"With words we govern men" – Disraeli

01 November, 2009, 17:05

What I find quite amazing is the inability of the foreign forces in Afghanistan to undertake any serious reasoning of their actions. Eight years into a war you think this wouldhave happened. It has not apart from a few isolatedmutterings from Nato generals which are quickly buried or treated as unpatriotic.To be involved in a war of any kind is by definition "a failure". A failure of diplomatic abilities as well as a failure of moral high ground; even if you are forced into a war. We have not advanced very far at all from Victoria gun boat diplomacy days. Historians essentially ridicule the events leading up to the first world war as if the magnitude of such a diplomatic folly will never happen again. Well actually it is. The folly of the saving and democratization of Afghanistanand the holy war the west is waging on Islam. The CIA, Mosad, Nato etc have been impotent in their ability to capture osama Bin Laden.It has becomea joke. The most powerful and technologically advanced nations cannot find him. One could understand a year or so,possibly 2, but no capture in 8 years? The reason is staring them right in the face. The war is not about technology. It is not Desert Storm played on a flat desert. The reason is also the very reason the USSR pulled out. The Afghan terrain makes it impossible for foreignmilitary victory. What is inevitable is that many more Afghan civilians,nato trops and Taliban will die. I will bet you anything you like that in 10 years nato and everyone else will be gone and the historians will write their academic reports on another foreign intervention disaster in Afghanistan. I will also bet something else. Nowone from Nato command has made a call to The Russian military to get some expert first-hand advice on how to conduct military operations in Afghanistan. Someone might say well The Russians were there years ago under different circumstances. true but this underlines the exact reason why Nato is doomed to fail here. This is a holy war that is fought in terms of decades or centuries. The Soviet time-line is indeed very relevant in the eyes of Afghans.

31 October, 2009, 05:14

In 1947 Palestine was divided not the way you claim.

30 October, 2009, 15:28

Depopulation strategy in the future might be a survival strategy because if a hostile Palestinian population becomes a majority that would have dire effects on Jews and non-Muslim citizens of Israel where Israel would cease to exist as when Muslims become a significant majority over there Christian or other non-Muslim inhabitants usually involves ethnic cleansing of it’s non Muslims inhabitants as an example Kashmir over 300,000 ethnic Indians, Chechnya over 200,000 ethnic Russians, Serbs from Bosnia and over 200,000 Serbs from Kosovo also mention that Hamas was involved in the Jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya against Serbs and Russians claiming decent from SS division in Bosnia during WW2. Also cite killing of Buddhists in Thailand, Christians in Philippines, Han Chinese in Xinjing province, regions in Africa, etc even civil strife between different Muslim groups with civil war in Algeria and Pakistan.

It is extremely hypocritical however for Jewish groups to be spearheading the immigration policy into Europe and the US as well as prominent Jewish figures in the feminist movement and free abortion that has helped change the demographics of Europe and the US.
Also to mention there sponsorship and support along with Zionist Jewish Neocon like Pearle supporting Islamic movements with clear connections to international terrorism across the world other than Palestine most noticeably in the Balkans, Chechnya and Russia’s other regions and Xinjing with the US the only country to recognize it as independent East Turkmenistan

As the late Tom Lantos addressing Nicholas Burns of the State Department said:

"Let me just raise a few items, Mr. Secretary. The first one: just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe. This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States' principles are universal, and in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe."

General Wesley Clark during the bombing of Serbia:

"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.”

30 October, 2009, 07:02

The Palestinian problem cannot be solved. Average Palestinian woman has nine children. No economy in the world is able to support such population growth. In particular the Palestinian economy does not even exist. All Palestinian budget comes from donations and unemployment is over 80%. There are just too many people growing up without education, qualifications and jobs. Their only purpose in life is to create problems for Israel. The Palestinian state has no chance to exist on its own. It can only be a puppet state artificially kept alive.

30 October, 2009, 03:30

They treat Palestinian Prisoners terribly plus those who are charged many times are innocent. They are either tortured or imprisoned until they plead guilty.

