumane by the usian public (i figure for eternity or for military reasons) and the fine promises that made the dutch politicians smile, or perhaps the engagement with suffrage and women's right's , the fear for a future where women wouldn't have tehse rights in some or many parts of the world, whatever.

My most severe problem in completely opposing any argument is that i think a free future is the place to be for any human. dress requirements don't even fit free here,
and we are a 100 year of of the puritan kind of dress requirements we had, wich weren't necessarilly quite as bad.

Anyway, war is an unpleasant thing. The afghans well realised they stood no real chance (much better then saddam), and tried to negotiate untill the end.

Instead of countering an offensive directly, they actually fled most of the time, trying to stay alive. The (complete once again) air superiority destroyed any kind of troops they could have had, and after a few days thus, the socalled war was won.

Colums made it into Kabul, undoubtedly meeting brave and quite utterly vain resistance at some points. I am not sure of there was something of elections, it was bush2 after all. I think Karzai got installed, similar to maliki (irak).

Afghanistan is a very rough landscape so quite some resistance apparently had escaped to certain regions and the usians decided to persecute "al kwaida" and "the taliban". It translates into: the popular resistance and the people, so you can imagine it was quite indiscriminate.

Nato tried to adapt (mh, i spoke 'peace' soldiers, their head was full of crap),
the military requires an attitude that is neither consistent with human dignity , nor
allowing itself to adapt it's policy's different from the propaganda as it presents the case to the (western) public.

That's: it is functionally dependend from ordres higher up in the hierarchy and for netherlands eg. depends on a mandate that a certain harry potter aka Balkenende rewarded after hiding up the reports that might have made the parliament think quite differently.

perhaps because he is a "christian" , raised a christian, litterally pumped quite full of the crap. Christians do have an instinctive , and when i was a kid, explicit hate against islam. When you meet it, it is like their second instinct, ooh islam,
well kill them, attack them, bomb them, it's a good idea, is how a christian feels deep inside.

problem here ofcourse, for an atheist, islam does exactly the same to its people, and is thus equally scary. It's less scary in the sense that it is badly armed, and a 100 year backward at least, or so it seems, but it is more scary since they/islam are very much more commited to the notion of belief.

in my world, the european world, religion is sometimes ok, sometimes second-rate, sometimes not necessary. Wherever u go, russia, england, norway, italy, any european nation, there are mainstream representations of non-believers.

Ofcourse i observe religion is still used as an excuse for political control, as an asset of conservatism, but i also know, the usual 'believer' wouldn't understand this, or think about such things (and actually prefer not to 'belief' it).

Anyway, this reasoning apparently turned the afghani in devote muslims, and they were making a biggest clownery of nationwide proportions, embarrassing the former colonialist who once had all the time tried not to show such was the source of their contempt.

What happened after this is hard to grab. First mistake of the nato was to choose several groups over the others. that started of at karzai ofcourse, and in a sense it so couldn't be helped. Anyhow, that allowed for a messy situation for a year or more, then the taliban united, (that was a peace effort) and started negotiating karzai, but it was still not ok. So , i think you will agree, the nr of high profile atatcks rose, one of them i think was ridiculous, a failed bomb attempt on a 100% unharmed parlementarian, it reminded me of reichstag promise. Brutal.

So that's not obvious, anyhow, by now the nato could have left afghanistan on her own, but they don't. instead they trained 100000s of soldiers. Also they maintained operations against groups of people perceived taliban, or otherways allied with anything not allied to usia.

it is many months later now, the above thing is somewhat to expanding, but for most of it i think it is still usefull that it is said. I tried to compile a description of afghanistan atthe time i started this article, one that would hint at the option to seek security not in armament, and to seek our subjective safety in afghanistan not rhough police forces.

however, obama changed that all, he took the notion that as karzai was not able to keep to a woman friendly politics, the whole of afghanistan was still in dire need of education, and perhaps he thought of that usian soldier that said: "i don't think this will work for this generation of afghans, but maybe it will for the next".

he got a lot of roundabout support for that step, a green future, equal development, it stands and falls among other things with 51% of the population that is woman.

geopolitically there is a downside to this story, but at the moment i don't really care, generally spoken it is a matter of money towards facility , and most can be bought that way. also the general trend, in particular cases, and in the wider picture is one of exchange over mere trade limitation, at least bottom up. the rich nations should really provide that green exchange to offset the unbalance.

i myself am maybe even worse, eg. if i basically believed it was environmentally proficient and lucrative, i suggest pipelines can be build evrywhere, altho with the current status quo limitations to acces might be necessary, and dealt with beforeheand.

if for some reason that trajectory serves only the opposite use, to exclude the environmental routes to monopolise efforts, likewise i consider them unnegotiable.

there is one more very important thing about afghanistan, and that is pakistan. 10000 and more pakistani have died fighting the war for terror, and the pakistani situation is completely escalated.

the pashtun and northern alliances have been outlawed to an even greater extend, and their likewise reaction is one of (well targetted usually) attacks.

i don't believe isi plays a big role in these. Allthough pakistan as a whole is much served with targetted attacks over random and desperate suicide explosions, etc.
in that sense perhaps isi has different operational motives from cia.

