Afghanistan, Another Untold Story
Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghani history and the role played by the United States.
Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet "invasion" of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as "a good thing." The actual story is not such a good thing.
Some Real History
Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People's Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.
The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. "It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it," writes John Ryan, a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time.
The Taraki government proceeded to legalize labor unions, and set up a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, a literacy campaign, and programs that gave ordinary people greater access to health care, housing, and public sanitation. Fledgling peasant cooperatives were started and price reductions on some key foods were imposed.
The government also continued a campaign begun by the king to emancipate women from their age-old tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls and for the children of various tribes.
A report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been "a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city's university. Afghan women held government jobs--in the 1980s, there were seven female members of parliament. Women drove cars, traveled and went on dates. Fifty percent of university students were women."
The Taraki government moved to eradicate the cultivation of opium poppy. Until then Afghanistan had been producing more than 70 percent of the opium needed for the world's heroin supply. The government also abolished all debts owed by farmers, and began developing a major land reform program. Ryan believes that it was a "genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope."
But serious opposition arose from several quarters. The feudal landlords opposed the land reform program that infringed on their holdings. And tribesmen and fundamentalist mullahs vehemently opposed the government's dedication to gender equality and the education of women and children.
Because of its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies the Taraki government also incurred the opposition of the US national security state. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power, the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale intervention into Afghanistan on the side of the ousted feudal lords, reactionary tribal chieftains, mullahs, and opium traffickers.
A top official within the Taraki government was Hafizulla Amin, believed by many to have been recruited by the CIA during the several years he spent in the United States as a student. In September 1979, Amin seized state power in an armed coup. He executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.
It should be noted that all this happened before the Soviet military intervention. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitted--months before Soviet troops entered the country--that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the reformist government. Part of that effort involved brutal attacks by the CIA-backed mujahideen against schools and teachers in rural areas.
In late 1979, the seriously besieged PDP government asked Moscow to send a contingent of troops to help ward off the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla fighters) and foreign mercenaries, all recruited, financed, and well-armed by the CIA. The Soviets already had been sending aid for projects in mining, education, agriculture, and public health. Deploying troops represented a commitment of a more serious and politically dangerous sort. It took repeated requests from Kabul before Moscow agreed to intervene militarily.
Jihad and Taliban, CIA Style
The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to transform the tribal resistance into a holy war, an Islamic jihad to expel the godless communists from Afghanistan. Over the years the United States and Saudi Arabia expended about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan. The CIA and its allies recruited, supplied, and trained almost 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself. Among those who answered the call was Saudi-born millionaire right-winger Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.
After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets evacuated the country in February 1989. It is generally thought that the PDP Marxist government collapsed immediately after the Soviet departure. Actually, it retained enough popular support to fight on for another three years, outlasting the Soviet Union itself by a year.
Upon taking over Afghanistan, the mujahideen fell to fighting among themselves. They ravaged the cities, terrorized civilian populations, looted, staged mass executions, closed schools, raped thousands of women and girls, and reduced half of Kabul to rubble. In 2001 Amnesty International reported that the mujahideen used sexual assault as "a method of intimidating vanquished populations and rewarding soldiers.'"
Ruling the country gangster-style and looking for lucrative sources of income, the tribes ordered farmers to plant opium poppy. The Pakistani ISI, a close junior partner to the CIA, set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland became the biggest producer of heroin in the world.
Largely created and funded by the CIA, the mujahideen mercenaries now took on a life of their own. Hundreds of them returned home to Algeria, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kashmir to carry on terrorist attacks in Allah's name against the purveyors of secular "corruption."
In Afghanistan itself, by 1995 an extremist strain of Sunni Islam called the Taliban---heavily funded and advised by the ISI and the CIA and with the support of Islamic political parties in Pakistan---fought its way to power, taking over most of the country, luring many tribal chiefs into its fold with threats and bribes.
