http://rawstory.com/2009/11/ambassador-cia-people-tortured/

I am soo desperate for justice and accountability.
Will we ever see any? Patriots are gagged. The criminals are in control.

Our Congress is owned by the corporations and war criminals.

Our Department if Justice is NOT a department of justice.

Google Gladio

Jades comments about free markets are spot on, too, IMHO. Why is it that the Friedmanites, who worship at the alter of big business, never seem very concerned about the human cost of “opening up” these so-called free markets, which are anything but when the human cost is taken into consideration? If we’ve learned nothing else from the recent economic collapse, bankster thievery and economic blackmail, and the sociopathic behavior of the business elites which drove it, it should be this: The Milton Friedman School of Economics theory is total bunk. Its been completely discredited. Its a overly simplistic view that that leaves the human factor out of the equation, intentionally it seems.

You are a brave and beautiful woman, and I pray for your safety.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Jeff

And in the great (misplaced) investigatory tradition of ‘following the money’ might I suggest a continued/increased focus on the Carpetbagger PUT concept. That is, the miraculously accurate betting on some completely unforeseen catastrophe destroying the value of a particular commodity/asset or market.

I’m thinking of Goldman Sachs, I’m thinking of Enron, I’m thinking of some Airlines, a well-known date and a story that was never fully chased-down by the Baltimore Sun.

About the “clan,” this is a great piece of information that you’ve shared with us. Of course there will always be defenders of Afghan-American Chambers of Commerce and increased business dealings. The underlying problem that defenders ignore or are completely unconscious of is the force it takes to bring about these business dealings.

What you’ve described here is Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine in action. Throughout our history, we’ve gone into other countries to “open up their veins” for commerce. Milton Friedman and his ilk always claimed that “free markets” = free people, but they never owned up to the realities of invasion, torture, murder, assassinations, placement of dictators, or extreme repression of the people that was necessary to “soften people up” for the “free markets” to be foisted on the populations and be put in place. People aren’t free when “free markets” and “democracy” come to them at the business end of guns and bombs.

I think that one of our biggest sins in Iraq was to promise democracy and then kill it once the Iraqis started organizing themselves and participating in genuine democratic actions. It’s hard for me to imagine anything more soul-crushing to a people than that. And it saddens me that most Americans have no idea of what we actually did. Most of us patted ourselves on the back for giving the Iraqis a “democracy” and making it possible for them to have elections. What’s never mentioned is that once Paul Bremer and the US saw the kind of people who were being elected, we stopped the process. We threw out a bunch of democratically-elected officials who sought to rebuild Iraq and provide for the commonwealth; they were replaced with Saddam-era dictators. The rest of the elections only included candidates that were acceptable to us. Folks in the Pentagon were openly talking about using “the Salvador option” to crush the Iraqi resistance to our about face. The civil war didn’t even begin in earnest until it became evident that we really didn’t want Iraq to have a thriving democracy. The escalation of violence was a direct response to our killing of the hope of democracy, which was necessary in order to fulfill OUR economic wants in the country. But so far, Iraq is a success story for the business elite. There’s a 15% flat tax, a new stock market, and a country completely open to privatization.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your very long upcoming piece. Thank you for what you’ve shared so far. This kind of information about what’s really going on economically is hard to find.

@RY: Paul and Liz Comment: Most of the problems emanating from the Pakistan side of the border date back to ethnic conflicts that are hundreds of years old, were there before the British but exacerbated by their divide and rule polices. These polices were not changed following the creation of the state of Pakistan and the partition of India in 1947. The government of Pakistan picked up where the British left off. Afghanistan was already partitioned in 1893 by Sir Mortimer Durand. Durand divided the Pashtun tribes in two. The Pashtuns have been battling the Punjabis for centuries and the British put the Punjabis in control in order to maintain Pakistan as a western ally. This was done for neo-colonial reasons and not for the benefit of the Pakistani people. Pashtuns, Baluchis and Sindhis don’t want to be ruled by Punjabis. The US has made a fatal move by backing Punjabi attacks on Pashtuns as part of the war on terror.

Last year’s election in Pakistan is viewed by some as the first really democratic election in the country. The Pakistani military is furious with the current situation and recently read John Kerry the riot act over who really runs the country. Only by empowering the civilian parties in the Pashtun and Baluchi areas can the Taliban issue be defused. The Taliban have captured the local imagination by posing as Pashtun nationalists. This is what they did prior to their takeover of Afghanistan in the 1990′s. It was a trick offered to a desperate people then. Its a trick now. Unless the Pashtun people are given a valid alternative, the civil war will continue.

@ KingFisher: Paul and Liz Comment: If Afghanistan is partitioned into rival Pashtun and Tajik factions it will not be because of the will of the Afghan people. It will be because of outside forces, be they Russian, Pakistani, Iranian, Chinese or US. Pashtuns have been the majority ethnic group in this region for centuries. They currently resent the Tajik dominated government more because it is controlled by warlords who have been embraced by Pashtun Hamid Karzai. If forced to give up those territories now controlled by Kabul their will be continued civil war. There are some who would prefer that outcome.

