air marshal
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2005
- Messages
- 11,056
- Reaction score
- 2
WILL NATO EVENTUALLY DEFEAT PAKISTAN?
HOW CAN WE KEEP TERRORISM ALIVE?
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
The US and NATO war against Pakistan is going reasonably well. Our drone attacks are raising militancy and building terrorism among the Pashtuns. At this rate, terrorist attacks will spread to every city in Pakistan. Blackwater "hit teams" are touring Pakistan with orders to murder the only people America can negotiate a peace with. The flow of Indian weapons, killing both Pakistani and American troops is increasing daily. Without high quality weapons for our enemies, the war in Afghanistan would seem "unfair."
Not only are the death squads we have loosed illegally in Pakistan humiliating that country, these killers, with a long history of both incompetence and corruption may actually be working to worsen the situation by taking "guidance" from Israel and India.
Our "favorite" mercenary company has a long history of rogue operations and its ownership is tied to extremist groups in America known more for their loyalty to Israel than America. With luck, we could make Pakistan so angry they could close the port in Karachi and starve our forces out. This is what we are working very hard to do. I only wonder why?
The supposed "terrorist" leaders, like the infamous "Mullah Omar" and his millions of armor clad fanatical Islamic stormtroopers and Gulbadden Hektymar, former head of CIA operations in the region are the primary targets of the US war.
That neither are proven to be involved with the Taliban in Afghanistan or with terrorist attacks inside Pakistan doesn't seem to sway US policy established during the impressionable Rumsfeld/Cheney years. Could we be that confused and be fighting on the wrong side? It wouldn't be the first time.
Almost any reliable source in the region will tell you that Hektymar, in particular, is the most likely arbiter of any Afghan war settlement as he is the only person who is widely respected in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and who has years of experience as an American ally.
We are currently trying to find him and kill him.
After 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, President Nixon made friends with China, a nation we were convinced was planning to kill all of us in our beds. He then signed a treaty with North Vietnam leading to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger, an act making the award of a Nobel prize to President Obama seem almost sensible.
All of this, of course, was a defacto admission that the war had been an error in judgement and that doing business with Communists was far more profitable than killing them. History has proven this to be more than correct.
Without China, the US would have collapsed in bankruptcy during the Bush "the lesser" presidency. Nixon must have been a genius. Who would have thought it!
So, let's get this straight. We are fighting to keep Afghanistan free by supporting:
* a government chosen in a crooked election in which only 20% of citizens voted,
* a government that controls 3% of the country,
* a government supported by India, who is using Afghanistan as a base for terrorist attacks on our primary ally, Pakistan,
* a government made up, largely of the world's largest drug dealers and bandits
* a government seen as corrupt, incompetent and traitorous by a majority of its citizens
To keep this war going, we depend on Pakistan as our primary military ally, whose military operations are much more vital to our success/survival than any and all of our NATO allies. We are helping Pakistan by:
* periodically opening the border with Afghanistan and flooding Pakistan with combatants
* attacking those combatants with such utter incompetence and massive "collateral damage" as to, not only help them gain support and recruits but
* to tie down the Pakistani army fighting new enemies made by irresponsible US attacks, thus preventing effective pacification of the border regions
* allowing Afghanistan to be used to attack Pakistan but actually, on occasion, taking part in attacks on our own ally, Pakistan, under the direction of our Afghani allies.
Yes, this actually happened. Afghanistan hates Pakistan so much it fooled American planes into attacking the Pakistani army. Gerry Foley writes in 2008:
"America and Pakistan both deny it; but it appears that on Sept. 15 they fought a short war. America started it." That was the comment of the very influential and very frank British Economist in its Sept. 18 issue.
The Economist is close to ruling circles in Britain, and its patrons are evidently worried about the conflict that is developing between the NATO forces in Afghanistan and Pakistani military operating on the frontier that the government of Pakistan is unable to control. The article in question was referring to a confrontation between the Pakistani military and a U.S. strike force trying to attack Taliban fighters inside Pakistan on Sept. 15. The strike force was reportedly being transported in two helicopters that were forced to turn back when a Pakistani unit fired toward them.
