Unstoppable Western Fascism in Afghanistan-II

- By Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

*****

NATO’s Energy cum Terror Mission

Today Muslims kill Muslims and Muslim rulers ask non-Muslims also to kill Muslims and it not just Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq one refers to. The international state terrorists IST continue to kill Muslims taking undue advantage of the divided Islamic world existing only for making wealth and extra profits, notwithstanding the fact that the legitimacy of these Axis Evil governments has awfully declined recently years isnce 2001. Knowing full well that a “victory” in the ongoing  terror wars by Christian, Hindu and Jewish regimes, essentially anti-Islamic, is a contemporary myth, the western hawkish media faithfully expressed the views of the deadly Neocons about a clear, possible “win” for the terror wars unleashed by the US-led North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Thinking that continuing terror war would improve the standing of the already dead Labour party, Brown has made two clear arguments in favor of the war, beyond the issues of supporting the U.S. ally and a fledgling democracy and building a stable state in Afghanistan . But Eric Joyce, a junior defense minister and former army officer, resigned from the government last week claiming that the war could no longer be justified on the prime minister's terms and that the British were bearing far too great a share of the burden. On intelligence ill-advice, Brown has advanced the usual arguemnt of the western media hawks and strategic rogues that preventing terrorism coming to the streets of Britain , America and other countries. Support for the Afghan war sours fast in the UK, leaving President Obama few options.

NATO says the war in Afghanistan is waning. In Afghanistan, there are now 42 countries involved in the U.S.-led energy cum terror mission and almost 90,000 troops there or scheduled to deploy, two-thirds from the USA and another 9,000 from Britain. And yet the broad feeling is in NATO circles that the allies are certainly not winning the war against the Taliban and may be losing it by losing the support of the Afghan people. On his first day on the job, NATO's new secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a Danish former prime minister for the last eight years, urged bigger European role in its terror war in Afghan and called for stronger European efforts in terror wars so that the USA did not feel alone in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda- the fictitious threat perceptions. NATO casualties there hit a record high last month, and Britain, France and Germany have shown a reluctance to commit more troops. Citing Qaeda attacks on European soil as a ply to trap the willing partners, Rasmussen said the battle against Islamic extremism belonged to Europe as well. But echoing the plaintive pleas of his predecessor, the Dutch diplomat Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO chief Rasmussen called for more European troops and more Europeans to train the Afghan Army and the police to stand on their own. Rasmussen tried to make the miserable Turkish-Greek relationship work inside NATO. Turkey argued that Rasmussen was an unfortunate choice as NATO was fighting a war against Muslims in Afghanistan.

Recently German chancellor Angela Merkel announced their troops would withdraw form Afghanistan. Over the weekend, after talks in Berlin with Chancellor Merkel, Brown called for an international political conference with the new post-election Afghan government to coordinate allies and resources in support of the U.S.-led mission. Merkel and Brown, backed up by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, have written to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and asked him to organize the conference. Germans are opposed ot NATO terror war: the polls indicate that a slightly higher percentage of Germans are in favor of ending the German contribution to the ISAF mission. The German officer who authorized an airstrike on two hijacked fuel tankers over the weekend, allegedly killing up to 90 civilians, may have a lot to answer for.  Repeated attempts by the U.S. and British governments to get their NATO allies to play a larger role have had little success. The French have sent an extra battalion and also the Germans. Germany has around 4,000 troops stationed with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. They are stationed in northern Afghanistan. After Afghanistan plus Islamic world, NATO's biggest challenge may be Russia, with whom relations are deeply strained. The question of invasion has actually been central to German politics since January 2002, when German soldiers first deployed to Kabul. The historical reasons are well known: Germans in uniform don't exactly have a very good reputation internationally.

Recent air strike killing about a 100 innocent civilians has catapulted Germany 's Afghanistan mission right into the election campaign ahead of the Sept. 27 vote. German politicians are quick to make pledges of loyalty to NATO, but there are far too few signs of a critical reassessment of Germany 's military mission. Most Germans would like to see their country's military forces, the Bundeswehr, withdraw from Afghanistan -- and quickly. One could dismiss this as wishful thinking. Yet, with just three weeks to go to the German national election, the political parties have to take into account the mood in the country.

The number of Americans is expected to increase to 68,000 by year's end, which would mean roughly two American soldiers for every non-American one. The release of that strategy has been delayed. Shortly after taking office President Obama approved the addition of another 17,000 to the war effort as part of an attempt to turn around the sagging war effort. He added another further 4,000 troops in March as part of his new “comprehensive strategy” at the time. The NATO terror commanders say that with the growing power of the Taliban, which officials have said is higher than at any time since the 2001 invasion, they no longer have enough troops to fight the war, even though 17,000 had just arrived to provide protection for the election. In order to confuse the world to some extent, the top US commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal had requested another 20,000 troops for the war effort in Afghanistan, on top of the escalation already provided by President Obama, when he issues his new “plan” for the nation. (Gen. McKiernan was ousted in May, and Gen. McChrystal was put in place to attempt yet another new ill-fated strategy).

The NATO terror strategists argue that the Zionist regime cannot kill all Muslims all by themselves and the GSTs should not quit the Islamic world without accomplishing the holocaust in full and control the energy resources and routes. Afghan army will eventually have to do most of the fighting, but for now it remains too small at 173,000 army and police to do so. And, if the U.S. were to depart, Neocns argue, the Taliban would soon control at least the southern and eastern parts of the country; Kandahar would probably fall, too which would be the total disaster for the terror war for energy routes. They joke that Al Qaeda could re-establish itself in Afghanistan if they depart, as opposed to being confined as it is now to the mountainous border regions. If Generals McChrystal and Petraeus believe they can successfully defeat al Qaeda in such a vast area from offshore. That is to say, they want to kill all Afghans directly and by inciting violence among the population sections.

Every foreign invader killed enough Afghans for no reasons, and NATO does on fictitious pretexts. Every foreign army that has tried to push into the mountains of Afghanistan has been smashed to pieces; anyone who tries to justify the current mission has a hard time finding any positive examples. Opium production continues, the recent presidential elections were anything but fair and transparent and the fight against the Taliban is claiming an increasing number of civilian lives. Despite all the pledges to the NATO alliance and international responsibility that could be heard in the Bundestag, the unspoken word "exit" hovered in the air.

Now the NATO rogues don’t talk about regime change or democracy and nation building; the fight in Afghanistan is not about nation building or turning a tribal state into Westminster. The stated NATO goal is to provide enough stability to prevent the Afghan country from being ruled by Taliban “terrorists” who could attack the U.S. In short, this is a fight in our strategic interests and therefore, leaving Afghanistan in its current state would be a defeat in the larger war on terror, which would encourage “jihadists” everywhere. So, the NATO continues its anti-Islamic onslaught adding more corpses every day.

More over, the widespread complaints of fraud in the recent Afghan election have raised the question whether the corrupt and ineffective government of President Hamid Karzai is worth defending. The only factor favoring the NATO terror forces to stay on in Afghanistan is not many troops have died in the war when a bout a million defenseless Afghans have been skilled by the illegal western occupiers. There is, however, a growing feeling of reservation in many western countires that have sent their brand state terrirsts to Afghanistan, incldling Germany, about the NATO hidden terror mission, with many people asking: What are we actually doing over there?  Are they digging out democracy from the graveyards of those Muslims killed by the occupying NATO terrorists? 

(Continue...>)

  -----------------------

Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

Specialist on State Terrorism

Independent Researcher in International Affairs, The only Indian to have gone through entire India, a fraud and terror nation in South Asia.