The Taliban promised to end the factional fighting and banditry that was the mujahideen trademark. Suspected murderers and spies were executed monthly in the sports stadium, and those accused of thievery had the offending hand sliced off. The Taliban condemned forms of "immorality" that included premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. They also outlawed all music, theater, libraries, literature, secular education, and much scientific research.
The Taliban unleashed a religious reign of terror, imposing an even stricter interpretation of Muslim law than used by most of the Kabul clergy. All men were required to wear untrimmed beards and women had to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe, including their faces. Persons who were slow to comply were dealt swift and severe punishment by the Ministry of Virtue. A woman who fled an abusive home or charged spousal abuse would herself be severely whipped by the theocratic authorities. Women were outlawed from social life, deprived of most forms of medical care, barred from all levels of education, and any opportunity to work outside the home. Women who were deemed "immoral" were stoned to death or buried alive.
None of this was of much concern to leaders in Washington who got along famously with the Taliban. As recently as 1999, the US government was paying the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official. Not until October 2001, when President George W. Bush had to rally public opinion behind his bombing campaign in Afghanistan did he denounce the Taliban's oppression of women. His wife, Laura Bush, emerged overnight as a full-blown feminist to deliver a public address detailing some of the abuses committed against Afghan women.
If anything positive can be said about the Taliban, it is that they did put a stop to much of the looting, raping, and random killings that the mujahideen had practiced on a regular basis. In 2000 Taliban authorities also eradicated the cultivation of opium poppy throughout the areas under their control, an effort judged by the United Nations International Drug Control Program to have been nearly totally successful. With the Taliban overthrown and a Western-selected mujahideen government reinstalled in Kabul by December 2001, opium poppy production in Afghanistan increased dramatically.
The years of war that have followed have taken tens of thousands of Afghani lives. Along with those killed by Cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, Tomahawks, daisy cutters, and land mines are those who continue to die of hunger, cold, lack of shelter, and lack of water.
The Holy Crusade for Oil and Gas
While claiming to be fighting terrorism, US leaders have found other compelling but less advertised reasons for plunging deeper into Afghanistan. The Central Asian region is rich in oil and gas reserves. A decade before 9/11, Time magazine (18 March 1991) reported that US policy elites were contemplating a military presence in Central Asia. The discovery of vast oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided the lure, while the dissolution of the USSR removed the one major barrier against pursuing an aggressive interventionist policy in that part of the world.
US oil companies acquired the rights to some 75 percent of these new reserves. A major problem was how to transport the oil and gas from the landlocked region. US officials opposed using the Russian pipeline or the most direct route across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they and the corporate oil contractors explored a number of alternative pipeline routes, across Azerbaijan and Turkey to the Mediterranean or across China to the Pacific.
The route favored by Unocal, a US based oil company, crossed Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The intensive negotiations that Unocal entered into with the Taliban regime remained unresolved by 1998, as an Argentine company placed a competing bid for the pipeline. Bush's war against the Taliban rekindled UNOCAL's hopes for getting a major piece of the action.
Interestingly enough, neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban government. Such a "rogue state" designation would have made it impossible for a US oil or construction company to enter an agreement with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
In sum, well in advance of the 9/11 attacks the US government had made preparations to move against the Taliban and create a compliant regime in Kabul and a direct US military presence in Central Asia. The 9/11 attacks provided the perfect impetus, stampeding US public opinion and reluctant allies into supporting military intervention.
One might agree with John Ryan who argued that if Washington had left the Marxist Taraki government alone back in 1979, "there would have been no army of mujahideen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy." But it would be asking too much for Washington to leave unmolested a progressive leftist government that was organizing the social capital around collective public needs rather than private accumulation.
US intervention in Afghanistan has proven not much different from US intervention in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and elsewhere. It had the same intent of preventing egalitarian social change, and the same effect of overthrowing an economically reformist government. In all these instances, the intervention brought retrograde elements into ascendance, left the economy in ruins, and pitilessly laid waste to many innocent lives.
