Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« My MLAs support me, Calvert says | Main | Welcome to the table »

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Taliban Jack gets snubbed

Fancy that. Afghan president Hamid Karzai didn't accept Taliban Jack Layton's invitation to meet during Karzai's visit to Ottawa.

But don't they both have better things to do? Karzai can talk with serious political leaders interested in solidifying his relatively liberal regime, and Layton can use the free time to meet with his fascist Taliban interlocutors.

Posted by Ezra Levant on September 21, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8342d78ce53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taliban Jack gets snubbed:

Comments

"Taliban" Jack-off.

WHAT A DESPICABLE ASS!!!!
Horny toad

Posted by: Horny Toad | 2006-09-21 9:27:56 PM


I wonder if jack will dress up in his bed sheets, and tie a checkered dish rag around his head when he meets up with them? He is such a fuckwit, I can see him doing that.

Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-09-21 9:41:16 PM


'Taliban Jack' Layton's record as a politician in Toronto would be reason enough for no serious politician to bother with him, it's abysmal. He could not point to a single thing he did that made Toronto a better place to live, he opposed anybody who tried to build a better city and only ever got elected on crocodile tears. Taliban Jack is a truly pathetic excuse for a man.

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-09-21 10:39:17 PM


Sorry all no way to say this nice "Jack Layton makes me ill to my stomach'. He and Commrade Chow make a lovely couple.

Posted by: Michael Crowell | 2006-09-22 3:30:27 AM


"...relatively liberal regime"

liberal? You say that like it's a good thing ;-)

Is Afghanistan the First Feminist War? Are my tax dollars and country's good name being used to install Liberal-style FemiNazi-ism in a country that doesn't want it? Are Canadian men (and it is almost exclusively men) dying to promote a failed marxist-feminist ideology, and as conservatives are we OK with that?

Posted by: Fizz | 2006-09-22 4:47:29 AM


The fight is for basic human rights that we take for granted. Young girls should have the right to go to school. Women should have the right to work at any profession they want there. Women should be able to walk alone without being beaten unless they are dressed like some 13th century slave. Those are some of the reasons we are there. And of course we are there to protect our countries against people that want to kill us for thinking that way. As for white feather jack, I'm sure he would rather talk to the taliban than the president anyway. Who cares what that toronto idiot thinks. I'm just shocked at the women and his own wife that have abandoned there own principles by even thinking of talking to those muslim nutbars. There worse than the liberals if that is possible.

Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-22 5:36:23 AM


Feminists and western socialists have sunk too much political capital into the Cominform doctrine of Multiculturalism to openly condemn brutal cultural practises by most backward societies.

By admitting these destructive tendencies in tribal cultures and attempting to change them the Left will lose face as well as votes.

http://www.rawa.org/rawi.htm

http://www.rawa.org/samia.htm

http://www.rawa.org/burning_p.htm

http://www.rawa.org/hrw-sam.htm

Main Page:
http://www.rawa.org/recent2.htm

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 6:54:54 AM


So poor old E. Jack U. Layton can't get face time with Karzi, and what would jack say anyway. Would he discuss starting a Status of women club over there, or would he discuss the high rate of speed any ndpeer can run from any confrontation, hard to tell. This communist pig is enough to even gag some in the cbc hopefully.

Posted by: bartinsky | 2006-09-22 7:50:49 AM


C'mon Hamid, meet with Jack. You've embarassed him personally by meeting with other party leaders while snubbing him. Your actions have weakened Jack's position in the eyes of his shifty NDP allies, and the other, more powerful, political parties in Canada.
It's just not fair. After all, if Jack was PM of Canada he'd NEVER do anything to weaken your position, alienate your allies, or give encouragement to your foes.

Posted by: Greg R | 2006-09-22 8:09:12 AM


Strange statement from NDP women
Sep. 22, 2006. 01:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tories threat to women's groups: NDP


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thestar.com, Sept. 20.

"The NDP women's caucus says Ottawa has not met its obligations, particularly on violence against women."

