Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:43 am

tazmic wrote:
"The vast majority of this is useless," a retired US officer with long experience in the region told the Guardian."There's an Afghan prejudice that wants to see an ISI agent under every rock."



and the retired guy has read all 90000 pages already? Must be a speed reader
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:08 am

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: live
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange gives a press conference about the Afghanistan war logs at the Frontline club in London
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:10 am

"People wouldn't be making up these stories if there wasn't something to it. There's always a nugget of truth to every conspiracy theory," he said.


Always? No wonder he didn't want to be named.

The war logs are likely to stoke passions in Pakistan where the rightwing press has long accused the US of seeking an excuse to invade and seize the country's nuclear weapons.

A hint of this reaction came from the ISI official. "It's very strange such a huge cache of information can be leaked to the media so conveniently," he said. "Is it something deliberate? What is its purpose? We'll be looking into that."


Yeah right.

I'm sure these documents are a brilliant way to inspire another dumbfuck US invasion in Asia.

Coverage of this in Australia is pretty minimal at the moment, its barely been acknowledged.

Then again wikileaks is on Conroy's proposed filter/blacklist, so no surprises.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:20 am

July 26, 2010
WIKILEAKS AND THE WAR
Posted by Amy Davidson
Among the ninety-one thousand or so documents from the Afghan war released by WikiLeaks Sunday is an incident report dated November 22, 2009, submitted by a unit called Task Force Pegasus. It describes how a convoy was stopped on a road in southern Afghanistan at an illegal checkpoint manned by what appeared to be a hundred insurgents, “middle-age males with approx 75 x AK-47’s and 15 x PKM’s.” What could be scarier than that?

Maybe what the soldiers found out next: these weren’t “insurgents” at all, at least not in the die-hard jihadi sense that the American public might understand the term. The gunmen were quite willing to let the convoy through, if the soldiers just forked over a two- or three-thousand-dollar bribe; and they were in the pay of a local warlord, Matiullah Khan, who was himself in the pay, ultimately, of the American public. According to a Times report this June (six months after the incident with Task Force Pegasus), Matiullah earns millions of dollars from NATO, supposedly to keep that road clear for convoys and help with American special-forces missions. Matiullah is also suspected of earning money “facilitating the movement of drugs along the highway.” (He denied it.)

That is good to know. The Obama Administration has already expressed dismay that WikiLeaks publicized the documents, but a leak informing us that our tax dollars may be being used as seed money for a protection racket associated with a narcotics-trafficking enterprise is a good leak to have. And the checkpoint incident is, again, only one report, from one day. It will take some time to go through everything WikiLeaks has to offer—the documents cover the period from January, 2004, to December, 2009—but it is well worth it, especially since the war in Afghanistan is not winding down, but ramping up. (Also very helpful: Raffi Khatchadourian’s piece for The New Yorker on WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.)

WikiLeaks gave an advance look at the papers to the Times, the German weekly Der Spiegel, and the British Guardian, and all three were convinced that the documents were genuine. (The Times and Guardian both called the collection “The War Logs.” Der Spiegel went with the Ludlumesque rubric “The Afghanistan Protocols”; its package also has a sidebar titled “The Naivete of the Germans.”) Reporters at each of those publications have already zeroed in on some fascinating items, including revelations about an assassination squad called Task Force 373, connections between the Taliban and Pakistani military intelligence, and the incident I described above. One of the Times’s prime concerns was whether the files caught this or the previous Administration, or the American military, in any outright lies. While it did find “misleading statements” on matters such as the Taliban’s use of heat-seeking missiles, and much that had been “hidden from the public eye,” the Times decided that

Over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war.
One should pause there. What does it mean to tell the truth about a war? Is it a lie, technically speaking, for the Administration to say that it has faith in Hamid Karzai’s government and regards him as a legitimate leader—or is it just absurd? Is it a lie to say that we have a plan for Afghanistan that makes any sense at all? If you put it that way, each of the WikiLeaks documents—from an account of an armed showdown between the Afghan police and the Afghan Army, to a few lines about a local interdiction official taking seventy-five-dollar bribes, to a sad exchange about an aid scam involving orphans—is a pixel in a picture that does, indeed, contradict official accounts of the war, and rather drastically so.