The war against Afghanistan, a battered impoverished country, continues to be portrayed in US official circles as a gallant crusade against terrorism. If it ever was that, it also has been a means to other things: destroying a leftist revolutionary social order, gaining profitable control of one of the last vast untapped reserves of the earth's dwindling fossil fuel supply, and planting US bases and US military power into still another region of the world.
In the face of all this Obama's call for "change" rings hollow.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
26 Comments so far
Show AllParenti's great strength and the essence of most of his critiques is how the smokescreens of religion, ideology, and philosophy are used to cloak the real agenda of class struggle by the elites against the rest of us.
Parenti's advantage is that he understands both the polar extremes of fascism and Marxism and is capable of showing the contradictions of both in the context of class struggle.
Those who gravitate towards the labels of ideology, religion, or philosophy always go looking for the contradictions in their opponents positions. Those who understand class struggle are not blinded by such distractions and Michael Parenti is one of the very few who understand this dynamic and consistently see through the strategies of misdirection used by the elites.
Poet
EXCELLENT article, and it's surprising to see CD posting such excellence. I've been reading, for some years now, much of what Michael Parenti's piece says, but the part on the PDP and their Afghan govt leader, Taraki, is history I either hadn't read before, or had read much less about, maybe just a few words of reference; therefore, I greatly appreciate this part of Parenti's article. The rest is appreciation for CD finally posting the kind of history, that is, true history, that which Parenti has provided with this article.
For more on the Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pres. Carter administration basically having caused, wittingly enough it seems, too, the USSR to invade Afghanistan, for what was to follow, and which Brzezinski's notorious self-exposure through is book on the "Grand Chessboard: ..." is surely a good, unpleasant, but good reference for; well, following are some links to supporting articles, an interview, and a video.
"Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76"
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
A WIDER text format for the above interview is the following, and I prefer wider, but some people may prefer narrow format or width.
"The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001"
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
"Zbigniew Brzezinski",
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zbigniew_Brzezinski
"Wag the Dog: How to Conceal Massive Economic Collapse
by Ellen Brown
Global Research, August 14, 2008
webofdebt.com "
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9828
Of course if readers don't have time to read all of these articles, then one way to not miss out on their content on Brzezinski is to simply load the articles and search for his name. Ellen Brown is a writer, analyst, thinker I like reading, but time is also a factor or constraint.
"The Afghan Trap & Déjà vu in Georgia
Written by Greg Guma
Wednesday, 13 August 2008"
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1377/1
That article is good for the 'Afghan Trap' history part, as well as the part about Georgia, which is about the criminal aggression of the Georgian govt against South Ossetia in August and which was very evidently much "for, of and by the" U.S. "Western Establishment" elites ... of fiend kind.
"Monday, August 11, 2008
Tales from the Covert Crypt"
http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2008/08/tales-from-covert-crypt_11.html
A somewhat contrasting article about Brzezinski is the following, but it's deceptively contrasting, instead of the contrast really being good. Sort of like the Iraq Study Group of the GHW Bush faction differing or contrasting with the neocons of the GW Bush administration years, expect good from neither; they work in different ways and never for real [good], but always wicked and ... use different political strategies. I've not read the book yet, but Brzezinski's book, "The Grand Chessboard: ...", indicates that his intent is to basically gain world economic domination, worldwide, and Asia is very important, or key, to him in this regard.
Never for good are any of these "elites"! But the following, when we understand the immediately above words, is interesting; it illustrates contrast. The problem is the total lack of anything really good; these wlites are all wicked, fiend, and just use different approaches. Neocons are damn obvious about or in terms of their psychopathia, though.
"Brzezinski attacks Bush’s “suicidal statecraft”
Wednesday, 19 October 2005"
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/635/78/
Video: "Zbigniew Brzezinski to Jihadists: Your cause is right!", 04 January 2008
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk
He doesn't really believe that their cause is right, but it's strategically useful to him and the remainder of his faction of Western "elites"; elite fiends(!). The neocons just act and speak, publicly, though probably also in private, in more lunatic or obviously lunatic terms.
