Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Afghanistan: Bloodshed Without End

Written by Ewan Gibbs
Thursday, 16 July 2009

The war in Afghanistan has re-emerged in the headlines as casualty rates for American and British forces have now reached their highest since the invasion of Afghanistan. Already more than one hundred American troops have been killed since the beginning of this year alone, whilst in Britain the news has been dominated by the deaths of eight soldiers who were killed in twenty four hours over the weekend,

Three of them were just eighteen. Although this has briefly seen a temporary rush of sympathy for the dead expressing itself in support for the army, in the long run this is only exposing Afghanistan as being an unwinnable venture which is seeing young working class people sacrificed in the interest of an insane neo-colonial war that is far from in their interests.


U.S. soldiers fire a 120mm mortar during a combat operation in the Da'udzay Valley in the Zabol province of Afghanistan Oct. 23, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jim Downen)

It is clear that the total death toll since 2001 of Afghans simply unknown and most estimates do not even factor in the effects that living in a war zone may have on access to medical supplies and the effect of the stress and duress of the daily pounding of bombs on young children and pregnant women etc. Alongside this an untold amount of damage has been done to the already precarious infrastructure of the country. The hunt against opium has seen thousands of acres of farm land burnt as peasant farmers struggle to survive whilst the wider ‘battle for hearts and minds’ is getting nowhere fast.

Despite the loud claims that Afghanistan was entering the twenty first century through a “western style democracy” following the elections in 2004, it is clear that the American led vision of dominating Afghanistan from afar, via a loyal and stable government in Kabul, is little more than a pipe dream. The elections themselves are very precarious affairs. Outside of the capital and the immediate surrounding areas their legitimacy is severely in question due to the involvement of local warlords, to whom the American led coalition are all too happy to give a piece of the pie in return for their cooperation. Mean while areas of the west of the country such as the Helmand province that lie under Taliban domination are effectively excluded from the process what so ever.

As a result the man who is in theory president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai has been branded the world’s most expensive mayor. Entirely reliant on the support of coalition forces his government has been completely bound to the interests of imperialism. In spite of the image the western media has presented of Karzai heading a supposedly reforming liberal government he comes from the same background in the Islamist Mujahideen as the Taliban. His government includes many warlords and recently in has gone as far as to propose legislation that would not only legalize the rape of Shia Muslim women by their husbands and prevent them from leaving their houses, attending school or registering for a doctor without his support. (Amnesty international 14/7/09)

The real origins of this situation go back to the Saur Revolution of 1978 which saw the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan take power through support in the military. Whilst in name a socialist revolution, the coup in effect placed a layer of progressive military generals in charge of the country. Despite failing to establish genuine workers democracy and perusing an agenda centred on protecting and furthering the privileges of the generals, the regime established a planned economy that made huge strides in health care, education and the reform of Afghanistan’s infrastructure.

The American response to this was to support the opposition in the form of the Mujihadeen guerrilla fighters who were funneled huge sums of money through the Pakistani state, in particularly its intelligence forces, the ISI. Eventually these forces overwhelmed the PDPA regime which finally fell apart in 1992, following the collapse of the Soviet Union from which it drew material and political support. Basing themselves on a reactionary Islamist ideology the Mujihadeen was made up of a variety of disparate groups that based themselves on local strong men who often grew rich out of the trade in opium poppies. Eventually the hard-line Taliban faction took power in 1996, holding it until the US invasion in 2001.


U.S. and British soldiers during a combat patrol in the Sangin District area of Helmand Province. (U.S. Army Photo by Spc. Daniel Love)

Islamic fundamentalism, in both the case of Iran and Afghanistan, has proved to be a monster the US initially mobilised against social revolution but which eventually escaped its own control. From the fall of the PDPA regime in the early 1990s Afghanistan has been more of a land in between countries than a nation in itself as various factions headed by glorified gangsters have vied for control of the state. The Taliban regime fell from favour with the US as it grew too big for its own boots and various terrorist attacks, such as the attack on the US embassy in Kenya in 1998 and the attempt on the World Trade Centre in 1994, began to be traced back to training camps in Afghanistan.

The attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001 proved to be the last straw and the perfect excuse for American forces to invade the country. Yesterday’s freedom fighter became today’s terrorist as the politicians sought to assert their domination over the country. Meanwhile the dollar signs showed in the eyes of the American and British energy companies, who sought to build their own pipeline to the Caspian Sea free from Russian influence. Evidently all were blind to the historical record of those invading Afghanistan! Seemingly the defeat of both the British army in the nineteenth century or the Soviet forces in the 1970s and 80s in Afghanistan did not cause them to think twice.

The invasion of Afghanistan has ended up in disaster. Whilst it is sickening but unsurprising to see opportunist politicians such as David Cameron cashing in on the needless deaths of young working class men who may well have had nowhere to turn but the army upon leaving school, the truth of the matter is no matter how many more helicopters are shipped over the situation will not change. As in Iraq and Vietnam imperialism has entered into a venture it cannot win and has attempted to subdue a people who will not be held down by military force. Sooner or later the Americans will be forced to come to a compromise with a section of the Taliban and, just as in Iraq, forced to march home with their tails between their legs - having only achieved a greater destabilisation of the region and a weakening of their allies and strengthening of their enemies.

This will unfortunately not answer the problems of the Afghan masses. It is the duty of socialists in all countries with troops in Afghanistan to demand their immediate withdrawal and an end to the occupation and national oppression of the Afghan people. However this in itself will not be enough. As long as Afghanistan lies under the domination of the gangster warlords, imperialism will keep trying to gain access to the resources of Afghanistan and, if paid handsomely enough, these leaders will only happily oblige.

The recent activities of the Pakistani section of the International Marxist Tendency, The Struggle, during the fighting in the Swat Valley demonstrated the way forward. By opening relief camps and running Marxist education workshops whilst providing aid to the refugees and mobilising the efforts of the local people to do so, they proved that the masses can resist the forces of imperialism and its ill disciplined mercenaries. It is only by standing for their own interest and taking the resources and infrastructure of their country under their control and in their interests that the Afghan workers and the peasants behind them can find a meaningful solution; that is to say through the socialist revolution.

RENEGADE EYE

41 comments:

K. said...

Thanks for the summary.

"Islamic fundamentalism, in both the case of Iran and Afghanistan, has proved to be a monster the US initially mobilised against social revolution but which eventually escaped its own control."

Modern politicians seem to believe that they can control religious fundamentalism as a means to other ends (usually extending their own reach). Look at the Republicans and the Religious Right.

tony said...

The area is in Flux.Because of War, Marxists can set up relief camps and run educational workshops .Once the War is won (by the Taliban i imagine)such initatives will soon be crushed.But Its A Brave Idea.
Yes.It's The Oil of course.Most People in Britain are against this War......as usual, we follow The Tune Of Washington.We are a dog listening to the whistle of our Master.......
God Bless Harold Wilson who as our Prime Minister in the 1960's,told LBJ (ever so politly) to fuck off when asked to send British Troops to Vietnam.
As with Iraq, The British march to a Yankie Tune.At least The USA has a reason (money) for this war.The Brits dont even have that.(Obama might throw us a bone or two.?)
A Very Sad Affair That Will End In Tears.............

Gert said...

Careful, Ren. I'll be moments before someone will call you a 'Taliban luvvah'...

FJ said...

...that's what the author suggests the West do, Gert. Surrender Afghanistan and Pakistan to religious fundamentalists and renounce our "neo-colonial desire to dominate the world."

Because face it, the moment the West leaves THE fundamentalists win.

K. said...

If anything, American presence in Afghanistan aggravates conditions favorable to fundamentalism. We should have learned a long time ago that we can't control or determine the outcomes of civil struggles. The one time that we did in the Great Game theatre -- the CIA-sponsored coup that toppled Mossadegh in Iran -- it turned out to be a historical mistake.

Gert said...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, if you ask me...

Gert said...

Even a 'political solution' (Nation building) isn't likely to succeed: the Afghans have no experience with centralised g'ment. They don't much care for it: it's a population that genuinely doesn't much care about 'our way of life', bar perhaps a few individual exceptions...