29 October, 2009, 08:21

Robert,

Your comment is nonsensical. Everything Fred wrote is spot on. You talk about firing missiles at Oregon, which shows you don't have a grasp of the situation. A more accurate analogy is if you were keeping people locked in the hallway of your apartment building with no food or water (and tortured them on your way home everyday), and then some of these people in the hallway decided to kick in your front door. That is a fitting analogy Robert. Israel is commiting state terrorism, violating numerous U.N . resolutions, and has no moral or legal credibility. Free the Palestinians!

Paul

29 October, 2009, 03:37

u.n. resolution 181 (in 1947) divided Israel into a palestinian state and an israeli state. but then the palestinians and their arab buddies started multiple wars with israel and lost their land. this is on top of the fact that islam didn't start until 500 ad and the jews have been on the land for thousands of years (jesus kicked it there for example). i'd love to come out to oregon and just take your house, or at least lob some rockets into your backyard. and then i'm going to get a bunch of assholes like you to say that you are a war criminal and lots of other bullshit.

28 October, 2009, 22:38

Alexey,

Thank you for highlighting some ongoing acts of barbarism committed by Israel against the Palestinians. I appreciated your piece. In your last paragraph, you stated you do not support the means used by "terrorist organizations" to fight Israel. You rightfully questioned why Israel would carry out such policies, but you labeled Israel a "civilized state" and you referred to the Palestinians organizations that use violence as "terrorist organizations." As George Galloway noted most people around the world consider Israel a terrorist state. Now, let me be clear to you, I condemn all forms of terrorism. But you cannot point the finger at the slave and condemn his violence while calling the slave master civilized. There is nothing civilized about Israeli policy towards Arabs in Israel proper and, certainly not, in the occupied terror ties. How are they civilized? Is it because Israel is a client state of the U.S. and by default it becomes "civilized?" Or do you jest? And this brings me to my central point. You highlighted some of the abuses carried out by Israel, but you did not mentioned one word about Washington funding these atrocities and providing unwavering diplomatic support-- a carte blanche. Remember, during the Reagan administration, Nelson Mandela was on the State Department's official list of terrorists; black South Africans suffered under a U.S. supported apartheid regime. The Palestinians continue to suffer under the foot of a U.S. supported apartheid regime.

You conclude by stating,” Both sides need to peacefully sit down and talk." In order to talk and have serious negotiations, parties to a dispute need a neutral arbiter-- the U.S. is the biggest road block to that peaceful negotiation as it continually rewards Israel for massacres, provides cover for Israel barbarity, and demonizes the Palestinians in its mass media. Washington doesn't seem to blink at the Israeli butchery committed in Gaza and the West Bank-- the billions keep flowing.



Fred.......Oregon, USA.......

24 October, 2009, 16:10

Friends
I agree to John for the reason of external involvement in Afghanistan. Let me tell you, In India we had known some afghanis who were not fundamentalist in thinking and they were very open but in last 30 years all these people have developed fundamentalist thinking. Even some of muslim Indian have become emotionaly attached to their cause and whole Pakistan and part of India is swept in same wave.Pakistan has suffered in form of assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Where these talibanis are getting help from? It is Pakistani civilians who are helping them to fight. Once the external involvement stops automaticaly the help will also stop.

23 October, 2009, 22:19

Arvind, you wrote: "I feel the more external involvement (Russian or American)takes place the more hardline fundamentalist group grows." I totally agree with you on that! But, I am not so sure about this: "If taliban is to be killed it should be left alone , it will collapse of its own.". The Taliban is pro-active and strong (in term of power and finances, because they are aggressive, arrogant, and ruthless) movement and they could keep regular Afghan people bent for a long time and will make sure to preserve those ancient traditions from which they benefit from. Unless Taliban looses it basis ("traditions"), I would be then on the Alexey's side -- we would not see the modern Afghanistan in our lifetime. I am not so sure that Taliban would collapse on its own so quickly. Especially, now. If Americans leave -- Taliban would take all credit for their "defeat" and utilize it to promote itself and take control of the country. Shortly, my point is -- Afghanistan needs external help. From whomever it comes from. And Taliban should be, at least, well contained by superior power -- ideally, of course, by strong Afghan government which is supported by regular people (peasants).