Michael Parenti didn't mention Brzezinski more than very, very briefly, but many have provided plenty on this fiend, Brzezinski.
Since "Operation Cyclone" became known, the thought that Zbigniew Brzezinski has had Barack Obama´s ear during the whole campaign season has frightened me.
More than anyone on this earth, ZB knows: who created this Islamic Militant Force, who financed this Islamic Militant Force, who armed this Islamic Militant Force.
Benazir Bhutto knew who and told George H.Bush, "You are creating a monster and you will not have control over it." She said that in 1985.
ZB found no problems with what he had done, "which would you rather have as an enemy, the Soviet Union or The Taliban.
I personally did not want to create any enemy and I certainly did not want a "Global War Against Terrorism" that would never end.
The only countries that should have been attacked after 9/11 were: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and The United States.....World Trade Center #7 was never properly investigated and nor were the "Put Orders".....Those behind the attacks were never investigated.....The Islamic Militant Force and The Terrorist Attacks are one and the same started by the United States in 1979.
Outstanding article by a US progressive of a working class background like myself.
AD
Actually women were gaining alot of rights under Zahir Shah also. Parenti left that out. Alot of Afghans long for the good old days of Zahir Shah and many wanted him back as President back in 2002. Afghanistan at least in Kabul was making good progress in the 1950's-1970's.
Since you know a lot about Afghanistan especially since you've indicated that your husband is Afghan which I actually find rather interesting, I would like to know if it is only the top leader affects all the policies? Are there not local governments and state governments that are also responsible for providing or denying the rights to women? And isn't there something similar to a US Congress and top level Courts that are also responsible for the policies in Afghanistan?
Another thing and this was with regards to a reply post on another topic. I am curious as to how you actually succeeded in marrying an Afghan despite your family being Republican. Now maybe I'm wrong but usually if a family is lower/middle class and votes Republican, the vote is based mainly on social issues such as guns, abortion, same sex marriage, religion, war, patriotism, etc ... and maybe a little on taxes whereas if the family voting Republican is upper class, it's usually based mainly on the economic issues even though they may be socially libertarian/liberal. To make this even more complicated, Christians usually have love marriages whereas Hindus and Muslims have arranged marriages. Just out of curiosity, was your marriage a love or arranged one? A few months ago, I came across one of my coworkers whose son, a Christian white, is interested in marrying a Pakistani born Muslim who came to the country a few years ago on a VISA permit because she wanted to finish her education and work for some years so that in time she could help her parents pay off her debt. The trouble is both parents are uncomfortable about the idea of them marrying even though the two of them are getting more attracted to each other the more they know each other. I assume you must have had a mountain of hurdles to climb as inter-racial marriages aren't always easy even though they might not be as difficult as they used to be.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
More on Zahir Shah's reforms..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1573181.stm
Hi Jason,
On the Republican issues you bring up alot of those are true of Republicans from the midwest, south etc but don't hold true for many Republicans from the East Coast who tend to be fiscally conservative, anti-taxes but more socially liberal on issues. There are alot of Republicans like this in NY, NJ, PA, Mass, Conn. etc. My parents are middle class and both work. They actually voted Obama and Democrat for the first time in their lives this election so as they have gotten older they've become more open to other views. They voted Bush before and later regretted that. There seems to be a trend of that in PA, VA and elsewhere. These are what you would call Reagan Republicans and not the evangelical types.
While traditionally Hindus and Muslims do have more arranged marriages these days that has really changed within the last generation or two of these groups. My mother-in-law and father-in-law were actually a love match and not an arranged marriage. They were soul mates you can tell from their photos. All of my husband's siblings also had love matches for their marriages. However, my husband's grandparent's marriage was arranged. His family is from Kabul so his family was upper class at that time and very educated. They are were an Afghan minority. My father-in-law was educated in the US as Zahir Shah had a lot of educational exchange programs going with the US government and US schools back then. Kabul was a more open place before the Soviet Invasion think Iran under the Shah before the revolution. When his family fled Afghanistan they lost most of their wealth. Most Afghans no matter what their economic status lost everything during the wars there.
