Mehsud

[Andy]

Het 'hard neerslaan' is op zichzelf ook een vorm van terreur natuurlijk. Een weinig christelijke gedachte voor iemand die met CBN in zijn onderschrift staat te pronken.

Mensen als u tonen in hun retoriek een onwaarschijnlijk sadisme ('hard neerslaan', alsof voorkomen en berechten niet genoeg zou zijn). Indien u zo zou spreken over specifieke personen in uw dagelijks leven zou u wellicht opgesloten worden teneinde de rest van de samenleving tegen uw ziekelijke geest (en handelingen) te beschermen. U heeft geluk. Het afdreigen van alle moslims onder het mom van vrije meningsuiting is toegestaan in onze samenleving. Gelieve deze retoriek wel niet door te trekken naar andere bevolkingsgroepen, want dan zal men er u (desnoods strafrechterlijk) op wijzen dat uw doen en laten onaanvaardbaar zijn.

een intellectueel productieve dag toegewenst,

Andy

[Nr.10]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Antoon

De favoriete one-liner van de moslims en hun vriendjes. Maar het maakt niet veel uit, wanneer terorristen onschuldige burgers vermoorden, dan mogen we ze in alle morele rust hard neerslaan. zelfs als ze achter hun eigen vrouwen en kinderen gaan schuilen. En zelfs als ze daarna moord en brand komen schreeuwen, met de linkse horde en hun europese moslimvrienden als mede-klagers.

United State state terrorism

[Nr.10]

"Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims." (Derrick Jensen)

Uit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

[Nr.10]

"Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre.

Uit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

[Nr.10]

Terrorized by 'War on Terror'
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B01

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.
(...)

Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.

That America has become insecure and more paranoid is hardly debatable. A recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival.

Just last week, here in Washington, on my way to visit a journalistic office, I had to pass through one of the absurd "security checks" that have proliferated in almost all the privately owned office buildings in this capital -- and in New York City. A uniformed guard required me to fill out a form, show an I.D. and in this case explain in writing the purpose of my visit. Would a visiting terrorist indicate in writing that the purpose is "to blow up the building"? Would the guard be able to arrest such a self-confessing, would-be suicide bomber? To make matters more absurd, large department stores, with their crowds of shoppers, do not have any comparable procedures. Nor do concert halls or movie theaters. Yet such "security" procedures have become routine, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and further contributing to a siege mentality.
(...)

Volledig artikel

Auteur = Brezinski
Dezelfde Brezinski die de nationaal "veiligheids"-adviseur
van Carter was van 1977 tot 1981.

Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the CIA and Britain's MI6. This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan government in Afghanistan, which had been destabilized by coup attempts against Hafizullah Amin, the power struggle within the Soviet-supported parcham faction of the PDPA and a subsequent Soviet military intervention.

Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again—for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.

Milt Bearden wrote in The Main Enemy that Brzezinski, in 1980, secured an agreement from the Saudi king to match American contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar and that Bill Casey would keep that agreement going through the Reagan administration.[20]

In 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the 1979 Soviet invasion, knowingly increasing the probability of a Soviet invasion. Brzezinski saw the invasion as an opportunity to embroil the Soviet Union in a bloody conflict comparable to America's experience in Vietnam. He referred to this as the "Afghan Trap" and viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups.

He went on to say in that interview, "What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" When the interviewer questioned him about Islamic fundamentalism representing a world menace, Brzezinski said, "Nonsense!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

[Nr.10]

Adrian Hamilton: If terror is the problem, we won't solve it in Afghanistan
Justification for the war on anti-terror grounds is largely specious
Thursday, 16 July 2009

If counter-terror and Pakistan's stability are our real concerns – as they ought to be – then that is where we should be concentrating our resources on, not waging a war in a land that has only rarely been controlled from the centre and which has always bitterly resented the presence of foreign troops. Most of our terror plots, and those of Europe, are home-grown. In so far as the would-be terrorist receives training abroad rather than from the internet, your best means of control is through the supervision of the coming and goings of young men and women from the country, particularly to Pakistan.

And if Pakistan stability is your main concern, then tackle it directly by helping that country develop a prosperous democracy instead of putting all our efforts in propping up a particular weak regime in Kabul.

The justification for the Afghan war on anti-terror grounds is largely specious.

specious = voor de schone schijn

[Nr.10]

Pakistani president Asif Zardari admits creating terrorist groups
Pakistan's president has admitted his country created terrorist groups to help achieve its foreign policy goals.
By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor
Published: 5:49PM BST 08 Jul 2009

Asif Zardari told a meeting of former senior civil servants in Islamabad, it was time to be honest about their deployment.

"Let us be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities," he said. "The terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well."

These groups were not thrown up because of government weakness, but as a matter of policy. He said they were deliberately "created and nurtured" as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives.

His comments amount to an admission that Pakistan trained Islamic terrorists to launch attacks on India as part of its long war over its claim on Kashmir.

It came as at least 40 people were killed in a suspected US missile strike in north-west Pakistan.

Three US drones are believed to have fired missiles at militants near Ladha in South Waziristan. It is the third strike in two days and follows strikes in which 19 reportedly died.

