So the war's in Public Domain now?

NY Times: In New Strategy, U.S. Will Defend Kabul Environs

KABUL, Afghanistan — Most of the additional American troops arriving in Afghanistan early next year will be deployed near the capital, Kabul, American military commanders here say, in a measure of how precarious the war effort has become.

It will be the first time that American or coalition forces have been deployed in large numbers on the southern flank of the city, a decision that reflects the rising concerns among military officers, diplomats and government officials about the increasing vulnerability of the capital and the surrounding area.
...

for the U.S. economy.

Everyone knows so.

So, there will be more war in Afghanistan.

Merry f-ing Christmas to everyone here.

Contrary to all of Bush's declarations that he was "listening to the generals on the ground", he DID NOT. He just said to Charlie Gibson, "he stuck to his principles." And his small, wooden, VAPID wife chimed in, "Yeah, and he kept us safe. (Nyaah)"

Gawd I hate these people.

The Bush junta in action. A long history of steering America for their personal gains.

It is disheartening to read that the U.S. is spending our hard earned tax money in building barracks for 20,000 poor souls to be stationed in Afghanistan.

Usually, Obama sounds rational. On the subject of Afghanistan, however, he has sounded slightly screwy.
He calls the war there, for which you rightly point out has no longer any rationale, a "war we must win".
He fleshes this out by saying that we should be going after "poppy growers" (sigh), and trying to kill Bin Laden. He also states that the planning for attacks on the U.S. is happening there. Is he serious?
Doesn't he think that these people have email, or cellphones? Does he really picture a few guys in a cave figuring sh-t out - and we gotta go and find them? This is comic book stuff.

No. Obama has an agenda - and we better find out what it is.
Either that, or he was just trying to look tough on terror during the campaign.
Let's hope that is was the latter.

This is a great article from Cernig - and I hope that it gets the attention from those in power that it deserves.

We had better start applying pressure to Obama and Pelosi and Reid and Clinton before we get stuck in another bottomless pit.

Well, since Dana Perino said that Khalid Sheik Mohammad was the "mastermind" behind 9/11 and is now in custody, what's the rationale for continuing to hunt for OBL? It is curious that he's not on the FBI's list for 9/11, isn't it? Gotta keep that war machine churning.

BTW, how's that pipeline coming along?

Osama bin forgotten?

but my first must address your use of Lakhdar Brahimi and the WaPo as a source. It is a perfect example of why I never read that trash. I'm guessing this was an editorial, but these days it is very hard to tell.

I could not get through the first sentence without noticing a huge deception: "Afghan political representatives reached an agreement under UN auspices to rebuild their country," at the Bonn conference in 2001.

First it was the West that reached agreement at Bonn. Anyone who believes that some Afghanis sat down and decided the fate of their country is either an idiot or a liar. Secondly, the Bonn conference was not established to rebuild the country. The Bonn conference was established to install an American (British) client state in the name of Karzai. BTW, yes there was some attempt to rebuild roads, hospitals and schools. But, we all know that this was outsourced to Bush cronies who got hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars and never did the work or did it so shoddily that most of it was dangerous or useless. After pretending to rebuild the country, the US and the rest of the world, for a variety of reasons, used what money remained to build army and police barracks and forces. Don't even get me started on the sham that is 'foreign aid' where typically most of the money never reaches the aided state.

If you don't understand this is 100% correct and Mr. Brahimi or the WaPo are either idiots or liars, then it's useless to discuss Afghanistan. Although I hold no advanced degrees in international affairs, I have been saying for months that the Afghan War is a lie, a shambles, this is deliberate, and adding more troops is exactly what the Bushies want. The saddest part of all is that Obama is not stupid.