Nevin said...

The article ends by: "It is only by standing for their own interest and taking the resources and infrastructure of their country under their control and in their interests that the Afghan workers and the peasants behind them can find a meaningful solution"

This is where the problem lies.... Resources, pipe-lines and who takes control of what... It has very little to do with what the media portrays...

PS: Ren, I linked your article in my blog.

Desert Mystery said...

Seriously if anyone in the west wants to put an actual dent against the Taliban. Please donate to groups like PTUDC (the Pakistani section of the International Marxist Tendency)and other Leftist groups working in Afghanistan. All your current tax dollars and NGO funds go towards overpaid western "aid workers" who pretty much spend most of their time hidding in their hotels.

Renegade Eye said...

K.; It's great that you have 500 posts. Paying Islamic fundamentalists, goes back to John Foster Dulles, who propped up the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser.

Tony: Unlike against the USSR, there is no foreign power subsidizing the Taliban at near the level. The Taliban has another disadvantage. It ruled once there. Still the US/NATO can do nothing but lose.

FJ: Reread the last paragraph. Socialism in Iran and Pakistan is the key to beating the Taliban.

Gert: I think the US/NATO is in better position than Russia. Atleast Russia right or wrong, knew why they were there. Al-Qaeda probably moved to Pakistan or Somolia already.

Nevin: I should post Engels 1857 essay on Afghanistan. It'll tell you more than the NY Times in about three paragraphs.

Desert Mystery: The IMT can use you in Pakistan. I just finished Lal khan's new book about Pakistan.

FJ said...

My point, Ren, is that you can't b*tch about "insane neo-colonial wars" in one paragraph and then promote a "socialist revolution" in the next w/o sounding like a hypocrite. Either we intervene against the fundamentalists or we don't. Our argument isn't about whether or not we should intervene (which is the argument you make AGAINST neo-colonialism), it's the "form" that such intervention should take. And if THAT is really the case, why is a "socialist" intervention so MUCH BETTER than a mutually-beneficial economically based neo-colonial one?

Nevin said...

FJ: intervention of any kind will never be effective in the long run, whether it's the communists, socialists or the neo-colonials. However, if ever there were, as you stated, a mutually beneficial economical interaction between various nations around the world, then we may possibly experience peace and economical prosperity for all.

Few (powerful) rich at the top will never allow such interaction among nations. How will they get richer???

Renegade Eye said...

Everyone should read Engels On Afghanistan written in 1857.

FJ: The neocolonial intervention is known to have produced random bombings, driving people to the Taliban.

I think one problem with the Afghan War for the US, is that it has no goals, definitions etc. Al Qaeda probably relocated to Pakistan. Karzai's government allows Sharia type laws. The 9/11 Tragedy is more connected to Saudis.

Socialism in Iran and Pakistan
would help in Afghanistan. It can't do much, without industry.

Nevin: I agree.

FJ said...

The 9/11 Tragedy is more connected to Saudis.

Osama bin Laden IS a Saudi. And the Saudi's fund the mujahadeen/and Pakistani madrassas.

Renegade Eye said...

Fj: True. The war's narrative is odd.

Some truth to what some say; the Iraq War is the Republicans war and the Afghan is the Democrats.

FJ said...

It's the same war... only soon it will have a much more tenable long-term strategy routed in balance of power politics.

FJ said...

I wouldn't be surprised to see a complete pull-out from Afghanistan if/when Khamenei is ousted and Iran/Iraq reconcile.

At that point the Saudi's will be forced to confront their worst nightmare...

Gert said...

Some truth to what some say; the Iraq War is the Republicans war and the Afghan is the Democrats. (dixit Ren)

And neither are going very well...

We can't solve the Afghan problem, it's like the Chinese waiter says: 'Fortune cookie always wrong'.

Stay, 'surge' even and more innocent Afghans will die, breeding more Taleban prospects and possibly suiciders targeting the West.

Leave and the Taleban probably takes over.

Nation building? The country has no history of ever being a Nation State with centralised G'ment. Don't they call Kharzai the 'mayor of Kabul', rather than the President of Afghanistan?

