Afghanistan Heading Back to Pre-Invasion State

"Kabul has seen a wave of liberal, unwelcome influences of late. There are women dressed immodestly, prostitution can be found openly and even alcohol is available on the market. Our job is to protect the Afghan people from being exposed to this un-Islamic way of life and poor morals."

Now some people reading the above quote might think that it originated from post-Soviet Afghanistan. It sounds like the early rumblings of the Taliban regime that was to ravage the country for many years. In fact, the above quote is a little more recent. Very recent. In fact, the above quote is lifted from today's Guardian.

Despite the high ideals of bringing 'freedom and democracy' to a country that has been afflicted by wave upon wave of imperialism over the years, Afghanistan is actually turning back the clock. In recent weeks, the Afghan government has attempted to ban popular Indian soap operas and, more seriously, the high court has confirmed the death sentence of nearly 100 people. In terms of the crackdown on the media, The Guardian reports:

Last week parliament tried to stop several private TV channels from broadcasting a number of Indian soap operas. But many stations, including the popular local Tolo TV, are defying the ban. The ministry of information and culture issued a "final warning" to Tolo and Afghan TV to stop broadcasting the Indian soaps by April 29, saying that "otherwise they will be referred to the judiciary".

To make matters worse (as if that was possible), US puppet and former consultant to Unocal, President Hamad Karzai, has sided with the conservatives in this latest tussle. Far from bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Karzai seems intent on returning the country to it's previous repressive state. That the Americans seem willing to go along with this is hardly surprising. Back in October 2006, former senator Bill Frist (a Republican no less) called on the Taliban to be brought into the Afghan government. No sooner had the US proclaimed high ideals about the future of Aghanistan, than it returns the country back to it's pre-war state. For the people of Afghanistan, they have once more become the victims to the imperial ambition of others.

Fascism is Alive and Well....

And takes the form of Timothy Blair. According to Timmy:

Justin Parker’s song for David Hicks will make you cry. With laughter:

Together we make a stand
To bring him home
For a nation’s pride,
He is someone’s child.

Apparently Australia’s pride depends on the return of a Jew-loathing Taliban member who rejoiced in the opportunity to shoot at Indian soldiers. Hicks is, however, someone’s child; there’s no disputing that. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been born.

That's right, 'rejoicing' in an 'opportunity' is now a crime. As usual with the far-right, ALLEGATION=FACT. And there are precious few 'facts' in Timbo's post (or comments for that matter).

Fit For Only One Purpose.............

So, 'Dr' John Reid is in a spot of bother of the whole issue of criminal records of Britons convicted abroad. He had this coming all the way. Ever since declaring that the Home Office was not 'fit for purpose', many have been eager to seem him fall flat on his face. Quite frankly, it is about time this odious man was taken down a peg or two. And now, it emerges that the Home Office had turned down a request for extra funding to deal with the issue. According to The Guardian:

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said it had asked officials for money to allow it to clear up the 27,500 case files within three instead of 12 months but the request had been rejected.

It also emerged yesterday that Acpo sent a letter about the difficulties they were having with the exchange of criminal records across the EU to the police minister, Tony McNulty, in the same month. Acpo claimed last night that subsequent meetings on the problem had taken place with the Home Office in October and November.

So much for solving the problems of the Home Office. It looks as though Reid is actually as incompetent as he is malevolent. The only shame is that it is an issue like this that is seeing him get the rough treatment from the media. Meanwhile other, more serious scandals, have been largely ignored by large swathes of the press.

As regular readers are well aware, I have been following the plight of David Hicks in Guantanamo. Earlier last year, David won the right to receive UK citizenship. This was a great victory for the campaign to have him sent back to Australia and either charged or released. However, this citizenship was later revoked by none other than the man dubbed 'Vermin of the Year 2006'. According to a report in today's Guardian:

Mr Reid appears to have relied on alleged admissions made by Mr Hicks in an interview with MI6 in 2003 at Guantánamo Bay. He is alleged to have admitted meeting terrorists in Afghanistan, but his lawyers say these admissions were made after sustained torture and are unreliable.

'Dr' John Reid is personally responsible for the ongoing injustice that David Hicks, as well as other inmates at the notorious concentration camp, are suffering. On a day when people are gathering to protest against this despicable stain on Western civilisation, it is fitting that a man who has played his part in this gross injustice is exposed for the malevolent, incompetent criminal that he really is.