But after more than eight years at war, how carefully are we even looking at Afghanistan? The Times had a piece in Sunday’s paper on the strange truth that our expenditure since 9/11 of a trillion dollars on two wars has barely scraped our consciousness. Fifty-eight Americans have died in Afghanistan so far this month; one of them—Edwin Wood, of Oklahoma—was eighteen years old. Maybe the WikiLeaks documents will make those numbers less abstract.

This stash will be compared to the Pentagon Papers, and in some ways that’s right—WikiLeaks, like Daniel Ellsberg, has been accused of ignoring the national interest. (An unfair charge, unless by “national interest” one means the political interests of a particular Administration.) But the Pentagon Papers were a synthetic analysis, a history of the war in Vietnam. WikiLeaks has given us research materials for a history of the war in Afghanistan. To make full use of them, we will, again, have to think hard about what we are trying to learn: Is it what we are doing, day to day, on the ground in Afghanistan, and how we could do it better? Or what we are doing in Afghanistan at all?

We might also use the papers to ask ourselves, more than we have, how the Afghans see the war. Can we expect them to understand that we mean well when we hit the wrong house with a strike from one of our drones—which, according to these documents, are less effective than we’d like to think? How does our talk about democracy sound to them? One document, which has already been widely quoted, is the report of the provincial reconstruction team for Paktia, which met with members of a local council and was told that

The Chamkani Chief of Police and the Danwa Patan District Commissioner are fighting for the control (earnings) of illegal checkpoints.
The people of Afghanistan keep loosing [sic] their trust in the government because of the high amount of corrupted government officials. The general view of the Afghans is that the current government is worst than the Taliban.

At the meeting, an old Afghan man spoke scornfully of democracy, which he saw as little more than a guarantee of an equal right to bribe. In response, the reconstruction team’s first recommendation was to

DO an Information Operation campaign explaining [to] the Afghan people: What DEMOCRACY is? How a democratic systems works? What they can do to report wrong doing? (The last only if there will be real consequences to the wrong doing, if not the confidents/narrators will be squash[ed] by the system).
That is a very big if. In that parenthetical, one glimpses the failure of our war. We may be the ones being shaken down on the highway, but from an Afghan perspective we are, by aligning ourselves with and propping up Hamid Karzai, also deploying the bandits. We are robbing ourselves, both of our purse and of our good name




Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... z0unIgRL3w
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:43 am

WikiLeak's Contribution to Obama's Inevitable Choice


Submitted by pmcarpenter on Mon, 07/26/2010 - 7:37am. P.M. Carpenter
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter



In lightning response to WikiLeaks' release of more than 90,000 classified reports that unshockingly depict a ghastly intersection of America's increasing helplessness and the Taliban's accelerating strength, National Security Adviser Jim Jones unleashed a minor barrage of mind-numbing bureaucratese:

"These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people."

Well, as long as "these irresponsible leaks" won't degrade our foolish consistency of despotic alliances or upset the delicate, self-negating balance of "common enemies" and deep "partnerships," we should be OK; which is to say, Jones' critical insertion of the qualifying "irresponsible" was superfluous at best.
Another, anonymous White House official varied Jones' theme of linguistic torture:

"[I]t’s worth noting that WikiLeaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan."

Now there's one of the hottest chestnuts ever among prominent logical fallacies: attack the source, however irrelevant the source itself may be to the principal story. One can imagine the biting critique of a Goebbels Dispatch: "It's worth nothing that Edward R. Murrow's CBS Radio is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes German policy in the skies over London."

Yeah, OK, so now we'll witness the full force of tiresome predictability: Liberal bloggers and commentators will go berserk in denouncing executive secrecy and right-wing bloggers and commentators will go equally berserk in denouncing First Amendment treachery.

This two-sided outrage will last for roughly 48 hours, admittedly a rather pleasant diversion from the 72-hour outrage over the Sherrod Affair, in which liberal bloggers denounced right-wing racism and right-wing bloggers denounced liberal racism. There's nothing like one of these enlightening "national debates," don't you think?

But, official and unofficial horseshit aside, from all of the NY Times' thousands of words this morning in its reporting of Wikileaks' leaks, this line jumped out at me with uncommon power:

"While current and former American officials interviewed could not corroborate individual reports, they said that the portrait of [Pakistan's] spy agency’s collaboration with the Afghan insurgency was broadly consistent with other classified intelligence."

With other classified intelligence? Pakistan's super-"secretive" doings with Afghan insurgents is about as mysterious as today's hamburger specials in the Daily Shopper.