On Sept. 3, U.S. helicopter gunships landed at the Pakistani village of Musa Nika in the border area, and U.S. soldiers opened fire on a compound there, killing 20 people. That attack had been preceded by increasing missile strikes within Pakistan from U.S. drones."
What we now know is that the attack was orchestrated by Afghanistan. American commanders were unfamiliar with the relationship between the two nations that have been at the brink of war on several occasions, particularly during the 1960s.
Now Pakistan claims that terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan are being run by India, who under the umbrella of US protection and with the full collusion of the Karzai government and its drug lord allies, are planning and executing terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. Pakistan claims to have captured new "top of the line" weapons of Indian manufacture from terrorists who have crossed into Pakistan.
Ruses of this type take many shapes. One might ask why a mercenary company banned from Iraq, under investigation for an endless number of crimes from murder to smuggling, a company proven, not only unreliable but one that had to change its name, which had become synonymous with piracy and gangsterism would be tasked with the most delicate special operations imaginable? Is it possible that failure had been the plan all along?
Is it possible that the failures in Afghanistan, too numerous to mention, had all been less than accidental? The old questions come to mind, oil, gas, drugs, bilking the US government out of billions, military promotions and medals. Is it one, two or all of the above?
Another way of looking at this, perhaps putting a smiley face on a bad situation is that, if America is going to be bankrupt, it might as well keep a war going continually, drowning deeper and deeper in debt, just to keep as many of the well armed and well trained, who but for military service might be unemployed, outside the country.
We could look on flooding the country with cheap heroin from Afghanistan as a way of managing an unruly population who, while either high, breaking into homes or shooting it out with the police, are unlikely to engage in political dirty tricks.
We could look on keeping tens or hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East on a semi-permanent basis as a way of, no wait, I can't really think of any reason to do that. It would only cause the spread of terrorism around the world, increase the risk of nuclear war and impoverish or even kill millions.
No sane person would want that.
WHY AMERICANS WILL BE DYING NEXT CHRISTMAS AND... : Veterans Today - News for U.S. Military Veterans Jobs, VA Benefits, Home Loans, Hospitals & Administration
HOW CAN WE KEEP TERRORISM ALIVE?
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
The US and NATO war against Pakistan is going reasonably well. Our drone attacks are raising militancy and building terrorism among the Pashtuns. At this rate, terrorist attacks will spread to every city in Pakistan. Blackwater "hit teams" are touring Pakistan with orders to murder the only people America can negotiate a peace with. The flow of Indian weapons, killing both Pakistani and American troops is increasing daily. Without high quality weapons for our enemies, the war in Afghanistan would seem "unfair."
Not only are the death squads we have loosed illegally in Pakistan humiliating that country, these killers, with a long history of both incompetence and corruption may actually be working to worsen the situation by taking "guidance" from Israel and India.
Our "favorite" mercenary company has a long history of rogue operations and its ownership is tied to extremist groups in America known more for their loyalty to Israel than America. With luck, we could make Pakistan so angry they could close the port in Karachi and starve our forces out. This is what we are working very hard to do. I only wonder why?
The supposed "terrorist" leaders, like the infamous "Mullah Omar" and his millions of armor clad fanatical Islamic stormtroopers and Gulbadden Hektymar, former head of CIA operations in the region are the primary targets of the US war.
That neither are proven to be involved with the Taliban in Afghanistan or with terrorist attacks inside Pakistan doesn't seem to sway US policy established during the impressionable Rumsfeld/Cheney years. Could we be that confused and be fighting on the wrong side? It wouldn't be the first time.
Almost any reliable source in the region will tell you that Hektymar, in particular, is the most likely arbiter of any Afghan war settlement as he is the only person who is widely respected in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and who has years of experience as an American ally.
We are currently trying to find him and kill him.
After 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, President Nixon made friends with China, a nation we were convinced was planning to kill all of us in our beds. He then signed a treaty with North Vietnam leading to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger, an act making the award of a Nobel prize to President Obama seem almost sensible.
All of this, of course, was a defacto admission that the war had been an error in judgement and that doing business with Communists was far more profitable than killing them. History has proven this to be more than correct.