the problem in the decision to occupy afghanistan untill the situation for woman is settled foregood, is not in afghanistan, the current protocol is btw not sufficient, it seems to me, accidently with this scale events you would want to offer people an opportunity to develop such different visions, and bombing for opium , continual observation and the surrounding capitalists eyeing afghanistans mineral resources,
if anything that comes of the ground, nobody there is really very much impressed.

the soldiers would perhaps be better prepared for their task, when they could think of taliban as a football(or baseball) club, that for lack of grass defends rocks with guns. not like some evil enemy, not like an anonimous ideology.

just like western kids stick to their coca cola and hardcore, inhabitants of deserts cling to prayer ( for rain), and householdslaves.

before they will want to hold onto something else it should be obvious it must be a generous offer. some miners, and heaps of police and army are not the kind of freedom pashtun have allways have to fight for, and chances they will accept violent methods for real are nill.

with an open mind you really only have to look at irak, to see how right they are.

that tehse people have a moral and customs we perceive as at least a century backward, does not mean they are stupid, when they are preserving their identity in this, it should be valuable for all, and not be a reason to be at war.

prioritys for pakistan

Actually it is very hard to accurately judge every or even much detail of the human rights situation in pakistan for me. However the picture unnfolding has quitte the charactersitics as can be expected with the different interests that are most urgent in mind.

Obviously thinking on the lines that pakistan would not move the army into afghanistan or in the direction of kabul, the only reality is that the north of pakistan is already politicised. So that is not a surprise, every actual calm or rest for the afghan refugees and their relatives or even sympathisers is dependant of just having something like a region where they are free from control wich so easily turns into persecution.

Naturally musharaf has only 2 options, acting up, wich is insisting on more plain military violence inside northern pakistan, or letting go for now and hope that things don't turn to much out of hand. It appears to be a sour procedure, in so far that the taliban, so in effect the populace, of northern pakistan immediatly grabs after the formal characteristics of her 'talibanship' again a very politicised attitude.

Perhaps they think: it is now or never, the possibility that the west decides butto will be her man, and the next thing is f16's in the sky we better have some space around. Or perhaps it is: we just don't want to have to do with that silly musharaf and his english in afghanistan.

Literally spoken the swat valley immediatly took over policestations, and implemented their representation through sharia law:) Wich puzzles me about the different interests of pakistani lawyers again.

Anyhow, there is no immediatly obvious solution, so i thought of the following,
all the nations once conquered by greece could join greece, and as a side-effect they would be part of EU. Now inside eu war is not allowed, so that is settled
and the situation in pakistan also becomes awkwardly clear, with the option to compare these peoples rights with these of the basques.(no rights)

However, since it might scare russia we will also include the kaukasus, ukraine, and russia. That way at least when we bomb these guys we have a decent excuse and....
I will finally see greece develop a european constitution for the perspectives of many people. Although they are orthodox, the greek, perhaps they can't handle the very physical humanist attitudes from northern europe to wich all people are supposed to conform. The ukraine can easily be included, and once belorussia gets surrounded they will probably immediatly surrender to Merkel.

that would be nice:) with turkey in europe keeps its original shapes, only a bit bigger, ofcourse we also invite lebanon, becus it is such a mess with funny tourist perspectives, israel, to proof that we emancipated ourselves so much that even if we can't live with jews we still do, syria, to save them from future agression, the kurds, probably for the famous 'basque' argument . in short everything that once was with alexander except what is in africa. That solves a lot of voting problems in a future world community as well, when they all belong with greece:).

long hm. rulers are like mortargrenades, hardly ever one falls on exactly the same place. That is why a child of a promising ruler has little promise as a ruler as a rule. I feel this strongly over northern african nations and want to make the point secure that I include european monarchist institutes.

likewise i think over bhutto, i don't mean to say that she can't carry any of her fathers spirit or that any child couldn't. Just that it is not a very fair merchandise, and all one is left is to look critical at advertising.

Sadly i am very sure all this is actually set up to divide the islam world and pakistan, politics get a bit shaky, turkey is reinvited in upon.. threatening the kurds, pakistan is (well i am glad it is) sufficiently modern to have a thorough discussion herself, and afghanistan? It's always been a part of europe, the greek never left, only recently they turned english. So for the afghan people the best choice as well is to join the eu.
That way the war need to be put to an end, since it is not allowed for eu members or foreign powers to have a war on eu territory.

This is a very light idea, but when i think of the nightmare it is for the average EU politian i get greatly happy:). Oh yes, oh barzir ... of the taliban yes.. i heard from my secretary.. how could that happen?
:D

It's a bit of a pitty for the parts of the ME alexander didnt reach, like that new bit of vulcanic island, that they will necessarily be excluded, however perhaps it is only the best solution that all these peoples of the books, get their stuf organised together for once. I am not so sure of that actually, i get reluctant to endanger india into invitee status, and i see how russia will have to say no.

well there goes belorussia:(
sobs;)
finally the nations of the kaukasus may rest to the heart of mother belgium.
(wich is falling apart:D, i hope they keep it that way, the eu is ruled from a nation that is falling apart:), good PR.