I blame the Ruskies for stirring the hornets' nest in the first place and the Meircans for their support for al-Qaeda/Taleban, against the USSR. Now we're left with a real mess, one that in some respects makes Iraq look like a piece of cake and one that stretches deep into Pakistan.

And still we wonder why they hate us...

FJ said...

blame the Ruskies for stirring the hornets' nest in the first place and the Meircans for their support for al-Qaeda/Taleban, against the USSR...

LOL!

You should blame the man that turned a regional struggle into an Islamic Crusade to reunite the "ummah" into an idyllic 8th century Islamic caliphate. That man was Osama bin Laden.

Get rid of Osama and his utopian dreams, and the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan disapears into the shadows of ignorance from whence it came.

Gert said...

Still a blow back denier, eh, FJ? Some things never change.

Tip: read bin Laden's multiple communiques, or didn't they show them on Fox?

FJ said...

I read Osama's communiques. I also read his bio and have understood his actual deeds... such as the assassination of his mentor, Abdullah Azzam, and the takeover of Azzam's Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK)/Al-Kifah.

Azzam had a different idea as to how best utilize the mujahadeen they trained to fight the Soviets. Unifying the ummah into a restored Islamic caliphate wasn't one of them.

Osama to the King of Saudi Arabia in '91 after Iraqi's invaded Kuwait, "Let me take my 40,000 mujahadeen and kick Saddam out." The king replied, "Nah, I'll get my Americans to do it."

So next time, Gert, instead of being a smart ass, try using Occham's razor for a change. It'll save you a lot headaches when you're trying to understand the how the world really works.

FJ said...

If creating a megalomaniac like Osama bin Laden had been simply "blowback", cutting off CIA funds would have likely meant the end of bin Laden. It wasn't. Bin Laden had learned how to beat the USSR (and by proxy, America), and he took his enterprise private with private Saudi/Yemeni funding.

FJ said...

Azzam favored distributing his trained mujahadeen amongst the various Afghan warlords. Osama favored maintaining his own independent control over them and "assisting" the warloards. That way, he would end up with the trained army he needed to take jihad to Pakistan (and overthrow it). After '89 he started subcontracting jihad to Bosnia...

Renegade Eye said...

FJ: Iran and Iraq unofficially reconcilled. Maliki is more pro-Iran than US. Some say when the US pullout, he'll be less secular. Bush always underestimated him.

I think in Pakistan, the fundamentalists are hated. It shows in the elections, as the PPP is the party of the working class. I admit they have a history of betrayal.

I used to believe the caliphate stuff. That is utopian meaning unrealistic, in a world of global capitalism. All the Muslim nations are pragmatic. You can talk about caliphate, but there are no material conditions to make it happen. Why go backwards? Not appealing to anybody.

Gert: I agree with most of what you're saying.

The US spent millions funding fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That money paid for Islamic fundamentalism in all corners of the globe. In Pakistan the US always props ups fundamentalists to counter the left. That money even paid for fundamentalism in Algeria, The Russians can be criticized for only only really being concerned about their borders.

I think using the word fundamentalists is less offensive than saying Islamists.

Renegade Eye said...

FJ: The idea of the caliphate is on my mind. I used to believe it myself.

It is based on the idea of Muslims as a monolith.

There is no real world sign such a thing is in anyway widespread. Even Al Qaeda is nothing more than a crazy sect.

It's hard to find any Muslim country, that after the rhetoric, practices more than pragmatism.

Bin Laden is or was a sect leader. The material basis of his ideas are only in his head.

Hitchens should know better.

Gert said...

The interview with ABC's John Miller is one of the most telling.

There can be no denial that at least part of bin Laden's actions were inspired by and considerd in retaliation of Western misdeeds against Muslims carried out over the past 40 years or so. Of course there is a Caliphatist streak in Radical Islam too, the two aren't mutually exclusive and overlap to a high degree.

But the blow back element continues to be denied by many in the West, including back then George W. and Tony Blair. On the bombing in Istanbul, Tony famously declared that it was proof (that blow back played no part) because after all it was Turkey. Except, Tony, the target was the British Consulate!