Without China, the US would have collapsed in bankruptcy during the Bush "the lesser" presidency. Nixon must have been a genius. Who would have thought it!
So, let's get this straight. We are fighting to keep Afghanistan free by supporting:
* a government chosen in a crooked election in which only 20% of citizens voted,
* a government that controls 3% of the country,
* a government supported by India, who is using Afghanistan as a base for terrorist attacks on our primary ally, Pakistan,
* a government made up, largely of the world's largest drug dealers and bandits
* a government seen as corrupt, incompetent and traitorous by a majority of its citizens
To keep this war going, we depend on Pakistan as our primary military ally, whose military operations are much more vital to our success/survival than any and all of our NATO allies. We are helping Pakistan by:
* periodically opening the border with Afghanistan and flooding Pakistan with combatants
* attacking those combatants with such utter incompetence and massive "collateral damage" as to, not only help them gain support and recruits but
* to tie down the Pakistani army fighting new enemies made by irresponsible US attacks, thus preventing effective pacification of the border regions
* allowing Afghanistan to be used to attack Pakistan but actually, on occasion, taking part in attacks on our own ally, Pakistan, under the direction of our Afghani allies.
Yes, this actually happened. Afghanistan hates Pakistan so much it fooled American planes into attacking the Pakistani army. Gerry Foley writes in 2008:
"America and Pakistan both deny it; but it appears that on Sept. 15 they fought a short war. America started it." That was the comment of the very influential and very frank British Economist in its Sept. 18 issue.
The Economist is close to ruling circles in Britain, and its patrons are evidently worried about the conflict that is developing between the NATO forces in Afghanistan and Pakistani military operating on the frontier that the government of Pakistan is unable to control. The article in question was referring to a confrontation between the Pakistani military and a U.S. strike force trying to attack Taliban fighters inside Pakistan on Sept. 15. The strike force was reportedly being transported in two helicopters that were forced to turn back when a Pakistani unit fired toward them.
On Sept. 3, U.S. helicopter gunships landed at the Pakistani village of Musa Nika in the border area, and U.S. soldiers opened fire on a compound there, killing 20 people. That attack had been preceded by increasing missile strikes within Pakistan from U.S. drones."
What we now know is that the attack was orchestrated by Afghanistan. American commanders were unfamiliar with the relationship between the two nations that have been at the brink of war on several occasions, particularly during the 1960s.
Now Pakistan claims that terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan are being run by India, who under the umbrella of US protection and with the full collusion of the Karzai government and its drug lord allies, are planning and executing terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. Pakistan claims to have captured new "top of the line" weapons of Indian manufacture from terrorists who have crossed into Pakistan.
Ruses of this type take many shapes. One might ask why a mercenary company banned from Iraq, under investigation for an endless number of crimes from murder to smuggling, a company proven, not only unreliable but one that had to change its name, which had become synonymous with piracy and gangsterism would be tasked with the most delicate special operations imaginable? Is it possible that failure had been the plan all along?
Is it possible that the failures in Afghanistan, too numerous to mention, had all been less than accidental? The old questions come to mind, oil, gas, drugs, bilking the US government out of billions, military promotions and medals. Is it one, two or all of the above?
Another way of looking at this, perhaps putting a smiley face on a bad situation is that, if America is going to be bankrupt, it might as well keep a war going continually, drowning deeper and deeper in debt, just to keep as many of the well armed and well trained, who but for military service might be unemployed, outside the country.
We could look on flooding the country with cheap heroin from Afghanistan as a way of managing an unruly population who, while either high, breaking into homes or shooting it out with the police, are unlikely to engage in political dirty tricks.
We could look on keeping tens or hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East on a semi-permanent basis as a way of, no wait, I can't really think of any reason to do that. It would only cause the spread of terrorism around the world, increase the risk of nuclear war and impoverish or even kill millions.
No sane person would want that.
WHY AMERICANS WILL BE DYING NEXT CHRISTMAS AND... : Veterans Today - News for U.S. Military Veterans Jobs, VA Benefits, Home Loans, Hospitals & Administration