In the Middle East more and more love matches/marriages are happening. Countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan this is common. However, in the more conservative places like Saudi Arabia, Waziristan/Pakistan, and the Pushtun tribal areas traditional arranged marriages still tend to be the norm. Majority of Afghan-Americans marry for love and not arranged marriages. Most Afghan-Americans are far more liberal then their counterparts in Afghanistan particularily if they are the ethnic minorities like the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras. For example its rare to see an Afghan-American girl in the hijab or headscarf. Many Afghan expats will also indulge in alcohol but moderatly. Pashtun-American still tend to be quite conservative people though.
Well there are hurdles but DC is a place where there are a ton of interracial marriages and we count among our friends a variety of mixed race couples and other who are open minded and well traveled. I think it would be a much tougher thing to live in a place that was more homogenous. My husband's brother also married a white woman.
That's a lot of interesting info on the way marriage traditions have changed. I wonder if that's one of those issues that those terrorist trouble makers are afraid of that they go out of their way to drag others into their misery. As for education, the way it looks in Afghanistan, it will likely be decades before there can be anything close to what existed up to the 1970s in Afghanistan and that's assuming nothing gets worse in Afghanistan. Something needs to be done to put the spending and aid in the right direction which I don't know how that can be done given that this country relies on a military budget for just about everything. Good luck out there. I think you and gyptian could build a website to get us American people better educated on foreign policy at large because I don't see the left or right properly informing us all. The better educated more people are, the better our chances of reforming this messy system in Washington.
As for the Republican issue, I used to be a rabid conservative until I had to save my wife from her illness and then I realized my going too far ruined it for her. I am more towards progressive populism at least on the economics side and socially moderate. On the East side, I'm guessing most of these folks take their finances seriously more than the social issues. I remember reading about those kinds of Republicans in Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" which I believe he calls the moderate GOP.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
This article featuring an Afghan human rights activist best explains how the Afghan people are stuck between a rock (the War Lords) and a hard place (the Taliban). Afghanistan needs more people like this man.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/2004/heroes/hahmad_nader_nadery.html
I'm sorry to hear about your wife's illness. I hope she is doing better. I've been meaning to read that book myself.
Michael Parenti:
Ahhh, clarity.
I always save your posts!
Thanks!
Parenti omitted the fact that 1 or 2 months before 9/11, Unocal brought the Taliban leaders to Texas to figuratively 'wine and dine' them to obtain the desired pipeline route.
They ultimately refused to deal and returned home in late July or early August 2001 - the rest is history!!!!
But I could be wrong !
Wether the Taliban had signed the Unocal deal or not had no impact on 9/11. The Taliban probably did not expect 9-11 to happen. They were not involved in its planning and execution. They were too busy screwing over Afghanistan. If 9/11 hadnt happened you can be sure that we would have signed that Unocal deal.
Its classic American strategy. We will deal with the most murderous regime without a hint of conscience as long as it is under wraps and outside the public glare.
Parenti omitted the fact that 1 or 2 months before 9/11, Unocal brought the Taliban leaders to Texas to figuratively 'wine and dine' them to obtain the desired pipeline route.
They ultimately refused to deal and returned home in late Jly or early August 2001 - the rest is history!!!!
But I could be wrong !
apologies for the multiple posts - not intended
cheers, b
here we go again with yet another (hello mr grumwald) analysis of the evilness of the us government stemming from the unquestioned events of 9/11
never mind reminding the public that the government of iran was also overturned in the 1950's by the cia establishing the reign of the hated shah
back to 9/11 - any american who thinks the government is above the events of that day is an idiot and is beyond reprehension
worse you are all cowards who would rather shut up like the good little mice that you are than to reveal a truth that is beyond any conspiracy crap
connect the dots against a background of multiple examples
even idiots can do that
false flag of gulf of tonkin = war in vietnam
false flag of pear harbour = ww2
back to sleep - all of you
cheers, b
"worse you are all cowards who would rather shut up like the good little mice that you are than to reveal a truth that is beyond any conspiracy crap"
Ok ... we get it. Thanks. We are all idiots. Now try posting this on a rightwing web forum. You may get the reaction you crave.