What the American Government Stands For.....

Here is a list of some of the things that the American government stands for:

• obstructing democracy
• corruption
• torture
• rendition flights
• use of cluster bombs
• militarisation of space
• abuse of prisoners
• bringing Taleban back into Afghan government
• harboring terrorists
• collective punishment of Palestinians
• soft on terror
• racism
• complicit support for war crimes

All that in the last two months. Time for a change? I think so.

Public Statement Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International

Amnesty International is concerned that at least 82 people in a madrassa (religious school) may have been extrajudicially executed in an aerial attack at dawn of 30 October in Bajaur, a designated tribal area near the border with Afghanistan. No attempt appears to have been made to arrest the victims who were described by army spokesman Major-General Shaukat Sultan as some 70 to 80 “militants” who were “training and learning terrorist tactics” in the madrassa.

Local people said the victims were clerics and students of the school, many of them under 18. Correspondents said that amongst the dead were children as young as six years old.

Local people have stated that the initial attack was carried out by drones. Villagers have reported hearing loud explosions and observing the destruction of the madrassa. This was followed some 20 minutes later by the appearance of two helicopter gunships which also fired rockets into the area. The villagers reportedly said that they had observed drones in the days before the attack flying over the village.

Pakistan Army spokesman Shaukat Sultan denied US involvement in the aerial attack which, he said, had been carried out by Pakistani helicopter gunships targeting the madrassa compound which had been under surveillance for some time. A US military spokesman in Afghanistan denied, too, any US involvement in the airstrike.

Amnesty International would like to remind the Pakistani authorities that if these killings were deliberate and took place without first attempting to arrest suspected offenders, without warning, without the suspects offering armed resistance, and in circumstances in which suspects posed no immediate risk to security forces, the killings are considered extrajudicial executions in violation of international human rights law.

Under international human rights law and standards, every human being has the inherent right to life. Arbitrary deprivation of life, including extrajudicial executions, is always unlawful and no circumstances – war or any public emergency – may be invoked as a justification of such executions. All allegations of extrajudicial executions must be immediately and impartially investigated with the view to bringing to justice those responsible for ordering and carrying them out.

Under international human rights standards, security forces may only use firearms when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender.

In has been reported that journalists seeking access to the area were turned back by the army. This has resulted in an absence of independent reporting from the area affected.

Background

Since 2003, the Pakistani army has been engaged, with some 80,000 troops, in a security operation in the border area with Afghanistan. The operation seeks to remove fighters who have crossed from Afghanistan and to win over their local supporters.

Pakistani government officials have in the past stated that the ongoing operation in the tribal areas of Pakistan is a security operation supported by the army, not a military operation.

In a recent report, Pakistan: Human rights ignored in the “war on terror”, Amnesty International expressed its concern about the use of excessive and lethal force in the security operation and called on the government to ensure that all cases of possible extrajudicial execution are promptly and independently investigated and perpetrators brought to justice.

AI Index: ASA 33/046/2006 1 November 2006

***************************************

You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.

***************************************

Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at http://www.amnesty.org/news/. Visit http://www.amnesty.org for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of AmnestyInternational.

Privacy policy http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng

Getting to the Root of the Problem

So the war in Afghanistan is 'cuckoo' and the war in Iraq is 'fuelling UK terrorism'. Is there anyone left who thinks we are following a sensible foreign policy?? Still, the police have got to the heart of stopping UK terrorism - ban flag burning. Yes, that really is going to halt the 'terrorist threat' in its tracks. Perhaps we should focus on Blair's wars before we start worrying about people burning some quaint, patterned cloth.

The Provocation Continues......

Over a week has passed since Jack Straw made his remarks about Muslim women wearing the veil. Since then, we have had the non-story about the classroom assistant who refused to remove the veil in front of her male colleagues. The media repeated the same mistake again and again by implying that the woman involved was actually teaching children at the front of the class. Of course, right-wing groups (like our 'socialist' government) and far-right bloggers jumped on the story and used it as evidence of the Muslim populations lack of will to integrate within our society. Some of the rhetoric is getting so out of hand, it is beginning to feel like a throwback to 1930s Germany.

Predictably, this rhetoric is provoking horrendous acts upon innocent civilians all over the country. Whether by accident or design (I suspect it is the latter), many on the far-right are fermenting an environment of hatred towards Muslims in our communities. Every time there is an increase in this kind of racist, baseless rhetoric, there is a sudden rise in violence towards Muslims. This, in turn, is barely reported in the media which then leads to further aggravation amongst the Muslim community. Since Straw made his comments on the veil, there have been a range of violent attacks, including:

Friday 6 October: Muslim woman had her hijab pulled off and thrown on the floor by a white man in east London. Muslim woman had her veil snatched from her face in Liverpool. Muslim girl wearing a veil in StrawÂ’s Blackburn constituency was verbally abused by three youths.

Saturday 7 October: Two Asian men were attacked by racists in Leicester, one critically injured.

Sunday 8 October: Racist graffiti was daubed on a house on Teesside.

Monday 9 October: A 21 year old Turkish woman wearing a hijab was verbally abused by a white woman in Canterbury, Kent. A black Muslim woman wearing a veil was verbally abused in Hackney, east London.

Furthermore, an imam was attacked in Glasgow inside his mosque by a white man in a racist attack. Mohammed Shamsuddin was punched and kicked by his attacker, who also hit the 53-year-old using a chair and a safe deposit box. This incident follows a recent fire attack on a mosque in Falkirk which caused £10,000 worth of damage.

The government, along with their right-wing cohorts, have encouraged this despicable behaviour. They continue to demonise the Islamic community in an attempt to justify their vicious wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The more they can create anger amongst Muslims, the more they can justify their wars and their illiberal measures. The more they create a divide in society, the more that people will turn to extreme measures to be heard. There has been a massive increase in the terrorist threat ever since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, whatever the government and the far-right would have you believe. There is no doubt that they are provoking this divide for political gain. The more they can provoke an angry reaction from the Islamic community, the more they can point at them as evidence of extremism, no matter how reasonable their response. This, of course, has the added bonus of distracting an increasingly sceptical public about the merits of the attack on Iraq. After all, the official reason for the war in Iraq has changed from being about WMD, to facing down the 'extremists'. What better way to present your argument than to continually present 'extremist' images to the general populace, particularly in our communities? By drawing a parallel between the 'extremists' at home and abroad, the establishment aim to justify their support for the illegal invasion of Iraq and build public support.

As far as the Labour party are concerned, they have hammered the final nail in the coffin of their relations with the Muslim community. Never again will the Muslim population turn to the Labour party for support, given the disdain shown by the leadership. Even the BNP have been caught by surprise for this attack on Islam, as one activist said:

'New Labour ministers are scrambling over one another to become number one hate figure amongst the Muslim community, leaving BNP spokesmen trailing.'

When the BNP are getting left behind by the rhetoric of the party of government, there has got to be something wrong.

Interestingly, this talk of Muslim extremism has pushed a growing extremism out of the headlines of late. The capitulation at the hands of the Christian lobby by Blair and Kelly have set a worrying precedent for democracy in this country. There is a growth in Christian fundamentalism that, although not on the same scale as America (just witness the recent documentary, Jesus Camp) , is threatening to usurp basic democratic principles (and is routinely ignored by the right, for obvious reasons). We have seen this before with James Dowson's attack on a school teaching sex education and Christian Voice's attack on our culture, and now it is having a profound effect on the day to day business of government. Everyone is well aware of Kelly's involvement with the secretive Opus Dei and Blair's commitment to convert after he has stepped down, what we are witnessing is a very steady erosion in the separation between state and the church. It is interesting to note that as the attacks on Islam grow stronger, so does the influence of Christian extremists in government. It certainly appears to be the case that the west is pushing ever closer towards a white, Christian order and the demonisation of Muslims is part of the way towards that goal.

Bring Taliban into Afghan Government

Amazingly, Bill Frist has recommended that the Taliban be brought into the government of Afghanistan. Despite their appalling human rights record when in government (a fact often used by Bush to vindicate the invasion), Frist believes that they should be brought into the fold and play a part in the future of the country. According to CBC News, Frist said:

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government. And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

This is an amazing change of tactics by the Republicans. Not so long ago the idea of working in partnership with the Taliban was an unthinkable concept. Now it is being seriously considered. Interestingly, Frist also goes on to destroy the right-wing myth that the insurgency is relatively weak. CBC News said:

The senator said he was warned to expect attacks to increase. There appears to be an "unlimited flow" of Afghans and foreigners "willing to pick up arms and integrate themselves with the Taliban," he said.

"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me … that the Taliban is everywhere."

Everywhere??? Unlimited flow??? And yet the right seem to believe it is a minor insurrection that is little or no threat to the 'coalition'. Still, at this rate the Americans will be giving Saddam a slapped wrist and reinstating him in Iraq.

Pakistan - Ally or Terrorist State?

After the revelations about the threats made to Pakistan in the run up to the war in Afghanistan, we now learn that they are heavily implicated in the July terrorist attack on Mumbai. The Mumbai Police Commissioner A.N. Roy claimed that the terrorists that carried out the attack were trained in Pakistan and added that Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence Agency, or ISI, was also involved. I suspect that the US government will do very little in response to these allegations. After all, they have a rather one-sided view when it comes to terrorism, just ask Luis Posada Carriles.

Senior Army Officers Want Troops Out of Iraq

This story according to The Guardian. Is there anyone left in this country who believes that all is well in Iraq and Afghanistan?? Just a few loonies I guess.

Another Right-Wing Frenzy

The right wing have been building themselves into a frenzy over the recent ABC drama and the recent interview with Bill Clinton on Fox News. The reason for this frenzy is, as always, nothing more than a distraction from the facts, a classic case of sleight of hand. Recent events have conspired to expose the arguments of the right as nothing more than pure fabrication. Consequently, an attack on the 'left' (as if Clinton really represents the left) is depressingly predictable. Perhaps the only real surprise about the attacks, is what they have focused on - the 'war on terror'.

It is fairly clear to all but the rabid right, that if there is indeed a 'war on terror' the western powers are losing the battle. On the foreign front, they face catastrophe in Afghanistan and anarchy in Iraq. Recent reports have only gone to highlight the massive tactical errors that were made by Bush and the neocons. First came the report on the supposed 'links' between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. The report highlighted the huge mis-judgement made by the White House in pursuing Bush's obsession with Iraq, rather than securing Afghanistan and eradicating the threat from Al-Qaeda. Instead of concentrating on fighting a war on one front, he decided to open a second front (a classic military mistake). As a result of this tactical error, Bin Laden is still on the loose and, if the loony right are to be believed, a constant threat to the United States and her 'coalition partners'. Then came the report that confirmed every intelligent persons suspicions, that the war in Iraq had increased the threat of terrorism, not reduced it. The report was compiled by 16 intelligence agencies in the United States and offers a damning criticism of Bush's own Barbarossa. And yet, despite the evidence that keeps on presenting itself (British intelligence has also claimed that there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda), the loony right continue to bang their drums to their inevitable beat.

Furthermore, not only has Bush failed on the foreign front, he has pretty much failed at home as well. He has failed to provide adequate protection for the US population by pushing through a cut in funding for security on public transport. Of course, the timing was crucial, coming shortly before the attacks in London on public transport. It seems faintly bizarre that, at a time when the media persistently reports the terrorist threat on behalf of the White House, the President cuts funding on a segment of the infrastructure that is a known target. He then attempted to push through a deal that would given up the control of some of America's major points of entry to a company based in Dubai. Yes, at a time when America was supposed to be facing continuous threats, the President was giving up American control of potential targets. And this is before we get into the horrors of Guantanamo, wire-tapping citizens and the decision to disband the unit that had been tracking Bin Laden for 10 years. Strange times indeed when Bush is portrayed as 'tough on terror' by the rabid right. But now, they have turned their attentions to Clinton's administration.

The focus of much of the recent feeding frenzy has been the Clinton administration's failure to deal with Bin Laden. That's right, now it is his fault that the twin towers were attacked, can the rabid right sink any lower? The focus of much of the controversey has been the inability to deal with Bin Laden in Somalia. Of course, as always, this diversion demands that we forget a few convenient facts. Operation Restore Hope was initiated at the end of Bush I's term of office in an attempt to put an end to the growing chaos in the country. Now, if the right are to be believed, Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia despite the fact that Bin Laden was present in the country. This, in turn, led to Bin Laden declaring that:

they were "paper tigers" who "after a few blows ran in defeat."

The argument then follows that, as Bin Laden was emboldened by this move, he was keen to strike at the Americans once more. They even claim that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda openly called for attacks on US troops in Somalia from 1992. So, by know you begin to think, "Well, that's kinda compelling evidence there." Except, when you begin to analyse why the US withdrew from Somalia. Despite, as some on the right have claimed, the public calls to attack American troops, the Republicans were pushing Clinton to remove troops from Somalia as soon as possible. Here is the proof, the following is the Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, adopted April 1, 1993 (I have added emphasis in the appropriate places):

U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our troops home.