Another thing which I learned in this live -- sometimes you have to force people to do something even if they resist to do so. Because, they may not have vision of the world beyond their own yard. And as such, they may not know what is better for them what is not. I myself, looking back from were I started -- I am terrified by those living conditions which I was in when I was a small kid. But, of course, this is all relative. Because, those conditions were much better then the ones majority of Afghan people have today.

23 October, 2009, 21:54

There a couple of myths that are commonly said when talking about Afghanistan that needs to be clarified.

The Afghan operation to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan in 79 was not just to get them bogged down in Guerrilla warfare but the main objective was to cause Islamic revolutions on the USSR’s then boundary Central Asian states and the Caucasus to control and grab Eurasian oil and gas for future European requirements then under Soviet control called Arc of Crisis by Zbignew Brezinski later expanded on and incorporated into his 97 book The Grand Chessboard.

The Northern Alliance was not a creation of the CIA to fight the Taliban it was a creation of the FSB to fight Taliban forces who the CIA/MI6 and other foreign intelligence created and help come to power in 96 to run a more extensive network of terrorist training camps to train Central Asian terrorist groups to infiltrate and destabilise energy rich Central Asia. running Chechen, Uzbek, Uigher and other Central Asian terror groups as well as oil rich Algeria and transit point for future pipeline into Europe and there own natural resources Kosovo.

Even articles published in the CFR own magazine Foreign Policy admits that the Taliban and the camps they were operating had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and were at odds with Bin Ladins residence there issuing Fatwa’s against the West. Also mentions that there has been no serious intelligence of a single terrorist attack targeted towards the US since 9/11.

That Obama’s staff appointees in foreign policy during the Carter and Clinton administrations have been dealing and cooperating with Islamic militants and the current Afghan operation is to push militants into Central Asia and as I predicted there has been an upswing in Islamic terror attacks in Russia, China and increased activity in Central Asia.
Islamic militants are pulling all it’s resources and putting all it’s focus in Xinjing, China. This is to cut a Kazakh-China oil transit route forcing China to get if cut from Russia and causing a conflict between Russia and China.

Islamic militant activities are located in strategic oil and gas transit route that benefit the US.

23 October, 2009, 15:17

Bogdanov
I feel the more external involvement (Russian or American)takes place the more hardline fundamentalist group grows.
The reason is the people are basicaly tribal and are having deep faith in religion. Anyone coming with guns from different religion is not acceptable to them. As you have already told that soviet failed because supply line to taliban was intact. Let americans know that even now the supply line is intact as border area Pakistanis are with Taliban.
If taliban is to be killed it should be left alone , it will collapse of its own.

23 October, 2009, 06:44

I still say we are attacking the wrong people. Someone said we need to cut off the head of the snake ... but so far, we only attack the tail that keeps growing back. The Afghan/Pakistan people are not doing this and we fail to attack the real cause. By our supporting a corrupt government, we only make matters worse. Initially, the Taliban was composed mainly of Afghan Pashtuns who were backed (financially) by Saudi Arabian adherents of the Wahhabi sect and (logistically and financially) by private and public elements in Pakistan whose madrassas were the breeding and training grounds for its foot soldiers. Now the Taliban has branches in Pakistan and a number of other Muslim countries and the funding it receives has soared to more than $100-million a year. This intolerant and ruthless movement has become the delivery point for radical/fundamentalist Islamists who seek to overturn the existing equilibrium between the world's religions and political systems.

23 October, 2009, 05:51

Again, I would like to comment how well thought the dialogue from all here and how much I like this spot for chat on RT.