FJ said...

All the Muslim nations are pragmatic.

The Iranian theocracy is pragmatic? The Gazan's are pragmatic? They are anything BUT pragmatic.

I used to believe the caliphate stuff.

Used to? You've heard of Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army? Then I'll assume you know who the Mahdi is. And I'll assume that "pragmatic" is not blindly launching, uncontrolled/unguided rockets into Israel while "praying" that Allah guide them onto a Jew's head.

The material basis of his ideas are only in his head.

...but the immaterial ones fill the holy Koran and the minds of millions (if not a billion) Muslims.

A death=loving escatology established in the 7th century is NOT CIA BLOWBACK.

berty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gert said...

FJ:

"The Iranian theocracy is pragmatic? The Gazan's are pragmatic? They are anything BUT pragmatic."

The Iranian regime is very capable of very calculated, rational behaviour: it advances when it can, tactically retreats when it can't. They've outsmarted the West with a strategy of patience and opportunism, while hotheads like Bush and Blair threw themselves into adventures with unpredictable outcomes and suffered the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Gaza is part of a militarily occupied territory, occupied by your beloved Zionist zealots. Hamas is a rational reaction to the failure and corruption of Fatah/PLO. Hamas' stance is changing now to non-violent resistance, because it is to their advantage: those are the actions of rational actors; fallible but rational. Israel blew it in Gaza: too much killing for too little results.

"And I'll assume that "pragmatic" is not blindly launching, uncontrolled/unguided rockets into Israel while "praying" that Allah guide them onto a Jew's head."

If the Palestinians had anything like 1/3 of Israeli fire power, including longer range, guided missiles, this conflict would have been over a decade ago: Israel has no appetite for body bags. And its army is no longer anything to write home about: see also Leb 2006.

"A death=loving escatology established in the 7th century is NOT CIA BLOWBACK."

Escatology is part of all religions. Radical Islamists use suicide bombers like poor man's guided missiles.

Methinks you've got a piece of 9/11 debris lodged in your brain...

FJ said...

If the peace loving fundamentalist Muslim's like Osama bin Laden hated the West so much, Gert, then please explain why AQI bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra instead of the Marine barracks inside the Green Zone.

The fighting that remains in Iraq is intra-Islamic... between Shi'a and Sunni "fundamentalism".

Methinks you're obsessed w/ America/ Jew hatred.

Renegade Eye said...

Today in Minneapolis was a big celebration of the 1934 Teamster Strike here. It was won, but the police shot some 60 unarmed workers, and killed two. Minneapolis was in Trotskyist control.


FJ: You're arguing against yourself. I don't believe Gert ever said Bin Laden was peaceloving.

I think Maliki is more pro-Iran than Sadr. As for Iran they support whoever is stronger. They want stability at their border.

Capitalist countries are always in competition. When Bolivia was going to nationalize a Brazilian company, the Brazilian government went to bat for it. Even though they are all in the Latin American power bloc. No Middle Eastern countries are going towards a caliphate, even if they were, they'd eat each other up. Even the Bolivarian common front is an illusion.

Gert: I believe in the blowback idea. I hate it as an excuse. I'm not at all saying that applies to you.

Gert said...

Ren and FJ:

What I said was that there is a strong element of blow-back in bin Laden's thinking and actions, that's now widely accepted, except by those responsible for the mess (what's new?) Bin Laden's own testimony is simply unequivocal about that.

Of course the Radical Towelheads have other motives too and there are various overlapping strands, I never said otherwise.

Ren, it's not a question of using it as an excuse, it's a matter of facing reality. Peace loving? These guys hate our guts...

FJ: thanks for the Jew hatred thingy but what to expect from someone who hangs out at Mad Zionist, a blogger who believes that anything on two legs that breathes and doesn't support the idea of Greater Israel must be an anti-Semite. Someone (you) who believes the Palestinian refugee problem would just go away if it wasn't for the evil UN keeping them alive. Mad Zionist and Mad Farmer, two sides of the same coin.

The Sentinel said...

The British involvement in Afghanistan is a travesty and a tragedy.