Yet, it is equally dubious to claim there is no al-Qaeda, as in the US won. To the extent there ever was an al-Qaeda it never numbered higher than a few hundred. Secondly, by Dec. 2001, there were essentially no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Thirdly, al-Qaeda is hardly ever correctly identified as foreign fighters in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other parts of the world who take part in jihad. (Even this is not entirely accurate since it fails to distinguish between al-Qaeda and numerous other so-called terrorists. Fourth, no corporate media will ever tell you that most 'terrorists' are really indigenous resistance groups fighting against a corrupt (typically military dictator) regime that seeks to exploit, repress or kill the peoples who inhabit the territory in question. Fourth, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have always been guided and funded by Pakistan (Saudi Arabia and the US). All the time that Bush was saying Pakistan was a great ally, Pakistan was fueling the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the insurgency. Guess what? Bush and the rest of Washington knew it too. In fact, Pakistan still fully supports the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you don't believe me, then do you believe India, the US and Afghanistan when they blame Pakistan's government (the Pak Army which includes the ISI) for the attack on India's embassy in Kabul this summer? Finally, anyone who doesn't know that the only reason the US is still in Afghanistan is to possess their resources, build pipelines, expand NATO and enrich their corrupt cronies is an idiot or a liar.

It's crucial to understand how deceptive Mr. Brahimi and the WaPo are to spin such tales.

Considering that A) al Queda "launched" the 9/11 attacks from Pakistan(if they were indeed launched by al Queda) and B) The Afghan Taliban government agreed to capure and turn over Ossama bin-Laden if the US presented them evidence of bin-Laden and al-Queda being involved in the 9/11 atttacks I'd say the war there never did have any authority.

http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=151093

Mumbai attacks: who dunnit?

Monday, December 08, 2008
by Ayesha Ijaz Khan

America’s military and economic might forced the world to accept that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 tragedy. This may well have been the case, but since the verdict was pronounced five minutes into the heinous incident and never investigated thoroughly or transparently, we will never know for sure and many will continue to harbour doubts. It is also true that think tanks and analysts in the USA had begun talking about replacing the Red Enemy with the Green Enemy soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The invasion of Afghanistan, and later Iraq, fit perfectly into this paradigm.

In her piece in CounterPunch on Wednesday, titled “From Mumbai to Washington,” Israeli human and women’s rights activist Yifat Susskind writes: “In the seven years since George Bush put the world on notice with his ‘you’re either with us or with the terrorists’ declaration, the US has actually managed to fuel support for groups that use terrorism. That’s because the ‘war on terror’ has led millions of people to conclude that the US is an even greater threat to their safety and freedom than Al Qaeda and other violent fringe groups.”

Yet, the “you’re either with us or against us” talk scared most countries in the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds alike, and there was global acceptance of America’s version of events. A cursory look at anti-terrorism laws (some of which may be justified but others a flagrant abuse of civil liberties) and media projection of events in most countries, whether one looks at Bulgaria, Bangladesh or Japan, will verify that the American superpower was not to be questioned. Pakistan was no exception. And perhaps few would disagree that Pakistan, being in the thick of it, had little option but to cooperate with the US when it was asked to do so in late 2001. How it behaved subsequently is wholly another matter and open to extensive critique.

Sane American voices, nevertheless, questioned their government’s rhetoric or presented alternative possibilities, but were soon declared unpatriotic. Professors like Steven Jones, who had studied vectors and velocities, concluded that the collapse of the twin towers was best explained by controlled demolition sped by a thousand pound of high-grade thermite. But after his pronouncement was made public he was placed on paid leave by Brigham Young University, where he taught. Though a few others spoke out as well and formed the “9/11 truth movement,” their voices were marginalised. And although polls suggest that a high number of Americans are suspicious of the official government version of events, and indeed most of my American friends speak with similar skepticism, they nevertheless bought into the official rhetoric enough not to raise their voice against it.

Today, Indian friends are in a similar predicament. Privately, they laugh at their government pointing the finger squarely in Pakistan’s direction well before the siege on the Taj Hotel had ended or the alleged terrorist captured, but do not protest the government’s rush to blame the usual suspect. It is either too convenient to lay blame on “Islamic extremists” or too harrowing to be labelled unpatriotic.

India, however, is no superpower. And though mainstream western media is predictably close to official stories, the alternative media, which has slowly but surely gained in readership during the drab Bush years, is cautioning India against following in America’s footsteps and asking questions about the evidence.

