Now that I've viewed this documentary footage, what I said in my prior post still stands about why RAWA was mistaken, while being, in morally ethical terms, right. This video documentary is very important and shocking, angering, .... It makes me [hate] the leaders of such wars more to see how extremely, wholly evil they are with their deliberate deceptions for strategically spreading their reign.

In my prior post I referred to a video for footage of John Pilger's 2007 lecture at a conference in Chicago and that he stated some importantly relevant facts about the war on Afghanistan and based, much anyway, on history of the relations between the U.S. and the Taliban, Usama Bin Ladin and Al Qa'ida, although what John Pilger states about these facts involves little about the U.S. having formed the mujahideen. Or maybe he did mention that part of history. However, what he states in the lecture for these specific facts is much about the secret talks between the Taliban and Unocal, and surely some U.S. politicians, probably some member or members of the Clinton administration, which certainly knew about these talks.

One of the related facts that John Pilger reminds the audience about is that someone, some official, had sort of questioned dealing with the Taliban for the pipeline for Unocal, questioning on the basis of the oppression of women's rights. The response to that question was that it was not an issue judged to be important by the deciding "elites". They blatantly did not care about the human rights issue(s) for Afghan women or any other Afghans; it's only the pipeline that had any importance to them.

Now, the Obama administration would certainly know about that objective for this war on Afghanistan; that it's about the oil pipeline, as well as for militarising Afghanistan with U.S. forces and bases. And they reportedly continue to build rather major bases there, plan to construct, if they haven't already constructed it, a major U.S. embassy there, in addition to the major one planned for construction in Pakistan. NONE of this is about human rights issues, which are of really no significance to the world ruling "elites" of the U.S., and probably those of NATO countries that are contributing in this criminal war. They want to increase their geostrategic power and capture control over major oil reserves, and probably natural gas reserves.

The women in Afghanistan are most definitely right, undeniably, irrefutably so. People couldn't be more right than they're being. But the above evil reality of and behind this war, which is also the same for the wars on Iraq and the new one of mainly the Obama administration in Pakistan, all of the evil reality about this causes me to wonder if the women and children of Afghanistan have any chance at all for really winning, gaining respects for their rights and other living or life needs.

A major strong and massive human rights and anti-war movement has to definitely form in the U.S., and it's going to need to be strong and massive, because the police state mainly works for the same ruling "elites" that the U.S. government, military, CIA, SoA, ... do. And the Bush administration established increased militarisation of North America with their NORTHCOM forces, that they began to put in place last fall; unless it was during fall 2007. Am pretty sure it was last fall, but maybe am off by a year.

A strong and large movement needs to form and must be maintained, energetically maintained, until winning; and I haven't a clue how long it'd take to gain that win. Maybe a month, two months? Could it take longer? Would enough people commit themselves to the needed energetic activism for even one month? A "handful" of people can't win what needs to be won for major changes in the conduct of the U.S. government leadership, which is majorly protected, with all of their military and law enforcement forces. They're kind of fortressed against the general population, with all of the security and military forces at their command.

There'd be some dissent among those forces, but enough? I fear not enough.

So what can be done to get such people to change when they know that they're majorly or extremely protected against their own general population?

Now that I've viewed this documentary footage, what I said in my prior post still stands about why RAWA was mistaken, while being, in morally ethical terms, right. This video documentary is very important and shocking, angering, .... It makes me [hate] the leaders of such wars more to see how extremely, wholly evil they are with their deliberate deceptions for strategically spreading their reign.

In my prior post I referred to a video for footage of John Pilger's 2007 lecture at a conference in Chicago and that he stated some importantly relevant facts about the war on Afghanistan and based, much anyway, on history of the relations between the U.S. and the Taliban, Usama Bin Ladin and Al Qa'ida, although what John Pilger states about these facts involves little about the U.S. having formed the mujahideen. Or maybe he did mention that part of history. However, what he states in the lecture for these specific facts is much about the secret talks between the Taliban and Unocal, and surely some U.S. politicians, probably some member or members of the Clinton administration, which certainly knew about these talks.

One of the related facts that John Pilger reminds the audience about is that someone, some official, had sort of questioned dealing with the Taliban for the pipeline for Unocal, questioning on the basis of the oppression of women's rights. The response to that question was that it was not an issue judged to be important by the deciding "elites". They blatantly did not care about the human rights issue(s) for Afghan women or any other Afghans; it's only the pipeline that had any importance to them.

Now, the Obama administration would certainly know about that objective for this war on Afghanistan; that it's about the oil pipeline, as well as for militarising Afghanistan with U.S. forces and bases. And they reportedly continue to build rather major bases there, plan to construct, if they haven't already constructed it, a major U.S. embassy there, in addition to the major one planned for construction in Pakistan. NONE of this is about human rights issues, which are of really no significance to the world ruling "elites" of the U.S., and probably those of NATO countries that are contributing in this criminal war. They want to increase their geostrategic power and capture control over major oil reserves, and probably natural gas reserves.