From a British perspective, the armed forced are only ever supposed to be deployed to protect either British sovereignty or British sovereign interests and this continuing war in Afghanistan is a prime example of yet another covenant that this so-called Labour government has treated with utter contempt; in fact they have dragged the British armed forces into more conflicts within their rein then any other British government in history whilst keeping the armed forces perpetually deprived of equipment, funding, proper medical treatment, compensation and pay.

The sheer contempt they have for the British military can be gauged from the fact that they appoint a nasty, jobsworth, Marxist IRA supporter as their minister, not too long after having an alcoholic communist in the post and another communist as the Northern Ireland secretary smearing British soldiers as "chinless wonders" - and these types are now smearing the highest ranking serving officer with the most venom imaginable for daring to speak out about the now desperate state of the armed forces.

The British Armed Forces represents everything that that Ainsworth, Reed, Mandelson and their ilk despise: Patriotism, duty, loyalty to the Crown and the regiment, not to the state, tradition and honour.

No wonder they causally involve the armed forces in a war that is as unwinnable as it is without (given) reason.

The only serious threat to British security has come, not from a far away land like Afghanistan, but from the enemy within: Muslims born in Britain.

And it is not just the huge loss of life on 7/7 that demonstrates this clearly but also the fact that muslims born in Britain are joining the Taliban to fight their countrymen of birth, reportedly in their thousands. It is made clear by the abuse that wounded British soldiers have received from muslim civilians and even muslim medical orderlies in Selly Oak hospital - a substandard civilian hospital where wounded soldiers are now sent after Labour destroyed all of the Military hospitals.

(More of the contempt for British soldiers that so-called Labour party has can be gauged by the reaction of Lynne Jones, Labour MP for Selly Oak, after she refused to back calls for more secure facilities for injured military patients after an abuse incident; she said: "The soldiers seem to want a little empire consisting of their own designated staff and facilities, a fiefdom" - when all they wanted was their own space away from muslim abuse, abuse they were receiving as a result of Labour policy and orders.)

It is made clear by muslims jeering and screaming things like "Criminals, Murderers Terrorists" and "Baby killers" at homecoming troop parades...

The Sentinel said...

...It is made clear by the many jail cells full of muslims calling for our murder and the many more who have escaped challenge.

If this is really a "war on terror" then we need look no closer then home.

The official rubbish put forward by this pathologically dishonest and criminal government is to led us to believe that it's a war for some kind of triumph that Afghan women are free not to wear the burka, their former symbol of oppression, even as the burka becomes a common sight on the streets of Britain - which we are then told to 'celebrate' as a symbol of our liberal democracy.

Or that we will be successful in imposing a system upon a people that have they never had beofre or clearly ever wanted by killing as many people that we now call insurgents in their own lands, but were actually the legitimate government that we violently overthrew.

All rubbish; smoke and mirrors - UNOCAL etc and the afghan pipeline are the real root of all of this.

Nothing good at all has come from this costly conflict; not even the containment of heroin.

Bizarrely, another by product of this war has been that heroin production in Afghanistan – a country that produces 90% of the worlds heroin supply – has actually risen massively.
Production of heroin rose by 1400% immediately after the Taliban were removed from power and was up another 26% on that in 2007.

Whereas the Taliban succeeded in cutting heroin by 95% in 2000, having banned poppy production.

But then even that is propbaly no surpise, given that the CIA and drugs go hand in hand.

The quicker British troops are pulled out of this conflict the better and the faster this disgusting, corrupt, murderous, criminal, arrogant, tyrannical extremist junta we call the Labour Party are removed from every vestige of power the better.

FJ said...

I love the way Gert avoids the unanswered question which exposes the prejudiced idiocy of his anti-Semitic and anti-American conspiracy theory.

What I said was that there is a strong element of blow-back in bin Laden's thinking and actions,

LOL! The only element of blow-back in bin Laden's actions were derived from ex post facto opportunism and argument framing. The CIA had nothing to do with framing the fundamental event which led Osama to contemplate jihad and pursue his Pakistani and ummah-centric ambitions.