This, from a month ago, and again, the Times:

"Pakistani officials say they can deliver the network of Sirajuddin Haqqani, an ally of Al Qaeda who runs a major part of the insurgency in Afghanistan, into a power-sharing arrangement" -- a promise that positively dripped with implications of all manner of Pakistani collaboration. Indeed, "Some officials in the Obama administration have not ruled out incorporating the Haqqani network in an Afghan settlement, though they stress that President Obama’s policy calls for Al Qaeda to be separated from the network."

Then this, my absolute favorite part: "American officials are skeptical that that can be accomplished." One marvels here at the euphemistically soft expectations of concrete disbelief.

What's more -- and this, once again, from a month ago -- Pakistan's spy agency took the rather uncharacteristic step of open diplomacy, blurting that America's Afghanistan campaign "will not succeed," largely because as the "security situation ... become[s] more dangerous," America's dedication to Afghanistan will eventually wane to invisibility.

It's my scarcely singular but unwavering conviction that Obama's commitment to Afghanistan is, by now, almost wholly a negative one: that is, he stays only because he doesn't know how to get out. I'm, let's say, "skeptical" that he believes any more than the time of day from Gen. David Petraeus, while the geopolitical and domestic political fallout of withdrawal ramifies monstrously in his mind. As retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said the other day in a television interview, Of course there's an alternative to continued American deployment -- the alternative being "a disaster of monumental proportions."

A some point, however, Obama must accept that America's disaster is separable from Afghanistan's -- whether it is or not -- and thus he must allow the inevitable fallout to begin. After all, he's no more straitjacketed in leaving than he is in staying.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby anothershamus » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:08 pm

Julian's Wikileaks really got the Main Stream Media and the Government Spin Team shaking! ABC is whining because they didn't get the advance copy so they are playing up the 'lives at risk' meme, with much more to come.

I think it was smart of Julian to advance a couple (three) copies to see who his friends were and to check for leaks (insert Irony here).

The website seems to be holding up and the info is available to all who want it so the architecture of the site is intact even with the attacks from .mil.

Maybe we will get out of these wars earlier than planned.

Can't wait till the next leak drops!
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby Montag » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:11 pm

seemslikeadream wrote:
oh never mind, I'm not going back and reading that long thread to determine whether you are being sarcastic
like I said


I was being sarcastic, I'll go away now and not ruin the Assange worship (sarcasm again).

p.s. I'm sure he and Moby could put a fabulous tour together -- ridiculous non-sequitur not sure why I just typed that.
User avatar
Montag
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby Penguin » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:42 pm

As this got reported, most comments on my local newspapers site were calling for reappraisal of Finland's troops presence in Afghanistan in the light of the leaked documents. I gotta say that is a very good thing - even more so regarding the NATO documents - our gov is still yearning to boot our collective asses into NATO as well - even against general opinion.

People round here think our soldiers are on a humanitarian mission of some sort, dogs bollocks. More of this kind of stuff, I applaud.

And the people dissing Wikileaks - could you at least support your disapproval with something tangible?
All Ive seen so far is dislike of Assange's personality. Of course I am always skeptical, but so far, Wikileaks track record has been pretty good. Never mind the resources aimed at smearing and silencing them, and of course they will most likely be the target of far worse yet.

From a Slashdot story comment:

Actually, if you watch the video on guardian, Assange specifically addresses the problem of "safety" that is being lauded here, noting how wikileaks take great care not to endanger people, other then politicians and military making the decisions leading to these occurrences of course. He points out why "this endangers the safety" argument is beating on a dead horse - the data here is so old, that the real meat that could in fact endanger lives of NATO soldiers, namely positional info is long beyond any reasonable secrecy requirements, while names are being redacted.

Anyone parroting the "endangers lives of out troops" is doing nothing but repeating drivel meant to discredit wikileaks at this point. Sensitive negotiations on the other hand usually imply "crimes behind them", which brings us to judicial responsibility - i.e. how many children are you willing to have raped, mutilated and killed in the name of Aghanistan, before it gets to be too many? Perhaps it's time to note that NATO has quite a few sociopaths installed in positions of power, and they need to be replaced rather then be taking part in "sensitive negotioations"?
On the other hand, the people dead because of what NATO is doing in Afghanistan are actually dying, in droves. And as these documents show, NATO sweeps many of them under the rug, and who are the people responsible for that accountable for, and who are people covering them accountable for?