The women in Afghanistan are most definitely right, undeniably, irrefutably so. People couldn't be more right than they're being. But the above evil reality of and behind this war, which is also the same for the wars on Iraq and the new one of mainly the Obama administration in Pakistan, all of the evil reality about this causes me to wonder if the women and children of Afghanistan have any chance at all for really winning, gaining respects for their rights and other living or life needs.

A major strong and massive human rights and anti-war movement has to definitely form in the U.S., and it's going to need to be strong and massive, because the police state mainly works for the same ruling "elites" that the U.S. government, military, CIA, SoA, ... do. And the Bush administration established increased militarisation of North America with their NORTHCOM forces, that they began to put in place last fall; unless it was during fall 2007. Am pretty sure it was last fall, but maybe am off by a year.

A strong and large movement needs to form and must be maintained, energetically maintained, until winning; and I haven't a clue how long it'd take to gain that win. Maybe a month, two months? Could it take longer? Would enough people commit themselves to the needed energetic activism for even one month? A "handful" of people can't win what needs to be won for major changes in the conduct of the U.S. government leadership, which is majorly protected, with all of their military and law enforcement forces. They're kind of fortressed against the general population, with all of the security and military forces at their command.

There'd be some dissent among those forces, but enough? I fear not enough.

So what can be done to get such people to change when they know that they're majorly or extremely protected against their own general population?

"abuelo July 8th, 2009 6:40 pm

RAWA was explaining before any bombs started that the northern aliance, u.s. allies, was just like Taliban, only worse, and insisted that Afghanistan must be allowed to find its own wy."

Way, not wy, btw.

RAWA was right, but was also technically wrong. Why? It's because the war never was at all about human rights issues, Taliban oppression of human rights, doing any good at all for Afghanistan's population, and it wasn't really about the 9-11 attacks, either.

The Bush administration was determined at least as of July 2001 to command this war, and the related history behind this is the oil pipeline through Afghanistan, this deal that we weren't supposed to know about, but which the Taliban had been in secret talks with Unocal and probably some U.S. government officials about starting during the Clinton administration; and, the Taliban eventually, after Bush was elected, came to decide that they weren't accepting this "deal".

John Pilger states that fact as one, among other historically related facts, that Americans were kept from knowing about; due to the corporate-owned msm "news" media acting in collusion with the west's ruling "elites".

He has likely referred to this fact more than once, but did so in the video-recorded lecture he gave at a conference in Chicago in 2007 and based on his then new book entitled, "Freedom Next Time". There are related articles by him for this lecture and these articles seem to all be entitled, "The Invisible Government", which is a historical reference used in the lecture to words of a U.S. media propagandist named Edward Bernays, who wrote about how the U.S. media, the corporate-owned media anyway, was used for manipulating, ... the perceptions of the public for the "invisible government", which is about the relatively small, but very rich and influentially powerful group or oligarchy that really rules the government of the USA. And much the same applies in some European countries.

We're not supposed to know about such facts, but some of us have learned about them.

There's a video copy of the footage of that lecture by John Pilger at DemocracyNow.org and it'll be easy to find with a Web search, for while the DN! page is dated August 2007, the title for the show includes "Freedom Next Time" and John Pilger's name. Using that domainname, the title of the lecture and his name, or perhaps not even the name, it'll be easy to find a link with a simple Web search.

There's also a six-part set of video clips for that speech or lecture at Youtube that seems to contain a little more of the full footage, but while I think the video at DN! provides for the whole lecture or speech; just that the latter doesn't show John Pilger commencing by thanking a person or persons for helping to arrange for him to speak at the conference. However, Amy Goodman, for maybe the first couple of minutes or so, provides a fitting and good intro. for what the lecture's about by giving a bio. or description of major and very evil, wicked, fiend media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

It's a very good lecture of around 50 to 55 minutes. Some of us may not learn much from the lecture, but it's good, he's right, the topic is important, I certainly appreciated the speech, and knowing about it being available will permit recommending it to people who seem like they could certainly benefit from learning from such speeches.

He stated additional facts about the U.S.-Afghanistan-Taliban-Al Qa'ida history too, but I only stated one of them, above, for the purpose of this post. But the speech is mainly about "news" media, how it's been mostly about major propaganda of deceit for many years, and as it continues to be, this for the purpose of the "invisible government" in or running the U.S. government. And he concludes on a certainly welcome, positive note, about alternative media people who have stood out, did their best to counter all of the propaganda of deceit; while also saying that many Americans have learned plenty about these differences ever since 9-11. Definitely good, throughout, and positively welcome at the end.

So, again, RAWA was right, and their view surely is rather always right, or very nearly always; regardless of which countries we consider. We should not use war to try to resolve human rights issues.

But RAWA was wrong in the sense that human rights issues weren't at all any part of the reasons for this criminal war being launched and maintained. Human rights and/or the 9-11 attacks were only reasons stated for the purpose of deceiving the public.

RAWA was explaining before any bombs started that the northern aliance, u.s. allies, was just like Taliban, only worse, and insisted that Afghanistan must be allowed to find its own wy.

www.RAWA.org