What a strange statement coming from a political party that is advocating negotiations with the Taliban that when in power in Afghanistan whipped women for showing too much ankle, beat them with sticks for observing the sun with a naked face and routinely executed women in Kabul's soccer stadium. I guess the NDP is unaware that women exist outside Canada.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baillie Ellen Krivel,

Calgary, Alta.-Toronto Star

Just thought this was such a good letter from Ellen Krivel. It is just so true. The feminist here in Canda, are so self absorbed, that they do not care how other women in the world are forced to live under the death cult of islam. For the ndp to even consider negotiating with the taliban shows the party lacks an ounce of integrity, or intelligence.

Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-09-22 8:34:01 AM


Joe says no, he won't go.

Taliban Jack says no, he won't go.


But, no one in the NDP has asked Taliban Jack to go.

When will P. Stoffer, Pat Martin, speak up/resign from the Taliban/NDP caucus?

When will The Hon. Rev. William Alexander Blaikie resign from the Taliban/NDP caucus? ...-


• For the sake of our party, and what is left of your reputation, resign Joe...please.

Lib TDH Strategies calls for Joe Volpe to resign....-

Joe's alternate website is here:


http://www.youthforvolpe.no-libs.com/


Taliban Jack's website is here:


World Socialist Web Site. Web http://www.wsws.org/index.shtml. The Internet center of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). ...
www.bapd.org/gwoite-1.html

Posted by: maz2 | 2006-09-22 9:56:20 AM


Hackey Sack Jack is the best ally Stephen Harper has right now. His lunatic statements - more kids in school under the Taliban, etc.- makes all of the opposition against CDA's involvement in the war on terror/islamofascism look equally looney and on the fringe.

Stephen needs to show some "go for the jugular" sense and amp up his rhetoric and ridicule of Jack and Co. By doing so he damages the next Liberal leader who will likely be on Jack's side and thus improve the CP's chances in the next election.

Posted by: Gord Tulk | 2006-09-22 10:00:33 AM


Jack might care more about the fate of women in Afghanistan if were sure that some of them were dykes.

He may be one himself if you listen to what he says. He certainly is not a man. He is largely a refelction in a mirror and little else.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-09-22 10:02:29 AM


**Proclamation 5034 -- Afghanistan Day, 1983

March 21, 1983

By the President of the United States

of America

A Proclamation

The tragedy of Afghanistan continues as the valiant and courageous Afghan freedom fighters persevere in standing up against the brutal power of the Soviet invasion and occupation.

[...]

The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 65, has designated March 21, 1983 as ``Afghanistan Day'' and has requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of that day.

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate March 21, 1983 as Afghanistan Day.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.

Ronald Reagan**

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183d.htm

How can you folks speak so harshly about Ronnie's beloved Taliban freedom fighters?

LOL.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 10:22:19 AM


Considering the Taliban didn't exist until 1993 President Reagan must have been a prophet. Or he was talking about Afghan Freedom Fighters who were fighting for freedom from the USSR.

My money is on the second choice.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 10:30:04 AM


Nice try DJ

The Taliban didn't exist during the 'Regan years'

Why is it that you lefty wingnuts feel that the world sprung into existance yesterday and that world history can be ignored?

Dude, it really makes you look ignorant or worse.

Taliban Jack serves as a constant reminder of those lesser men who put self-serving interests before their country.

Posted by: missing link | 2006-09-22 10:59:52 AM


Quite right, Speller. The Taliban were a creation of the Pakistani intelligence service after the collapse of the Afghan government in 1992. The Pak gov't felt that a vacuum in Afghanistan was a danger to its security, so it supported a puppet regime made up of Afghani refugees in Pakistan. Many of those refugees basically grew up in the camps, and had little or no experience with Afghanistan. Worse, they came under the influence of Islamic extremists in the schools - Madrassahs - which gave them a radical, absolutist interpretation of Islam.

The radical nature of the Taliban regime was a cause for concern for the world and the United Nations between 1996 and 2001. Numerous UN resolutions passed condemning the Taliban for things like oppressing aid workers, Afghani women, and in particular the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. In fact, 6 weeks before 9/11 the UN passed some of the toughest sanctions in its history against the Taliban regime.