And mind you, he's not American. He's Australian, and he claims to speak for no one least of all Americans. He simply offers facts, and allows everyone to formulate their opinion on their own. This is quite different from most modern mass media, that tends to be opinionated to no end nowadays rather then offer facts and let people think for themselves.

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/0 ... ar-Secrets

And another one:

Right on!

I saw proof on youtube that the fire couldn't be hot enough to melt those steel girders. Sick of all these lies, I went to look for myself, and I'll be damned: the WTC is still standing! They faked the 9/11 attacks in the same studio where they faked the moon landing. The real reason why the 9/11 attacks were faked was to provide an excuse for grounding all air planes so they could be retrofitted with tanks of neurotoxins for the chemtrails program, which is needed to keep the public confused and ignorant about CIA, FBI, UN and Freemason involvement in the Kennedy assassinations. The Kennedys were assassinated because they wanted to go public about the aliens that had been captured after the Roswell incident. The Aliens were here to warn us about the imminent threat posed by the passing of the planet Nibiru, which the Freemason/CIA/FBI conspiracy is trying to keep hidden because they intend to use the confusion caused by the upcoming disaster to impose UN law on the united states. The black helicopters have nothing to do with it though, they're an extremely fancy pizza delivery service for the Skull & Bones alumni.


Boy, am I comforted:

Take a look at the collateral murder video before making statements like this:

Our weaponry and style of war is far more ruthless today than the Romans could've ever dreamed of.

Note that the helicopter pilots had to radio in for permission to kill the people on the ground (they did get that permission, of course) -- the Romans would not have had to radio in. A group of Roman soldiers would have slaughtered the people with weapons, and probably the "historians" (i.e. reporters) that were there with them, without first asking a higher level commander for permission. The "rules of engagement" in Roman times were not quite what they are today: the Romans won many battles by simply laying siege and letting people starve to death (can you find an instance of the United States Army laying siege and waiting for people to starve to death?).

Yes, the weapons are more deadly. The tactics and rules, however, are a lot less brutal. Yes, warfare is still brutal, but we really do hold back our armies. If you want to see what less restraint looks like, take a look at what is happening along the Congo-Rwanda border, and you will see the kind of restrain the US army is showing in Iraq.


Progress!
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:02 pm

seemslikeadream wrote:
8bitagent wrote:Mainstream news reports that Pakistani ISI has secretly been helping the Islamic terrorists all along, but this Julian guy says there's no 9/11 coverup? I dont get it.
How can you have senior FBI, Senators, etc detail Saudi and Pakistani involvement in al Qaeda and 9/11 with the Bush regime obviously covering for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan...yet...claim there's nothing to the theories?


Isn't there a thread about this somewhere?

Can we keep that discussion there? Please? Pretty please? I didn't shit on that thread did I?

He's documented war crimes for Christ sake, he ain't god but he is my superhuman man

maybe he's just not into the 9/11 mega ritual, ya think?


Dude, IN YOUR OP you post a giant article about Pakistani ISI aiding the militants. Thats EXACTLY what Im commenting on.

Did you not put this in your main post?

Quote:
Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert
By MARK MAZZETTI, JANE PERLEZ, ERIC SCHMITT and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: July 25, 2010


This is what Im commenting on. The fact the US gives Pakistan billions and is dying every day, yet this money goes right back into the Taliban allegedly blowing them and civilians up with IEDs, attacks and terrorism.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby tazmic » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:28 pm

With Julian Assange's clear support of a free and open press, it may boggle the reader that no blogs were on the list of news sources he decided to give the secret war documents to. The New York Times, the Guardian (UK), and Der Spiegel were clear winners, but no community-driven sites such as Global Voices or Ground Report. "Those...are the three best research publications in print," Assange said.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1674331/wikileaks-julian-assange-afghanistan-leak
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby cptmarginal » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:34 pm

http://www.pakspectator.com/blackwater- ... -declares/
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,973481,00.html

But B.C.C.I. is more than just a criminal bank. From interviews with sources close to B.C.C.I., TIME has pieced together a portrait of a clandestine division of the bank called the "black network," which functions as a global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad. Operating primarily out of the bank's offices in Karachi, Pakistan, the 1,500-employee black network has used sophisticated spy equipment and techniques, along with bribery, extortion, kidnapping and even, by some accounts, murder. The black network -- so named by its own members -- stops at almost nothing to further the bank's aims the world over.