Mr Zardari first confirmed that many of the Islamic militants now waging war against his government were once "strategic assets" in an interview with the Daily Telegraph earlier this week.

Volledig artikel

Ze eerst creëren en trainen, en ze vervolgens "afvallen".
Waar hebben we dat verhaaltje nog gehoord?

[Jazeker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Andy

een intellectueel productieve dag toegewenst,

Andy

Een verheven boven alles dag toegewenst.

Jazeker

[Kodo Kodo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Uh-Huh

Enfin, ik kijk vol genoegen toe hoe China (en in mindere mate ook Rusland) steeds meer politieke en economische macht verwerven.

Maar waarom woon je niet in Pakistan, China of Rusland?

[Pericles]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Uh-Huh

Net om die redenen heb ik als Pakistani meer respect voor de niet-Westerse kernmachten.

Ze zijn eigenlijk ook degenen die bedreigd werden/worden door de hypocriete, arrogante, imperialistische waanzin van het Westen en zich uit noodzaak hebben moeten bewapenen. Enfin, ik kijk vol genoegen toe hoe China (en in mindere mate ook Rusland) steeds meer politieke en economische macht verwerven.

In een andere draad zei u dat u het hier ging aftrappen. Al vertrokken ?

[Johan Bollen]

Reuters op 6 augustus

There is a strong likelihood that Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud was killed along with his wife and bodyguards in a missile attack two days ago, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik told Reuters.

The attack in a tribal region of northwest Pakistan was believed to have been carried out by a pilotless U.S. drone aircraft at around 1:00 a.m. on Wednesday.

Neither the Pakistani nor U.S. governments confirm such attacks because of sensitivities over violation of Pakistan's territorial sovereignty.

[Andy]

Ook nu kozen de VS weer voor de traditionele raketaanval die zoals we weten een grote kans op 'collateral damage' met zich meebrengt.

Missile attack kills Taliban leader's wife

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- Two missiles, suspected to have been fired from a U.S. unmanned aircraft, killed one of the wives of a leading Pakistani militant, relatives said Wednesday.

The missile struck the house of Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud's father-in-law, killing Mehsud's second wife, the BBC reported.

Witnesses said Taliban and local residents pulled the woman's body from the debris, the British broadcaster said. Several other relatives of Mehsud were injured in the strike in the South Waziristan tribal area, a haven for Taliban and al-Qaida militants that has been the target of missile strikes by U.S. drones.

Four children were injured in the attack on the home owned by Malik Ikramuddin. Mohammad Iqbal Mehsud, a nephew of Malik Ikramuddin, told the BBC that more than 40 people were in the house when the attack occurred. Many were unharmed because they were in other rooms, he said.

The nephew said Mehsud was not in the house at that time of the attack.

Pakistan has criticized the drone attacks, saying they help promote support for militant organizations.

(bron)
Of Mehsud effectief gedood is of niet blijft afwachten. Deze man beweerde van niet, terwijl volgens de persbureaus een anonieme VS-bron beweert van wel.

Vandaag zou de jirga van Mehsud (een tribale vertegenwoordiging) de Pakistaanse regering vragen het geweld tegen hun bevolking te stoppen. (bron en bron)

[Nr.10]

Foto van het verwoeste huis (foto genomen 4 aug 2009)
.

[Johan Bollen]

De wijze waarop hier mensen 'uitgeschakeld' worden is blijkbaar geen bron van discussie in het 'westen'. Laten we beseffen dat het hier een handelswijze betreft die de uitvoerders wel eens liever niet willen onderworpen zien aan de categorische imperatief van Kant.

[Buzz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQRfBAzSzo

...

[Andy]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Buzz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQRfBAzSzo

...

Het opleggen van een collectieve straf is in onze samenleving door onze wetgeving redelijk verboden. Ik dacht dat die focus op individuele rechtspersoonlijkheid volgens de verdedigers ervan net het grote verschil zou moeten zijn tussen onze rechtstaat en de deportaties van Stalin, de gifgasaanvallen van Sadam en de genocides tijdens het Nazi-tijdperk.

Uw redenering gaat daarentegen uit van de rechtvaardigheid van een collectieve straf. Zou u die link ook posten in een topic over de slachtoffers van 9/11?

[Andy]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Johan Bollen

De wijze waarop hier mensen 'uitgeschakeld' worden is blijkbaar geen bron van discussie in het 'westen'. Laten we beseffen dat het hier een handelswijze betreft die de uitvoerders wel eens liever niet willen onderworpen zien aan de categorische imperatief van Kant.

Inderdaad. Ik begin mij hoe langer hoe meer zorgen te maken over de grenzen van die wanpraktijken. Als onze regeringen zich van dit soort van praktijken niets aantrekken, betekent dat dat ze zich niets aantrekken van de elementaire beginselen van de rechtstaat. Andere casi tonen goed aan hoe het zit met het respect voor mensenrechten, democratie of andere opvattingen.