To the problem now, I think, does not matter too much how we got into this mess as it is water under the bridge now. The solution, as I see it, is to use the closest means of democracy these people have, call a Loya Jirga. A Loya Jirga is a political meeting usually used to choose new kings, adopt constitutions, or decide important political matters and disputes in Pashtuns areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Lets face it, there is doubt cast on the whole electoral process concerning Hamid Karzai, and the US supported government is so corrupt it makes some of the moderate Taliban look like saints.

I think we need to tap into the people and their ways to resolve this situation ...

22 October, 2009, 14:56

Arvind. This is better. Now we are talking. Yes, I agree with you that the Soviet army was perceived as an aggressor by Afghan people. I never said, that they were not. What I said was that Russians were invited by the Afghan government to help of combating so called mujahideens. In fact, many of them were American trained gorillas and the main purpose of their activity there was to destabilize the country and provoke Russians to enter the war in that region. I noted, also, that, based on the information I have, the Afghan government was not a poppet government and, thus, representing people of Afghanistan. And was friendly with Russia. By the way, talking about agressors and invadors... Any army of any country which crosses the border of other country (especially, with the purpose of killing countrymen) would be considered by people of that country as an aggressor. Irrelevantly of the purpose and cause why that army is in there. Even by being just in transit or being an army of the friendly nation. Soviet government made huge mistake by going with the military force into Afghanistan. And the Soviets paid a dear price for that -- it demoralized Russian population and drained country's resources. Which ended with the collapse of the USSR.

When I think, why Russians would do that (going into Afghanistan), I consider two primary reasons. One -- in the early 70s, based on the country's post-WW2 internal successes and successes in the military campaigns abroad (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, some African countries), the Soviet leaders had some dizziness and became arrogant and detached from the reality. Second -- the Soviet Union successfully suppressed similar "mujahideen" movement in Central Asia at the dawn of the Soviet era and after WW2. The huge difference with Afghanistan, though, was -- those Central Asia regions were Russian territories and Soviet army could do what was necessary to completely eliminate those gangs. And they got support of local people. In Afghanistan, Russians did not have that freedom. And they were aggressors. Though, the pattern was the same -- the " mujahideens" were trained and harbored abroad and periodically crossed the border to torture the local population.

Anyway, Arvind, this was not the topic of our discussion with Alexey. We were not discussed what Russians or Americans should do with Afghanistan. What we discussed -- the future of that country. As external observers. What this country expected to be in some near future. Which way it may choose to go and what its ability for stabilization and transformation. I just, thought, that Alexey's position, that Afghanistan is doomed to be "uncivilized" (unable to adopt the modern lifestyle) for some foreseeable future is wrong. And I tried to explain why I do not agree with him.

22 October, 2009, 13:50

Dear Arvind,

After reading a lot literature on Afghanistan and the Soviet campaign there, I can safely say that most Afghans welcomed the Soviets. In the mid-eighties is when the civil war turned for the worse. Afghans welcomed modern infrastructure and public services such as electricity that worked 24/7, working school and universities. What they didn't like was the Soviet heavy hand in the politics. Basically, Afghan government was a puppet show. This is why the Mujaheddin actually fought at first. I already pointed this out below. This is not my personal opinion, this is what I read and heard many times over from Afghans themselves.

There is no doubt that Afghanistan plays a vital role in planning a transit route. It is a country that important strategically and, if tamed, would open up the region to investments and prosperity unseen before in this country.

You, as an Indian citizen, most likely have animosity towards Western meddling in your affairs. This feeling dates back to the British colonization of India. That's understandable. However, you need to understand that, given the current situation, if the grip is loosened on Afghanistan, the region will erupt in violence. This includes India. You can say that Indian forces are up to the challenge, but although debatable, it does not change the fact that investment in India and the region will drop and development will dwindle.

The point of most of my articles about the current war in Afghanistan is that, regardless of your feelings towards this war, it needs to be finished with Afghanistan stabilized. There is no other option. I do not like US involvement in the region. I am against that. However, what has been started cannot be changed and the job needs to be finished so the blowback effects are minimized with minimal damage.