9/11 changed all that. The Taliban went from running 90% of the country to running for their lives from overwheling US and Coalition forces. They may have seen the Special Forces helping the Northern Alliance, but the Taliban never saw the bombers flying overhead dropping JDAMs and other bombs on their position. In fact, the Taliban regime collapsed far faster than anyone had predicted. Plans to recapture Kabul had to be advanced by days, and was done with negligble resistance. Their collapse may have helped Osama Bin Laden escape because the US and the Coalition was unable to fly in forces fast enough to continue the pursuit into the mountains.

While the war is far from over, but defeating the Taliban was a major victory in 2001. Keeping them down remains a cause for concern because they pose the greatest threat to the Afghani government and to Coalition forces. It's truly sad that Taliban Jack Layton and others seek to use the hard work of the military to climb their way to the top. The irony is that he will fail, and fail miserably.

God Bless PM Harper for actually trying to lead, and not be a sniveling politician like Chretien, Martin and Layton. And may God also bless the Coaltion Forces helping the people of Afghanistan, regardless of country.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-22 11:04:03 AM


Of course, I forgot, there's no connection between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Taliban. One group is a democracy-loving, defender of human rights, and the other God fearing Islamic fundamentalists.

LOL.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 11:15:19 AM


Sometimes wonder if Taliban Jack is a member of the human race. At this point it's difficult to give him and his band of far-outs any thought, except to call them on all their inane ideas, to be sure they never have more than the power of farts in a windstorm.

Amazing show of support for our troops, a sea of red on Parliament Hill today from 12:PM to 1:PM. Layton got rightfully BOOed. Harper gave another thought provoking speech.
We are in good hands folks! GOD BLESS OUR SOLDIERS AND GOD BLESS CANADA.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-22 11:21:23 AM


My God, every time I think Jack! has hit the nadir of foolishness/cynical opportunism (take your pit) he digs himself even deeper. Good on Karzai for refusing to meet with this useful idiot for the islamofascists.

Posted by: JayDubya | 2006-09-22 11:26:49 AM


Honey Pot,

ndp tactics are, to divide and conquer.

I've always believed that it is better to place a fence at the top of a cliff, than a hospital at the bottom.

The ndp want the government to address violence against women. Well, the laws are as they are, and whenever violence occurs, the police must step in and deal with the issue. It is like setting up a police station, at the bottom of the cliff, alongside the hospital.

What the ndp fail to see, is the lack of moral teaching, is like removing the fence from the top of the cliff. And, by pushing the economy into a socialist one, where people live off of the state, rather than being able to de self sufficient, they in fact cause more violence against women.

How so?

Because where ever there is more poverty, there is more crime. Where ever there is more crime, there is more violence against the population of women.

The solution therefore, is in more wealth development.

Can a society ever get rid of all violence? Probably not. But as long as there is violence that they can measure, they will use it as a meachanism to try to get power and authority.

Where ever the bdp have had power, they have never been able to address the issue. Women's centres were seen to be one of the solutions to the problem, and were funded in many parts of Canada, and none were able to make an impact whatsoever. They did, however, manage to make an impact in the proliferation of leftist propaganda. Some of that stuff was some of the ugliest material I have ever witnessed.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-09-22 11:42:08 AM


The connection between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Taliban is the same as the connection between Hizb'allah and Al-Qa'eda.
Muhammed's religion.

I think the important difference between the Afghan Mujahideen and the Taliban is that the Taliban is closer to Pakistan, politically, than President Reagan's Afghan Freedom Fighters.

Of course just because the SA and the SS had Nazism in common doesn't mean the SS were the ones who did the street fighting that brought Hitler to power. The SS didn't exist BEFORE Hitler came to power. The SA were killed on the night of Long Knives because, politically, their loyalty to Hitler was questionable.

Nice try at historic revisionism, DJ.
Trolls don't care about their credibility.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 11:44:40 AM


Lest we forget Gulbuddin Hekmatyar:

"During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Hekmatyar received billions of dollars in military assistance from Pakistan's ISI and funds the CIA channeled to the mujahadeen through the ISI.