The CIA also didn't invade Afghanistan in 1980 and invite Osama bin Laden in to serve as a mujahadeen trainer in chief. Osama volunteered himself for that mission and an obviously MUCH greater one.

To believe a theory of "blowback" one would have to believe that Osama would have some things differently had the CIA done nothing. The facts leading up to CIA involvement in the Afghan conflict completely dispel that false notion.

As for American involvement in Afghanistan today, I think that we are playing Osama's game when we undertake operations in Afghanistan and against the Taliban, and that all such efforts do nothing but strengthen bin Laden's hand in the region.

Fortunately, George Bush and his advisers wisely avoided the "Soviet" inspired Afghan trap which Osama performed all his due diligence on, a mistake Obama and his bone-headed advisers seem intent upon making.

The solution to the Osama bin Laden problem lies through Baghdad and Tehran, NOT Kabul.

ps- Yes Gert, your anti-Semitic diatribes at Mad Zionist's blog are legendary. I'm surprised you still post there, as I stopped at least a year ago. I guess that rather proves Einstein's point, that insanity lies in repeating the same mistake over and over and then expecting a different result.

FJ said...

ps - I'd remind everyone of the house rules - *Attack ideas, not people.*

FJ said...

ps - Since you no longer believe in caliphates, perhaps you can explain the underlying nature of Pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism.

Because they kinda sound like another name for a grand caliphate to me...

Gert said...

FJ:

Never mind the rules on personal attacks: FJ, you're an intolerable piece of human shite.

I'm talking about 50 years (and then some) of WESTERN messing with Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and so forth. Not just YOUR BELOVED CIA. Idiots like you remind the world what's BAD about the Conservative side of America. Now please FUCK OFF!

As regards Mad Zionist, I haven't commented there since Gaza either but only because I know I'm not welcome there anymore. Not a single anti-Semitic remark, comment or viewpoint have I ever uttered there, which is in fact why I was welcome there for years. Your own contributions there mostly didn't surpass 'exterminate the vermin' level. You're a real all American hero in your own fascistoid mind, aren't you?

I'm out of here.

Sorry, Ren.

Gert said...

Ren:

I'm not being called an 'anti-Semite' just for calling for a Two State solution and a stop to Israel's imperialist dreams. That's far beyond a personal attack to me.

I got called that by Beaker's clique, to which Farmer once belonged, from Day 1. No more, thanks.

FJ said...

Good riddance to bad rubbish. I get called a Zionist here, but no one gives a f*ck about that.

Now review the record. Gert first said...

Gaza is part of a militarily occupied territory, occupied by your beloved Zionist zealots. Hamas is a rational reaction to the failure and corruption of Fatah/PLO.

to which I, a non-Jew, rightly responded:

Methinks you're obsessed w/ America/ Jew hatred.

Gert then "upped the ante" with a racist diatribe against Arabs AND Jews... twice labeling me a "Zionist". I may be many things, but I'm not a "zionist."

Gert's racist diatribe:

Of course the Radical Towelheads have other motives too and there are various overlapping strands, I never said otherwise.

Ren, it's not a question of using it as an excuse, it's a matter of facing reality. Peace loving? These guys hate our guts...

FJ: thanks for the Jew hatred thingy but what to expect from someone who hangs out at Mad Zionist, a blogger who believes that anything on two legs that breathes and doesn't support the idea of Greater Israel must be an anti-Semite. Someone (you) who believes the Palestinian refugee problem would just go away if it wasn't for the evil UN keeping them alive. Mad Zionist and Mad Farmer, two sides of the same coin.


You think you can call me a Zionist simply because I think that UNWRA is a fifty year old mistake that needs to get tossed out with the PC garbage. I don't say that because I'm a Zionist. I say it because it's the TRUTH. The Jews that were displaced in that conflict didn't get lifetime welfare benefits from the UN, and it's long past the time when the children of the children of Palestinians stopped getting them.

As for the rest of your personal attack, I await either your sincere apology or your perpetual absence from this site. I'll find either one satisfactory.

Renegade Eye said...

I'm going to close this thread. Every rule was violated.

Between putting up with having UK Muslims blamed for all the problems of the world, to name calling over Palestine/Israel; this thread went to hell.