Wat houdt deze staatsstructuur nog tegen om de experimenten in Pakistan toe te passen op haar eigen burgers? (Buiten dan het gegeven dat er momenteel dankzij een alom aanwezige politieke apathie nauwelijks protest is tegen zo'n staatsstructuur.)

[Nr.10]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Andy

Ook nu kozen de VS weer voor de traditionele raketaanval die zoals we weten een grote kans op 'collateral damage' met zich meebrengt.
(bron)
Of Mehsud effectief gedood is of niet blijft afwachten. Deze man beweerde van niet, terwijl volgens de persbureaus een anonieme VS-bron beweert van wel.

Vandaag zou de jirga van Mehsud (een tribale vertegenwoordiging) de Pakistaanse regering vragen het geweld tegen hun bevolking te stoppen. (bron en bron)

Die traditionele jirga komt inderdaad vandaag bijeen. De jirga zou zich distantiëren v/d oorlog tussen Baitullah Mehsud en de Pakistaanse regering, een proces dat al een paar weken aan de gang is.

Baitullah Mehsud, chief of Taliban Tehrik, faced another setback when traditional Jirga of Mehsud tribe announced their disassociation from the militant groups and assured to remain peaceful and loyal to the rule of law.

Zie: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ches-militants

Baitullah Mehsud = TTP = Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan
Is niet hetzelfde als de jirga.
De jirga, da's een traditionele bijeenkomst.
De TTP zijn militanten.

Een paar dagen geleden zouden de Pakistaanse geheime diensten de Amerikanen en de NAVO bewijzen overhandigd hebben betreffende de betrokkenheid van Indië in het verlenen van steun aan de TTP.

Islamabad, July 30 2009 (ANI)

Pakistan has reportedly handed over evidence of India’s involvement in providing aid to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Baitullah Mehsud to the United States and NATO.

Sources said during the US Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke’s recent visit to Islamabad, top military and political leaders gave certain documented and video tape evidence to him.

They said evidence of New Delhi’s involvement in aiding Mehsud were also provided to US commander of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, Lt. General Stanley McChrystal.

Sources said that Pakistan had provided enough evidence to prove ‘India’s covert links with Baitullah Mehsud and provision of aid to him through Indian consulate in Afghanistan.’

http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/1/35768.htm

.

[Johan Bollen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Andy

Inderdaad. Ik begin mij hoe langer hoe meer zorgen te maken over de grenzen van die wanpraktijken. Als onze regeringen zich van dit soort van praktijken niets aantrekken, betekent dat dat ze zich niets aantrekken van de elementaire beginselen van de rechtstaat. Andere casi tonen goed aan hoe het zit met het respect voor mensenrechten, democratie of andere opvattingen.

John Feffer (co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies) schrijft vandaag

Moral relativism?
We have our suicide bombers - we call them heroes. We have our culture of indoctrination we call it basic training. We kill civilians we call it collateral damage.

Is this, then, the moral relativism that so outrages conservatives? Of course not. I've been drawing these comparisons not to excuse the actions of suicide bombers, but to point out the hypocrisy of our black-and-white depictions of our noble efforts and their barbarous acts, of our worthy goals and their despicable ends. We - the inhabitants of an archipelago of supposedly enlightened warfare - have been indoctrinated to view the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as a legitimate military target and September 11 as a heinous crime against humanity. We have been trained to see acts like the attack in Tripoli as American heroism and the USS Cole attack as rank barbarism. Explosive vests are a sign of extremism; Predator missiles, of advanced sensibility.

It would be far better if we opened our eyes when it came to our own world and looked at what we were actually doing. Yes, "they" sometimes have dismaying cults of sacrifice and martyrdom, but we do too. And who is to say that ending occupation is any less noble than making the world free for democracy? Will Smith, in I Am Legend, was willing to sacrifice himself to end the occupation of vampires. We should realize that our soldiers in the countries we now occupy may look no less menacing and unintelligible than those obviously malevolent, science-fiction creatures. And the presence of our occupying soldiers sometimes inspires similar, Will Smith-like acts of desperation and, dare I say it, courage.

The fact is, were we to end our occupation policies, we would go a long way toward eliminating "their" suicide bombers. But when and how will we end our own cult of martyrdom?

Niet iedereen is blind voor de werkelijkheid.

[Johan Bollen]

Niet alleen is de moraliteit van de 'collateral damage' iets waar maar weinigen in het 'westen' zich vragen rond stellen, tevens wordt door het doden van vele onschuldige burgers de haat tegen het westen aangewakkerd. Op lange termijn ondermijnt het westen zichzelf door deze manier van handelen.

Feffer

According to researcher Daniel Byman, the drones kill 10 civilians for every suspected militant.

Tom Engelhardt

In Pakistan, a war of machine assassins is visibly provoking terror (and terrorism), as well as anger and hatred among people who are by no means fundamentalists. It is part of a larger destabilization of the country.

Terrorisme bestrijden met terrorisme. Als je daar geen probleem mee hebt, heb je geen been om op te staan volgende keer als de spiraal van geweld weer eens een doelwit raakt waarmee je je identificeert. Verontwaardiging over de imoraliteit van moslimterroristen is dan niet meer als hypocresie.