The CIA and ISI decisions to allocate the highest percentage of covert aid to Hekmatyar were certainly based on his record as an effective anti-Soviet military commander in Afghanistan. However, as the war began to appear increasingly winnable for the mujahedeen, the Islamic fundamentalist ISI leaders became increasingly motivated by their desire to install the fundamentalist Hekmatyar as the new leader of a liberated Afghanistan.

Even during the Soviet occupation, Hekmatyar ordered frequent attacks on other rival (and more moderate) factions to weaken them in order to improve his position in the post-Soviet power vacuum.

The Hizb-i Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar espouses an extremist religious and anti-Western ideology. At various times, it has fought and allied itself with almost every other group in Afghanistan. Hizb-i Islami received some of the strongest support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and attracted thousands of religious radicals to Afghanistan, among them Osama bin Laden."

Hekki had contact with OBL in the early 80s. He was also instrumental in facilitating the Taliban's rise to power.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 12:03:28 PM


What is your point, DJ? Spell it out.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 12:08:16 PM


DJ seems to think that hindsight gives him 20/20 vision...however his vision still seems somewhat fuzzy...

Posted by: Markalta | 2006-09-22 12:31:06 PM


It's like you said Speller, it's all just sex. One man's lover is another man's whore.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 12:31:50 PM


Markalta,

could be the kool-aid, or the masturbation... or both.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-22 12:43:46 PM


Someone should remind Jack that the Canadian Military is voluntary...

Did you hear that Jack?

That means that like the vocation which you chose...a politician...your job; our soldiers chose to be soldiers...their job.

Nobody held a gun to their heads Jack

They go there of their own volition, for their own reasons...their own beliefs

And I sure don't think cutting and running is part of that belief

Unlike you Jack whom I'm sure would sell out all
if it advanced your cause.

But then Jack, I'm sure you would cut and run...leaving Olivia to fend for herself if the two of you were accosted by a mugger on Danforth,on a dark night.

Hurry up and run son; you bother me

As a fact Jack, you make my skin crawl.

Posted by: in ques t | 2006-09-22 12:45:10 PM


Spoken like a true pimp, DJ.
Did your Father teach you that or was it your Mother?

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 12:57:11 PM


You taught me that Speller. Don't you remember?

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 1:11:51 PM


Perhaps you have a reference, DJ?

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 1:19:02 PM


I remember now, DJ. I said it was all just sex, in relation to political loyalties, but you drew the analogy yourself first, DJ. You framed the question I didn't teach you that.

I didn't say love was sex, and I said nothing about one man's lover being another man's whore. That's all you, DJ.

False attribution on your part.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 1:31:10 PM


Are you saying it's not true Speller? You did not make a reference to "it's just sex, not love?"

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 1:38:28 PM


DJ,
I said what I said. I did say it was sex not love. I did say there was a difference.

I didn't say what you said or say I said.
I didn't say one man's lover is another man's whore.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 1:53:02 PM


Thank you for being truthful Speller.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 2:13:48 PM


Nice commie refrerence site there DJ. Perhaps in the furtue you could reference something that hasn't been squeezed thru the left-o-filter.

A lot of prople don't like the truth but still live with it, why can't you?

Posted by: missing link | 2006-09-22 3:26:46 PM


Speller wrote: The SS didn't exist BEFORE Hitler came to power

The SS were founded in 1925 with Julius Schreck as the first commander. Hitler came to power in 1933.

Speller also wrote: Nice try at historic revisionism

yeah, nice try.

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-22 3:33:39 PM


It is true that the SS existed in 1925 (1000 men many of them later thrown out for unfitness), before 1933, but only as a subunit of the SA (2 million men) and body guard to Hitler for protection from the SA. It never became the separate powerful elite entity of armed soldiers (Waffen SS 52000) until Hitler was on the brink of power.
Hitler then used it to decapitate the SA in 1934 and the SA was permanently marginalized in Nazi politics from then on.

I brought it up because in many ways it parallels the Taliban which came, as a later movement, out of the Afghan Freedom Fighters that President Ronald Reagan supported.

Reagan did not create or support the Taliban.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 4:35:06 PM


I originally posted this at SDA (Small Dead Animals). It with four others & three hours of work & lifespan. Where rejected with no explanation. I feel I observed the TOS rules correctly in all cases. You be the judge. I do think. I will not be posting there again. Takes to long to type these up for me.


We are finally having exposed the reasons why Taliban Jack, with their other Marxist brothers from the Democratic party in the States. Have joined with the Jihadists. They too hate Democracy & feel its fine to control every moment of anyone’s life except of course the Socialist Elite. As well there Anti Semitism rapped in the new race euphemism. Anti- Zionism. CUPE proved that.

There (NDP) philosopher Kings you see with infallibility. As are there minions in this abhorrent form of canceled despotism. They may not believe in the Divine, but they think they are themselves. Just like Islam you cannot say nothing bad against socialism, gay marriage, ethnic groups or even look at the fair sex the wrong way according to this madman’s diary of rules.

Changed at every New whisper or fad in the PC wind. Even if it contradicts other judgments made by political ideology. Not by reason or truth, but emotion rules with emoting as expression.

We have seen this mentality threw 3 elections. Human rights boards run by picked busybodies of a leftist obsession. No legal council allowed. No repeal except to the wing nuts who sentenced you. No facing ones accuser. No wonder they think where ripe for Sharia Law & submission. Indeed the NDP was all for it in Ontario. If not the perpetrators of these "Religious police".

This obscenity should never be allowed in a Self-governing Nation. Particularly when we have a judicial system tested for a thousand years. Its why our own has eroded, with these quasi legal star chambers, as enablers of twisted judgment. I look forward to the day there dismantled with the people running these tribunals exiled back into the wood work, from which they skulk.

This is why the Left & Jihadists are aligned. They both have the same goals for a Despotic rule. With there own cat police, dog cops, smoking bylaws, useless bylaws, & all the rest of a Nanny State. Indeed they share the same fixation for Nationalization & anti capitalist viewpoint.

There only true disagreement is that the NDP hate Religion & extorts perversion as normalcy. While the Jihadists believe there obsessions to eliminate, are gays & raped girls. The idea is the same. Absolutism by infallibility, with forced conversion. Weather political or religious.

So you see its not all that unrealistic to old Jack to negotiate. He has much in common with the Taliban.

Posted by: Revnant Dream | 2006-09-22 5:10:25 PM


Speller wrote: It is true that the SS existed in 1925 (1000 men many of them later thrown out for unfitness), before 1933, but only as a subunit of the SA (2 million men) and body guard to Hitler for protection from the SA.

Again you are wrong. The SS became fully independent of the SA in 1930.

Speller also wrote: It never became the separate powerful elite entity of armed soldiers (Waffen SS 52000) until Hitler was on the brink of power.

The Waffen SS wasn’t formed until 1940; some 7 years after Hitler came to power.

Until you get your facts straight I wouldn’t accuse others of revisionism.

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-22 5:20:38 PM


Layton did end up having a brief encounter with President Karzai--read the babble he spouted afterwards:
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/9/22/2351029.html

Mr Akin's blog is well worth checking.

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-09-22 5:31:13 PM


With the global fight against Terrorism, idiots like Jack Layton are a huge part of the problem, the enemy feed off fools like him.
We have our soldiers fighting against terrorists and the Leftists are bad-mouthing their own Country, which means they are siding with terrorists. This is seditious banter and in some jurisdictions it would be considered Treason. No matter what political stripe, our Government has to be supported by all in a time of war for the safety and security of all.

Thankfully Jacko and his ilk will never have power. Bufffalo Bob Rae will become the new Leader of the Liberals, guaranteeing them a long siesta.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-22 6:06:57 PM


"Until you get your facts straight I wouldn't’t accuse others of revisionism."
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 05:20 PM

So NSZ, while I get my facts wrong, I have your promise that YOU won't accuse others of historic revision?

