Israel / Iran

[mafya]

3 hours ago, peak4 said:

Indeed so, as my previously linked Pilger article explains; maybe Geared hasn't read it yet.

The Afghanistan coup with its subsequent policy of education for all,  a generally popular government, and increased life expectancy, seemed largely irrelevant to the US & UK who recognised the  possibility of  the using the newly emerging country to destabilise The Soviet Union. 

 

From Pilger again, but various other sources available; this article just pulls many of the points together.

In August 1979, the U.S. embassy in Kabul reported that “the United States’ larger interests … would be served by the demise of the PDPA government, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.”

Read again the words above I have italicized. It is not often that such cynical intent is spelt out as clearly.  

The U.S. was saying that a genuinely progressive Afghan government and the rights of Afghan women could go to hell.

Six months later, the Soviets made their fatal move into Afghanistan in response to the American-created jihadist threat on their doorstep.

Armed with CIA-supplied Stinger missiles and celebrated as “freedom fighters” by Margaret Thatcher, the mujahedin eventually drove the Red Army out of Afghanistan.

The mujahedin were dominated by war lords who controlled the heroin trade and terrorized rural women.

Later, in the early 1990s the Taliban would emerge, an ultra-puritanical faction, whose mullahs wore black and punished banditry, rape and murder but banished women from public life.

 

Excerpt from Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski U.S. President Carter's National Security Adviser 

The source Marxists.org might not be to everyone's taste, including mine, but it's about the interview, not the hosting website.

 

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention.

In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?

The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter:

We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.

Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentlaism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world?

The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Source: Killing Hope, by William Blum. Article translated from the French.

 

I believe his comment "liberation of Central Europe" refers to the rise of Solidarity in his native Poland (amongst other politics in Europe at the time).

Maybe the Soviets involvement in Afghanistan did prevent them getting involved in Poland, but at what long term cost to the whole of the Middle East, the rise of al-Qaeda, & ISIS, Islamic fundamentalism in parts of Africa, etc.

I also read that Afghanistan is a very mineral rich country and also has untapped gas and oil reserves =
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-are-afghanistans-untapped-minerals-resources-2021-08-19/

 

Makes you wonder why countries keep trying to conquer the place…

[gaz678]

Well David Cameron got involved...sorry lord Cameron wonder who's desk he's been under ? He couldn't run this country come to think of it he couldn't run a bath never mind advise Israel what to do .

[mafya]

Western hypocrisy on show again!!

New sanctions against Iran but not a single one against Israel for the atrocities it is committing that are well documented or the strike on the Iranian embassy and then we wonder why some people decide to resort to terrorism.

No wonder the West is despised by the East….

 

[Axe]

10 minutes ago, mafya said:

Western hypocrisy on show again!!

New sanctions against Iran but not a single one against Israel for the atrocities it is committing that are well documented or the strike on the Iranian embassy and then we wonder why some people decide to resort to terrorism.

No wonder the West is despised by the East….

 

The West are trying to persuade Israel from going to war against Iran in retaliation to the 301 drone and missiles launched towards Israel.  New sanctions against the terrorist country is a better outcome surely than a full blown war between the two countries.

[Ridgewalk]

15 hours ago, peak4 said:

Indeed so, as my previously linked Pilger article explains; maybe Geared hasn't read it yet.

The Afghanistan coup with its subsequent policy of education for all,  a generally popular government, and increased life expectancy, seemed largely irrelevant to the US & UK who recognised the  possibility of  the using the newly emerging country to destabilise The Soviet Union. 

 

From Pilger again, but various other sources available; this article just pulls many of the points together.

In August 1979, the U.S. embassy in Kabul reported that “the United States’ larger interests … would be served by the demise of the PDPA government, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.”

Read again the words above I have italicized. It is not often that such cynical intent is spelt out as clearly.  

The U.S. was saying that a genuinely progressive Afghan government and the rights of Afghan women could go to hell.