@ Jade: Paul and Liz Comment: The Afghans are not on the side of the Taliban. Only somewhere around 7 percent of the Afghan population want a taliban government. Neither do Afghans want warlords. Between the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, they have not been given a choice, but we have been led to believe this is what they want by the agenda setters in Washington. The Taliban is a creation of the Pakistani ISI and operates as a wholly owned subsidiary according to ex chief of the directorate of operations for the CIA Charles Cogan. All the rest is PR.

@Dennis:Paul and Liz Comment: Most of the problems emanating from the Pakistan side of the border date back to ethnic conflicts that are hundreds of years old, were there before the British but exacerbated by their divide and rule polices. These polices were not changed following the creation of the state of Pakistan and the partition of India in 1947. The government of Pakistan picked up where the British left off. Afghanistan was already partitioned in 1893 by Sir Mortimer Durand. Durand divided the Pashtun tribes in two. The Pashtuns have been battling the Punjabis for centuries and the British put the Punjabis in control in order to maintain Pakistan as a western ally. This was done for neo-colonial reasons and not for the benefit of the Pakistani people. Pashtuns, Baluchis and Sindhis don’t want to be ruled by Punjabis. The US has made a fatal move by backing Punjabi attacks on Pashtuns as part of the war on terror.

Last year’s election in Pakistan is viewed by some as the first really democratic election in the country. The Pakistani military is furious with the current situation and recently read John Kerry the riot act over who really runs the country. Only by empowering the civilian parties in the Pashtun and Baluchi areas can the Taliban issue be defused. The Taliban have captured the local imagination by posing as Pashtun nationalists. This is what they did prior to their takeover of Afghanistan in the 1990′s. It was a trick offered to a desperate people then. Its a trick now. Unless the Pashtun people are given a valid alternative, the civil war will continue.

to be continued in next comment…

Thanks.

On why the border exists. Given the way you speculated on it having the purpose of separating the Tajiks from another ethnic group (Pakis isn’t the name of ethnic group and, at least in Britain, is considered derogatory. I don’t know about here in the US) I’m assuming you mean to be speculating on why the border exists where it does. You’re of course right to imply that it was the British who drew the lines, or some of the lines at least; definitely the line between Afghanistan and what is now Pakistan, but was presumably India when it was first drawn. As I understand it the British practice when drawing such lines, and this is true all over Africa as well, was to attempt to separate ethnic groups on different sides of a border when possible and to have multiple distinct ethnic groups within the area defined by the border. This made it easier to keep the population divided and thus easier to control. That probably had a lot to do with why Afghanistan has the borders it does now. They separated the Pashtuns on different side of the Af-Pak border and Tajiks on different sides of the Af-Tajik border, as well as other groups I’m sure.

Stay tuned for my long (very long) tale on one of these pots of gold diggers, carpetbaggers, story…Don’t say I didn’t warn you: it is going to be a LONG piece;-)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

Maybe a top commander will take it upon himself to dole out some cash for guns or complacency, they’ll rest for a few months and either upgrade their weaponry or decide that the latest development overrules the word given to a nation that doesn’t hold its own.

Why that border exists in itself is of interest to me, I’d most likely have to spend time in a British library to find a redundant answer.

Keep the Tajiks and Pakis seperate? Who knows.

American business model –

a. Send son to die in a random country with one random bad guy in it.
b. Complain.
c. Repeat.

Chinese company’s contract to mine Afghanistan’s rich copper deposits criticized as a bad deal

By RICHARD LARDNER , Associated Press

Last update: November 1, 2009 – 3:04 AM
WASHINGTON – At a former al-Qaida stronghold southeast of the Afghan capital, a state-owned Chinese company is at work on a $3 billion mine project to tap one of the world’s largest unexploited copper reserves, a potential financial boon for an impoverished country mired in war.

The promise of a bright future at Aynak, however, cannot conceal the troubling reality of how business is often done in Afghanistan, according to critics of the Kabul government’s decision to reject bids from competitors in the U.S., Canada and other countries.

The bidding process unfairly favored China, they allege, and epitomized the back-room deals and abuse of power that has turned Afghans against their government and undercut the U.S. military effort there.

Corruption and graft long have been ingrained in Afghanistan’s public institutions.
Yet the extent of this corrosion has taken on new significance as the White House considers expanding the U.S. commitment to a war unsupported by a growing number of Americans.
http://www.startribune.com/business/67962757.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiacyKUUr

So far, I’m right. Kazai says he’s the winner. Obama and Hillary say “it’s their business.” Even though Karzai’s a puppet and his brother’s on the CIA payroll.

It’s all part of “national security”?

Of course ‘anyone will be seen as a Western puppet and will have no legitimac.’ All they have to do, look at the history. Currently there is a division among the ‘decision-makers’ on Karzai; too much invested on him. When the time is right they’ll get rid of him. Most importantly: where is ISI/Pakistan on this?