The more conventional departments of B.C.C.I. handled such services as laundering money for the drug trade and helping dictators loot their national treasuries. The black network, which is still functioning, operates a lucrative arms-trade business and transports drugs and gold. According to investigators and participants in those operations, it often works with Western and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies. The strange and still murky ties between B.C.C.I. and the intelligence agencies of several countries are so pervasive that even the White House has become entangled. As TIME reported earlier this month, the National Security Council used B.C.C.I. to funnel money for the Iran-contra deals, and the CIA maintained accounts in B.C.C.I. for covert operations. Moreover, investigators have told TIME that the Defense Intelligence Agency has maintained a slush-fund account with B.C.C.I., apparently to pay for clandestine activities.


At a covert forward operating base run by the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, members of an elite division of Blackwater are at the center of a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, “snatch and grabs” of high-value targets and other sensitive action inside and outside Pakistan, an investigation by The Nation has found. The Blackwater operatives also assist in gathering intelligence and help direct a secret US military drone bombing campaign that runs parallel to the well-documented CIA predator strikes, according to a well-placed source within the US military intelligence apparatus.

The source, who has worked on covert US military programs for years, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has direct knowledge of Blackwater’s involvement. He spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. The source said that the program is so “compartmentalized” that senior figures within the Obama administration and the US military chain of command may not be aware of its existence.
cptmarginal
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby cptmarginal » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:39 pm

Keep in mind that Pakistan was arbitrarily carved out of India post-WW2 with the borders and size of the area determined by British empire census data on religious affiliation. That a nuclear conflict could exist between Pakistan and India is staggeringly crazy. As far as most people are aware, Pakistan has always existed. Pakistan and Israel, two new countries both driving world politics forward in the most important and suspicious ways.

Constitutional anomalies in Pakistan 1947 to 2009

This continued denial of benefits, constitutional rights, basic fundamental rights, human and development rights to people of the western border regions extending into the Northern Areas has fostered disenfranchisement and marginalization of these societies. The situation denied these areas of any socio-economic, cultural or political development and empowerment. The people have been impoverished, disenfranchised and marginalized due to this inexplicable policy of the state since its inception. Therefore an independent and militant mindset developed in the inhabitants of these areas who are also allowed to carry weapons.
cptmarginal
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:12 pm

cptmarginal wrote:Keep in mind that Pakistan was arbitrarily carved out of India post-WW2 with the borders and size of the area determined by British empire census data on religious affiliation. That a nuclear conflict could exist between Pakistan and India is staggeringly crazy. As far as most people are aware, Pakistan has always existed. Pakistan and Israel, two new countries both driving world politics forward in the most important and suspicious ways.

Constitutional anomalies in Pakistan 1947 to 2009

This continued denial of benefits, constitutional rights, basic fundamental rights, human and development rights to people of the western border regions extending into the Northern Areas has fostered disenfranchisement and marginalization of these societies. The situation denied these areas of any socio-economic, cultural or political development and empowerment. The people have been impoverished, disenfranchised and marginalized due to this inexplicable policy of the state since its inception. Therefore an independent and militant mindset developed in the inhabitants of these areas who are also allowed to carry weapons.



He man I quoted your post and there's more in it than I saw on the thread...

The bold bit was all that showed up ...

And I have to say thats an interesting observation, comparing Pakistan and Israel.

I dunno where to go with it tho, but its certainly interesting food for thought.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:17 pm

Nevermind its there now. Dunno what happened.

BTW cpt

http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html

Whether the partition of these countries was wise and whether it was done too soon is still under debate. Even the imposition of an official boundary has not stopped conflict between them. Boundary issues, left unresolved by the British, have caused two wars and continuing strife between India and Pakistan.

The partition of India and its freedom from colonial rule set a precedent for nations such as Israel, which demanded a separate homeland because of the irreconcilable differences between the Arabs and the Jews. The British left Israel in May 1948, handing the question of division over to the UN. Un-enforced UN Resolutions to map out boundaries between Israel and Palestine has led to several Arab-Israeli wars and the conflict still continues.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Secret Archive Grim View of Afghan War - Wikileaks ONLINE

Postby Sweejak » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:19 pm

User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests