tagged w/ Insurgents
– Earlier this year, I watched the BBC’s main political debate programme that allows an audience of members of the public to put questions to a panel of politicians and so-called experts.– Earlier this year, I watched the BBC’s main political debate programme... more
Gingrich Collects 5% of Super Tuesday Votes In Massachusetts, Governor Patrick Declares State Of EmergencyBig dust-up in Boston
Despite the Arab League observers’ report verifying the threat that the Free Syrian Army (or the “Free Army” (FA) as critics prefer to call it in reference to the fact that many of the organisation’s members are of non-Syrian origin) the European Union responded to the clearly defensive military operation by threatening further sanctions against the Syrian people. Predictably, the NATO and GCC media, in perfect unison with the warmongering stance of their states, published unsubstantiated claims from unverifiable sources that the Syrian government was committing a massacre against Homs’ civilian population. Arab League observers in Syria Ahmed Manaï in Tunisian publication Nawaat where he stressed that the same media who accused the government of a massacre of 200 in Homs on February 4th (the day of the vote on the United Nations Security Council Resolution that if passed would have paved the way for military intervention in Syria) “were making fun of our intelligence”. http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/recent-news/43059-how-russias-support-for-syria-is-qdefending-the-whole-world-from-fascismq-
video ----- Now we will see a service in which NATO propaganda (Al Jazeera) accuses the Syrian Army, of killing the Syrian child Sari Saoud. In the service, Al Jazeera shows the mother crying, while she embraces her child. Then you'll see the interview released by the very same woman, who reveals that the baby was not killed by the Army, but by the very same entities that the Army is fighting.Despite the Arab League observers’ report verifying the threat that the Free... more
Freelance journalist Lizzie Phelan talking about the Brit's crackdown on Iranian freedom of speech and Truth about SyriaIn a questionable move and without offering a valid response to the Press TV CEO's letters, the British Office of Communications (Ofcom) has revoked Press TV's broadcasting license and finally removed the channel from the Sky platform. Press TV has interviewed Lizzie Phelan, freelance journalist, Damascus about Britain's hypocrisy in condemning other countries over freedoms of expression while abusing those freedoms at home and how actions by British state institution OFCOM reflects the demands of the one percent. What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview. --------------- Meanwhile in Syria ------------ About four days ago I visited Zabadani late at night after watching an Al-Arabiya report that stated thousands of so-called "Free Syrian Army" officers had taken the city. Later the channel showed footage of a convoy of approximately 10 cars filled with armed fighters apparently in the city. When I drove into the city, there was just one checkpoint on the way in. The legitimate Syrian Army soldiers there who were busy building a fire to keep warm in light snow waved us through. We drove for about ten minutes into the city and the streets were completely dead, nno gunshots no "Free Syrian Army" checkpoints, nothing. http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/recent-news/43053-freelance-journalist-lizzie-phelan-talking-about-the-brits-crackdown-on-iranian-freedom-of-speechIn a questionable move and without offering a valid response to the Press TV... more
Take a million soldiers in the US military and statistically you're bound to have a handful of dirt bags. The fact that they would willingly record this speaks volumes to their stupidity. Have they never heard of Abu Ghraib? While I completely support the troops in taking these guys out... this is just embarrassing.Take a million soldiers in the US military and statistically you're bound to have... more
A perspective from an Afghan newspaper. A very interesting read.
With the war in Afghanistan becoming a decade old, the rhetoric of peace and negotiation has been widespread including President Obama’s desire to negotiate with “moderate elements” of Taliban. This mushrooming of desire for negotiations has several reasons. First, the war in Afghanistan has become the longest war fought in the US history, prompting the former Allied Commander General McChrystal to call it “a bleeding ulcer”. Such a statement is not unusual for leaders of a losing war; after all, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev also called their losing war in Afghanistan “the bleeding wound”. Second, the economic and human costs have been more than what the US and her allies of some 45 countries could endure. Especially, the rise in casualties tilted public opinion in the US and Europe in favor of ending this conflict. Third, the US has finally realized what it should have known long ago that the war in Afghanistan is not winnable. Furthermore, the US finds itself in a similar position as the former Soviet Union and is stuck in a losing quagmire.
Why Continue the War?
Multiple reasons exist for the Afghan resistance to justify the continuation of the war and remain steadfast in their refusal of any type of negotiation with the US and NATO.
The Illegality of Invasion of Afghanistan
The disaster living up by Afghans on daily basis has its roots in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan by the United States and NATO in 2001. The underling justification for the US to invade Afghanistan was their response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Moreover, the attacks of 911 have also shaped the American sense of morality for feeling righteousness by referring to the war in Afghanistan “a just war” as President Obama has shamelessly proclaimed in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize for “Peace” in Oslo, Norway.
The truth, however, is otherwise. The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal if we use International Law as the underlying standard of legitimacy. However, there has been a lot of disinformation about the legality of the war when the so called experts refer to UN resolutions as basis of their argument in favor of the legality of the war in Afghanistan.
If we study the UN resolution subsequent to the attacks of September 11, 2001, none of the resolutions advocates war or aggression against Afghanistan. In fact, every resolution reiterates the significance of the UN Charter in any international effort. If we look at the UN Security Council Resolution 1368, which was adapted on September 12, 2001, a day after the attacks in New York and Washington DC, it affirms the following proclamations:
Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,
Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter 1
Among the above-mentioned three affirmations, the third one “Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter” is construed by those individuals either ignorant or hypocrites as the green light to invade Afghanistan. However, they tend to forget the details in each of these affirmations. The crucial addition to each of these affirmations is the notion of compliance with the UN Charter. It may only be a phrase for the untrained eye or intentional disregard by those advocating US’s global agenda; nonetheless, it is a legal and moral impediment that should not be taken lightly.
Equally, if we refer to the Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on September 28, 2001, Security Council Resolution 1377 adopted on November 12, 2001 and Security Council Resolution 1378 adopted on November 14, 2001, each of these resolutions affirms that every action must be within the confines of the UN Charter. Furthermore, Security Council Resolutions 1373, 1377 and 1378 reaffirm Security Council Resolution 1368, which affirms without any qualifications the “principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations”.2 This brings us to one basic fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 of the UN Charter.
The Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids any nation state from the unilateral use of force:
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 3
The fundamentals of legality and moral superiority enshrined in the Article 2 of the UN Charter are sufficient in their own right to put to rest any claim of legitimacy of the invasion of Afghanistan. However, there are three exceptions to the Article 2 of the UN Charter: action authorized by the UN Security Council; Article 51 of the UN Charter--the State’s right of self-defense; and action by regional bodies with authorization from the UN Security Council.
The first exception to Article 2 of the UN Charter would have been authorization of an attack by the UN Security Council; however, as discussed above, none of the Security Council Resolutions authorizes the use of force. All of the Security Council Resolutions, 1368 and 1373 adopted before the invasion and Security Council Resolutions 1377 and 1378 adopted shortly after the invasion affirm the UN Charter. What this means is that each of the resolutions mandates conformity to the UN Charter in particular Article 2 of the UN Charter.
The second exception to the Article 2 of the UN Charter is Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter gives a nation-state the right to self-defense as long as the attack is ongoing or imminent.4 Article 51 states that member states must report to the Security Council and the Security Council would take necessary measures to restore peace. The attacks were not ongoing and the response was not immediate. The US waited until October 7, 2001 to retaliate against Afghanistan. The US has reported the attacks of September 11, 2001 to the UN Security Council and the Security Council passed two resolutions and adopted measures to combat terrorism within the framework of the UN Charter. As mentioned above, none of the resolutions authorized the use of force. Furthermore, the Security Council measures included “legal suppression of terrorism, and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism.”5 To this end, the Security Council had set up a monitoring committee to oversee the progress of measures proposed by the two resolutions and gave all states 90 days to report to the monitoring committee about the progress done in that regard. As we know of course, the US did not wait for 90 days or even a month and took matters in its own hands. The issue of self-defense in the International Law is very similar to the rationale of self-defense exercised within nation states. That is, when a person faces a threat from an attacker and there is no police to neutralize the danger faced by the victim, then that the victim is entitled to self-defense. However, once the danger subsides, the would-be victim should not take the law into his own hands and become a vigilante.
http://www.sabawoon.com/articles/index.php?page=why_should_taliban_notA perspective from an Afghan newspaper. A very interesting read. With the war in... more
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his powerful brother are among a number of senior Afghan figures to be accused of ordering the release of high-ranking Taliban fighters so often that the insurgents now run a commission to secure their freedom.
According to Reuters news agency, the practice is so widespread as to counteract the deterrent effect of capture, and pits Mr Karzai and his coterie directly at odds with the Nato strategy in Afghanistan.
Even though Mr Karzai and his Western allies espouse a political solution to the war in Afghanistan, analysts say that releasing prisoners in such large numbers actually reduces the chances of a settlement.
Michael Semple, a Harvard University fellow with more than 20 years' experience in Afghanistan and extensive contacts with the Taliban, said that the Taliban prisoners' commission has "a sufficiently high success rate to boost Taliban fighters' confidence. The threat of arrest has lost its deterrent value as they are confident of being sprung." Some of the releases are said to be carried out in exchange for payment.
In one particularly damning example, Mr Karzai is reported to have intervened on behalf of a Taliban commander from north-western Afghanistan called Dastigir after village elders swore he would renounce violence. Dastigir promptly returned to the battlefield, united feuding Taliban factions, and was responsible for attacks that led to the deaths of at least 32 policemen. Dastigir was killed in 2009.
The Afghan government has denied releasing Taliban prisoners. "We have no evidence and no examples that detained Taliban were released by government officials," Zemarai Bashary, a spokesman for the interior ministry, which controls the police, said.
Yet diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks show that staff at the US embassy in Kabul have been concerned about prisoner releases for more than a year.
"Both [Mr Karzai and his Attorney General] authorise the release of detainees pre-trial and allow dangerous individuals to go free or re-enter the battlefield without ever facing an Afghan court," a cable dated August 2009 said. The cable listed 150 pre-trial releases from one Afghan detention facility since 2007, including 27 prisoners who had been held at Guantanamo Bay. It reported that Mr Karzai had pardoned five border policemen caught with 124 kilograms of heroin after they had been sentenced to terms of 16 to 18 years in prison. He intervened "on the grounds that they were distantly related to two individuals who had been martyred during the civil war," the cable noted.