The United States has a proud tradition of providing international humanitarian assistance to those truly in need. Somalia is a case in point. In the early 1980's, and again in the early 1990s, the American people and the U.S. Government responded to famine in Somalia by bringing in massive quantities of food and medical assistance.

In the last several months, as anarchy gripped that country and famine again loomed on the horizon, President Bush sent U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia to restore order and permit food to reach the people. He made a commitment to withdraw our troops when the mission was completed and return the operation to the U.N. This process was begun before he left office. The mission has been accomplished, but our troops remain, and it appears President Clinton has no intention of bringing them home. Instead, U.N. bureaucrats who want to keep the United States in Somalia will decide their fate.

Republicans commend our Armed Forces for restoring order to Somalia and for helping to alleviate human suffering in that country. However, we have several deep concerns. Without appropriate congressional consultation, President Clinton has committed thousands of U.S. military personnel to a U.N. peacekeeping operation commanded by a foreign national for an indefinite period of time. Our men and women in uniform will provide both the fighting teeth and the logistical tail for this open-ended operation.

Republicans believe U.S. Armed Forces should always remain under U.S. command. They should not be loaned to international organizations to conduct operations with ambiguously defined objectives.

Furthermore, costs to the U.S. taxpayer continue to mount. In addition to the $800 million in costs already incurred by the U.S., President Clinton has just committed the taxpayers to another half billion dollars.

The United States is the world's only superpower, but this does not mean we are omnipotent, nor that our obligations are universal. Republicans believe that President Bush's commitment to pull our forces out of Somalia should be fulfilled.

Ok, try not to laugh at the last paragraph, I'm sure they didn't mean that. So, you see, the Republicans attacked Clinton for keeping troops there indefinitely despite, as our right-wing friends say, the apparently obvious intentions of Bin Laden. Furthermore, it would appear that rather than confronting the terrorists, the Republican party were more concerned with how this adventure was going to affect the wallets of the American people. Once again the evidence points to sheer incompetence on behalf of the Republican party, and once again the evidence suggests that the Republicans are, and always have been, soft on terror.

Iraq Has Increased Threat of Terrorism

The New York Times has published an article today that vindicates much of the criticism leveled at the Bush administration for its actions in Iraq. The report, entitled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States", was complied by 16 different intelligence organisations in the US. One intelligence official interviewed for the study claimed that:

'the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse'.

Of course, this comes as no surprise to most sensible people. How could the invasion of Iraq not be used as propaganda to promote the causes of the radicals? The right have consistently claimed that this is untrue because September 11precededded any action in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is classic diversion tactics. The point that has always been made is that the terrorist cause has been strengthened by the invasion, not initiated after the attack on Afghanistan. Either the right are being genuinely ignorant of the reality, or they are aware of it and trying to mislead. Whatever there reasoning, the facts are plain for all to see.

Furthermore, another myth that has been propagated by the right has been blown apart by this report. The report claims that:

the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of self-generating cells inspired by Al Qaedas leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

Again this has been a central claim by many that oppose the 'War on Terror'. It is clearly ridiculous to claim that there is a central, organised structure that us leading the terrorist charge. The reality is, of course, that Al-Qaeda is an ideology, an idea that draws support. It is not an organised group plotting multiple attacks around the globe. There are individual groups that are attracted by the ideas that Bin Laden spouts, who work in small groups to fulfill the ideology of Al-Qaeda. Of course, once again the right fail to grasp the reality of what's going on. According to them, the left continues to believe that Al-Qaeda does not exist, citing numerous sources that they fail to comprehend. The fact is, that Al-Qaeda does not exist as an organised structure, it exists as an ideology much like neo-conservatism, nationalism, socialism etc. It is simply an idea to gain support for its cause.

Of course, this report will be ignored or distorted by those on the right who seek to pursue their own agendas. As far as they are concerned, the US state is a benevolent state, promoting idealistic policies around the globe in order to develop a new world order. Interesting that a group of people who are supposedly opposed to the power of the state are so willing to support the state unquestionably, refusing to even entertain the possibility that the state has lied and deceived the people. Strange times indeed when the right begins to emulate communists.