Christine Fair, a senior political scientist and South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation, was interviewed by several publications regarding the Mumbai tragedy and repeatedly stated, “There’s absolutely nothing Al Qaeda-like about it. Did you see any suicide bombers? And there are no fingerprints of Lashkar. They don’t do hostage-taking, and they don’t do grenades.”

Wayne Madsen, a Washington DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist, who was also a communications security analyst with the National Security Agency in the 1980s and previously an intelligence officer in the US Navy, has written some of the most thought-provoking pieces on the Mumbai incident. The first question he raises is with respect to the so-called security-camera shot of the alleged terrorist, Qasab. “The angle,” Madsen argues, “is too narrow for a train station which would have a wider angle and be shot from higher up than the photo being shopped by Indian police.”

Dawood Ibrahim, one of the 20 fugitives on India’s demand list, is someone that Madsen too feels may be involved, however. But Madsen claims that India is trying to boost the Lashkar-e-Taiba’s involvement in the Mumbai attacks while downplaying the role of Ibrahim. The son of a Mumbai police constable, Ibrahim has informants and agents peppered throughout Indian police. Yet, Madsen states that “there is also evidence that rightwing Hindu elements of RAW were aware of Ibrahim’s hit on Mumbai beforehand but allowed it to play out in order to carry out a “soft coup” by rightwing Hindu nationalists against the Congress government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Madsen further makes the claim that more than one group may have been involved in the terrorism. On the one hand, Ibrahim and his group may have attacked the Oberoi-Trident and Chabad House, where large numbers of Israelis were present, who may have been working for the Russian-Israeli mafia that was poised to rival Ibrahim’s gangs in their drug and other smuggling operations. Chabad Houses, Madsen claims, have often been used as fronts for money laundering operations. Moreover, “the Oberoi hostages were shot in the back of their heads, a typical gangland execution method preferred by Ibrahim and not the firing squad method used by LeT,” Madsen explains.

On the other hand, Madsen also believes that some of the terrorists were Hindus, tipped off by RAW officials who sympathise with rightwing Hindus and who learned of the attack beforehand but did not act to prevent it. According to Madsen, the Hindu terrorists killed Hemant Karkare in “false flag” attacks later blamed on the Muslims. Madsen also believes that the photograph being splashed around in the media of one alleged Qasab is actually one of the Hindu terrorists.

In a sense, Madsen projects a gruesome turf war between rival gangs and transnational mob bosses, fiercely protecting their interests in a spectrum of illicit activity with links and cross-links to most of the world’s noteworthy intelligence agencies. Assuming Ibrahim was in Pakistan (though it has also been said that he currently holds a passport from Mali), would it be wise for Pakistan to hand him over to India, as demanded? Which law would be invoked to facilitate this extradition? And would India reciprocate by extraditing Colonel Purohit (after all three brave men who India had tasked with investigating Colonel Purohit mysteriously died in the 26/11 attacks, namely, Hemant Karkare, DIG Ashok Kamte and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar)? More importantly, would there be justice for Ibrahim in India? Would all illicit links be uncovered? Would ties to the CIA, MI6, Mossad, RAW and ISI, all be explored? Or would Ibrahim be used only to frame Pakistan as the standalone fall guy?

According to Madsen, Ibrahim has ties that link him to some of India’s most prominent politicians and Bollywood stars, not to mention the extensive connections in Mumbai’s very corrupt police force. If Madsen is to be believed, Ibrahim was also an on-and-off CIA asset, and could potentially uncover very embarrassing ties to Langley.

In the light of this information, the Lashkar may have very little, if anything, to do with the Mumbai attacks. Whether or not that is true remains to be seen. Though any group that targets innocent civilians, whether inside or outside of Pakistan, must be actively curbed by our government. And this should be done of our own accord and not in response to pressure from America, India or any other country. More importantly, it is imperative that the investigation of the Mumbai attacks be as transparent as possible and leads are followed bottom-up instead of trying to link pieces of evidence with many missing dots to establish a desirable conclusion. A joint probe is a good idea, and perhaps the best place to try the culprits may be a neutral forum, such as the International Court of Justice, as opposed to any individual country.

The writer is a London-based lawyer and political commentator. Website: www.ayeshaijazkhan.com