Mr Karzai also interfered in a narcotics case, ordering a fresh investigation of a suspect who happened to be the son of a wealthy businessman and Karzai supporter. The second investigation, which the cable described as unconstitutional, found the suspect had been framed.
A presidential spokesman said this week that there was nothing new in the leaked cables. While the President has a constitutional right to pardon criminals, he often does not announce the pardons, leading legal experts to worry about a lack of transparency.
Some of the most startling cases of prisoner release involve the president's half-brother, the chairman of Kandahar's provincial council and one of southern Afghanistan's most powerful figures. Ahmed Wali Karzai's business dealings have repeatedly sucked him into controversy. Leaked US diplomatic cables characterise him as a corrupt drugs baron, and he also reportedly has extensive dealings with the CIA.
Now he stands accused of soliciting the release of one of the most wanted Taliban commanders operating in Kandahar city, Ghulam Haidar, and paying tens of thousands of dollars to secure the freedom of another, Anwar Shah Agha. Mr Agha spent 10 months in jail before going free in May, and rejoining the fight against Nato and the Afghan forces to the west of Kandahar city – one of the country's fiercest battlefields.
Ahmed Wali Karzai rejected the allegations out of hand. "I am the person most wanted by the Taliban, with nine suicide attacks against me," he said. "I would be the last person to release the Taliban – my position is for more tough measures against them."Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his powerful brother are among a number of senior... more
Watch action-packed video by clicking on picture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE3zLY9ZnHMWatch action-packed video by clicking on picture... more
As soon as U.S. combat troops left Iraq, insurgents have launched attacks on 13 cities and towns in Iraq killing scores.
http://corksphere.blogspot.com/2010/08/wave-on-insurgent-attacks-hit-13-cities.htmlAs soon as U.S. combat troops left Iraq, insurgents have launched attacks on 13 cities... more
In Afghanistan, as coalition forces struggle to weaken the Taliban, they insist that the key to doing so lies in bolstering Afghan institutions. Yet with government rule confined to certain densely populated areas, U.S. officials rely on thugs who can maintain order in the most treacherous locales, even if their commitment to formal governance is dubious.In Afghanistan, as coalition forces struggle to weaken the Taliban, they insist that... more
The Afghan government said last week that the US has pursued a contradictory policy with regard to the Afghan war by ignoring Pakistan's role in the insurgency. The government’s remark came after the leak of U.S. military documents by the organization, WikiLeaks, showing current and former members of Pakistan's spy agency were actively collaborating with the Taliban in plotting attacks in Afghanistan.The Afghan government said last week that the US has pursued a contradictory policy... more
The war in Afghanistan continues to be more confusing by the day. http://tiny.cc/5gk9u
In one of the least examined aspects of President Obama's escalation of the Afghan war, armed private security contractors are being killed in action by the hundreds -- at a rate more than four times that of U.S. troops, according to a previously unreported congressional study.In one of the least examined aspects of President Obama's escalation of the... more
Afghanistan city. In a bleak report warning of record Taliban violence and rising civilian deaths across the country by the Afghanistan NGO Security Office, which monitors trends in violence on behalf of aid organizations, the group says NATO's counter-insurgency strategy is not showing any signs of succeeding amid rising violence, the unchecked establishment of local militias and a huge increase in attacks on private development workers across the country.Afghanistan city. In a bleak report warning of record Taliban violence and rising... more
This year has been the most violent since the Afghan war began in 2001 and civilian deaths have risen slightly with the increased insecurity, an Afghan rights group said last week.This year has been the most violent since the Afghan war began in 2001 and civilian... more
The commander of US combat operations in Afghanistan who was fired, General Stanley McChrystal, issued a devastatingly critical assessment of the war against a "resilient and growing insurgency" just days before being forced out.The commander of US combat operations in Afghanistan who was fired, General Stanley... more
Journalist and veteran Afghanistan expert Jere Van Dyk says the United States should pull its troops out of Afghanistan because the war cannot be won and Pakistan is funding the Taliban to undermine U.S. interests.Journalist and veteran Afghanistan expert Jere Van Dyk says the United States should... more
http://www.militaryringinfo.com/service-ring/iraqi-freedom-rings/2798-insurgents-storm-iraqs-central-bank/..insurgents are attempting to destabilize the new Iraqi goverment..http://www.militaryringinfo.com/service-ring/iraqi-freedom-rings/2798-insurgents-storm-... more
McClatchy Newspapers reports that a federal judge has put Yemeni citizen Mohammed Mohammed Hassan Odaini on the path to freedom after eight years imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.McClatchy Newspapers reports that a federal judge has put Yemeni citizen Mohammed... more
The Obama administration is considering using Afghanistan's U.S.-run Bagram Air Base prison to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects captured far from a battlefield and who have not been charged with a crime - without any judicial oversight.The Obama administration is considering using Afghanistan's U.S.-run Bagram Air... more