Talk about insane! Yes, you're right 911 was caused by aliens. Now crawl back into your Mother's basement and resume playing Wii fitness.
The Afghan war was (and is) a defensive war. It also was (and is) a war of liberation. This article is beyond the pale for suggesting that their was anything positive about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I'll bet Charlie Wilson is spinning in his grave.
"The Afghan war was (and is) a defensive war. It also was (and is) a war of liberation."
Really !! This is news to me. So we were defending ourselves from Afghan warlords with muzzle-loader rifles ? And then proceeded to liberate them ?!! How ?
The Afghan War was a racist war and convenient because there was no way they could hit us back and we HAD to do something after 9/11 or risk being perceived as weak. Thousands of innocent civilians paid for it with their lives and livelihood. There is no fucking glory in that. Except for Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Oakland not a single U.S. congressperson digressed nor any senators. And the bloodthirsty U.S. publics 'revenge' was temporarily satisfied, while the Taliban and AlQaeda fled/escaped/flew-out with their sponsors the CIA and Pakistans ISI.
Remember 911? Apparently not.
Fill me in.
Fill you in?
About 911?
Well,, let's see, 3000 Americans died at the hands of Islamic extremists in one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the world.
I can only assume you have forgotten because at the time you were too busy formulating conspiracy theories or celebrating the murder of your fellow countryman.
Get help.
And then, please, never again disrespect the Brave American Heroes who lost their lives on the fateful day.
"celebrating the murder of your fellow countryman."
Pull your head out of your ass and stop pretending you are some great patriot who is the last hero standing or some such shit. You sound like a rightwing prick, exactly like the idiots who dragged our country thru hell these last 8 years, using exactly your kind of blind, unquestioning faith.
Even after the shenanigans and lies and mistruths that have been explicitly exposed these last 8 years, you still believe we are the shining beacon of hope thats never to be questioned. What a dumbass. Your 'Brave American Heroes' more often than not were murderous pigs who couldnt wait to shoot up some 'hajis'. Moron.
If you were really serious about liberating the Afghan people, you wouldn't be supporting the CIA or the Saudi royals to begin with not to mention pulling out of Afghanistan and giving the country total freedom and don't bother giving them anything because they're more creative and they have the right to decide who to be with. Don't tell me that you think the CIA and the Saudi royals are keeping America safe.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
here we go again with yet another (hello mr grumwald) analysis of the evilness of the us government stemming from the unquestioned events of 9/11
never mind reminding the public that the government of iran was also overturned in the 1950's by the cia establishing the reign of the hated shah
back to 9/11 - any american who thinks the government is above the events of that day is an idiot and is beyond reprehension
worse you are all cowards who would rather shut up like the good little mice that you are than to reveal a truth that is beyond any conspiracy crap
connect the dots against a background of multiple examples
even idiots can do that
false flag of gulf of tonkin = war in vietnam
false flag of pear harbour = ww2
back to sleep - all of you
cheers, b
here we go again with yet another (hello mr grumwald) analysis of the evilness of the us government stemming from the unquestioned events of 9/11
never mind reminding the public that the government of iran was also overturned in the 1950's by the cia establishing the reign of the hated shah
back to 9/11 - any american who thinks the government is above the events of that day is an idiot and is beyond reprehension
worse you are all cowards who would rather shut up like the good little mice that you are than to reveal a truth that is beyond any conspiracy crap
connect the dots against a background of multiple examples
even idiots can do that
false flag of gulf of tonkin = war in vietnam
false flag of pear harbour = ww2
back to sleep - all of you
cheers, b
If you're so smart, genius, why can't you simply post properly??