Six months later, the Soviets made their fatal move into Afghanistan in response to the American-created jihadist threat on their doorstep.

Armed with CIA-supplied Stinger missiles and celebrated as “freedom fighters” by Margaret Thatcher, the mujahedin eventually drove the Red Army out of Afghanistan.

The mujahedin were dominated by war lords who controlled the heroin trade and terrorized rural women.

Later, in the early 1990s the Taliban would emerge, an ultra-puritanical faction, whose mullahs wore black and punished banditry, rape and murder but banished women from public life.

 

Excerpt from Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski U.S. President Carter's National Security Adviser 

The source Marxists.org might not be to everyone's taste, including mine, but it's about the interview, not the hosting website.

 

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention.

In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?

The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter:

We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.

Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentlaism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world?

The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Source: Killing Hope, by William Blum. Article translated from the French.

 

I believe his comment "liberation of Central Europe" refers to the rise of Solidarity in his native Poland (amongst other politics in Europe at the time).

Maybe the Soviets involvement in Afghanistan did prevent them getting involved in Poland, but at what long term cost to the whole of the Middle East, the rise of al-Qaeda, & ISIS, Islamic fundamentalism in parts of Africa, etc.

I suppose this reflects the geo politics of the time. The neocons believed their duty was to spread their version of democracy everywhere in the world. The articles of faith included 100% support for Israel , looks like Biden adheres to that mantra. Francis Fukuyama’s book about the End of History seemed relevant after the USSR fell late 1980s

Edited April 18 by Ridgewalk

[Ridgewalk]

29 minutes ago, mafya said:

Western hypocrisy on show again!!

New sanctions against Iran but not a single one against Israel for the atrocities it is committing that are well documented or the strike on the Iranian embassy and then we wonder why some people decide to resort to terrorism.

No wonder the West is despised by the East….

 

To be honest the world in general is against Israel. China, Russia and Iran participated in military exercises recently. 
Western countries aren’t all united in support of Israel, eg Spain, Belgium, Ireland. 
 

The only country that consistently swims against the tide is the US in support of its puppet, with British connivance.

 

Interesting that the US is wary of escalating the situation with Iran. 

Edited April 18 by Ridgewalk

[mafya]

37 minutes ago, Axe said:

The West are trying to persuade Israel from going to war against Iran in retaliation to the 301 drone and missiles launched towards Israel.  New sanctions against the terrorist country is a better outcome surely than a full blown war between the two countries.

The Iranian action was in response to the Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy, israel was wrong and Iran gave a response with warning and said the matter is now done. Israel says it will respond yet its only Iran getting sanctions?

Israel is also a terrorist country that bombs other countries Willy nilly with impunity.

[mafya]

28 minutes ago, Ridgewalk said:

To be honest the world in general is against Israel. China, Russia and Iran participated in military exercises recently. 
Western countries aren’t all united in support of Israel, eg Spain, Belgium, Ireland. 
 

The only country that consistently swims against the tide is the US in support of its puppet, with British connivance.

 

Interesting that the US is wary of escalating the situation with Iran. 

Hopefully it won’t come to a war between Iran and Israel otherwise the whole Middle East will get dragged into it.

 

[banjodeano]

1 hour ago, Axe said:

The West are trying to persuade Israel from going to war against Iran in retaliation to the 301 drone and missiles launched towards Israel.  New sanctions against the terrorist country is a better outcome surely than a full blown war between the two countries.

If we were serious about stopping Israel going to war with Iran,  and were also serious about stopping them committing genocide,  

We could just simply stop supplying them with weapons ..

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, Axe said:

The West are trying to persuade Israel from going to war against Iran in retaliation to the 301 drone and missiles launched towards Israel.  New sanctions against the terrorist country is a better outcome surely than a full blown war between the two countries.

Its rather like Hamas sending missiles into Israel, very few deaths. So less of an issue than a suicide bomber.