Yes, I was wrong about the chronology of the SS.
Yes, I was wrong in calling the Allgemeine SS Waffen.
Yes, I was wrong to use the SA and SS to illustrate the difference between the Afghan Freedom Fighters and the Taliban.

It was was wrong not least because I got the chronology wrong AND the important issue is the Taliban's history.

IT serves no political agenda to get these dates wrong. I got them wrong.
Did anything I say make Hitler look worse?
Did I make the cause of Nazi Germany look worse?

When you are wrong, NSZ, I will not think less of you when you admit it.

NO, the Taliban was not a sub-unit of the Afghan Freedom Fighters.
NO, United States President Reagan did not create or support the Taliban.

The United States is NOT responsible for what the Taliban is or what the Taliban did or is doing.

Islam is.
Tribal culturalism is.


Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-22 7:54:59 PM


Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"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 fundamentalism, 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."

An interesting perspective considering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran was in large part the root cause of Carter's demise. Ironic that the Soviet desire to neuralise the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, expressed firstly by Gorbachev and then Shevardnaze, stirred such little interest for the US administration.

"Gorbachev had accepted that Afghanistan would become an Islamic country. But he assumed that Reagan, of all people, would have an interest in keeping it from becoming militantly, hostilely, Islamist.

In September 1987, after the previous spring's escalation failed to produce results, Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze met with Secretary of State George Shultz to tell him that Gorbachev planned to pull out of Afghanistan soon. He asked Shultz for help in containing the spread of "Islamic fundamentalism." Shultz had nothing to say. Most Reagan officials doubted Gorbachev would really withdraw, and they interpreted the warnings about Muslim radicals as a cover story for the Soviet Union's military failure."

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 7:59:06 PM


The interview was by Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

" 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."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 8:15:02 PM


DJ,
You make it sound like a bad thing.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-22 8:22:32 PM


Kissinger speaking of Iran Iraq war seems apropos here vis a vis
Islamists and Soviets

"it's a pity both sides can't lose"

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-22 8:37:08 PM


How so h2o273kk9? Brzezinski's position is interesting. He still claims, in a recent interview with Der Spiegel, that terrorism, Islam, is just a minor inconvenience in comparison to a nuclear war.

"For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.

No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future."

3,000 dead on 9/11 versus 180 million dead in a nuclear holocaust. Destabilising Afghanistan was worth it. However, it does beget the question, how much Brzezinski is overstating the Soviet threat? He doesn't want to admit he might have been mistaken, now does he. In addition, he might have been serving his ethnic interest considering Poland was a major beneficiary of the Soviet collapse.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,436607,00.html


Posted by: DJ | 2006-09-22 8:50:57 PM


How do you measure which threat is bigger? As I am not related to the oracle at Delphi, I just don't know what the future holds.

On the one hand, you have industrious, scientifically inclined Russians that while blind to the pitfalls of their failing ideology, were nevertheless...sane. However, they proved themselves capable of murder on previously unseen scales in the annals of human slaughter and had no compunction about threatening the planet with nuclear holocaust because I/WE didn't want to be their slaves.

On the other hand, you have technological parasites that couldn't start a fire by rubbing two brain cells together. Yet they sit upon a vast sea of wealth that the other 5 billion people of this planet with brains need to survive. Add to this mix their penchant for superstition, paranoia, and infantile blame shifting and their volatile temper tantrums and you have the potential to disrupt pretty well everything by their sheer numbers and dedication to mayhem.

As for Bski's overstating the Soviet threat...tis possible. Tis also possible he's overstating his and Jimmy's involvement in setting a trap.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-22 9:16:33 PM


DJ,
The other problem I see is believing Gorby. Bless his little heart. He was just trying to contain fundamentalist Islam.

The problem is that even now, Russia pulls her tricks and is signing Nuke deals with Iran.

Also, I seem to recall the concern at the time was on the USSR getting the warm water port she so desperately needed for her navy so she could better take on the US navy.

Look at the map. Grab Afghanistan. Foment revolution in Iran (the American allied Shah did fall). Iraq was a Russian client already...not American.

The Russkies wanted Afghanistan for their own reasons.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-22 9:31:10 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.