Best,
Alex

22 October, 2009, 05:39

Bodganov
In late seventies soviet army came to Afghanistan (in your perception to help people). This was perceived as aggression by the people of Afghanistan. The hard line religious group got a reason to excite people on religious lines (of course they had all material support from camp opposing then Soviet Union). The al- Qaida, Taliban and many other hard line terrorist organizations is result of above.
Whole world has suffered because of them be it US, erstwhile USSR, India and now Pakistan.
Again the American wants to install their own way of system in Afghanistan; this would be another reason for hardliners to recruit young people as many young person from war affected zone are available. It appears an unending process.

21 October, 2009, 13:49

Arvind, it would be huge distortion of the reality to equalize Russian (in 1970s) and American (current) involvement in Afghanistan. Even (with the help of propaganda) this may look similar on the surface, these two campaigns have totally different roots, reasoning, and purposes. Russia was friendly with Afghanistan and entered the war because Afghans government (supported by majority of the population) asked for help, while Americans came to Afghanistan as invaders (without any invitation) with the selfish purpose to reconstruct Afghanistan in their own way.

By the way, I do not like guys like you, who cannot differentiate things in this life. Because they are lazy and ignorant. If you have personal experience with related things -- share it. If you do not -- then, at least, do some research using different sources. Analyze what you have found. And then join the discussion. And not just pop up with the nonsense.

20 October, 2009, 17:38

Hi
I am from India. I went through your discussion. It is interesting that Americans and Russian want to change Afganistan in their way. Why do not you people leave afganistan on their own? or you people are interested in trade route of central asia.

20 October, 2009, 17:18

Dear C,
I, too, have friends that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfuly, they all returned unscathed. I am still of the opinion that both Iraq and Afghanistan are wars fought not to defend The United States, but to push through geopoliticalaspirations.If Afghanistan was in the immediate vicinity of United States, I would wholeheartedly agree that the course of action is right. The animosity towards the US from the jihadists initially was because US was meddling in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations, nearly forcing it's ideals onto the people of the Middle East.

It is too late to talk about this now, because there is no turning back. The al Qaeda an the Taliban are too radicalized now and if he pressure lessens on them they will endanger many people. What I am trying to say, though, is that this could have been avoided. It is a mistake that takes root back in the 70's. No one to blame now. The job had to be finished whether or not it is right or wrong will be for histoians to decide.

Best,
Alex

20 October, 2009, 15:41

Alexey. You said: "...imposing ones' own views and governmental structure never brings about the necessary change". This is where I agree with you completely. Because, normally, any country, if left on its own, will end up the the system which fits the best to its currently existing culture. By the way, for this reason alone, NATO will never succeed with installation of the Western type "democracy" in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, for that matter) -- it is too alien for Afghans at this point. And the biggest problem -- it is enforced. Assuming that they [NATO countries] have honorable goals to help Afghan people. Which, of course, is not the case. Because, the real purpose of NATO (read, Americans) presence there -- to destroy Afghanistan and not make it being prosperous country. It "makes sense" -- the more ruined that region, the less chances that it would present a problem for the West. And Afghans know that very well. As so, your assessment that Iran's influence of Afghanistan will be enormous, probably, is correct. Especially, taking in account the political wisdom demonstrated by Iranian leaders. I doubt, though, that they will be brotherly countries. I think, in any outcome, Afghanistan will be country on its own, with its own specific, and not necessarily having close and friendly ties with its neighbors.

The point where I disagree with you -- the speed of change. You said: "Afghanistan is inhabited by people who are slow to adapt to change". And then: "but the general population and the way of life in Afghanistan will be extremely difficult to change". Also: "Most likely, Afghanistan will not become a true representative government within our lifetime". My personal experience in this life shows, though, that it is not so difficult to change the existing culture. The customs exist only because this is the way to provide stable and safe living environment. But, if you demonstrate the alternative culture which provides safe and stable environment, has better quality of life, and you give people a chance to try it themselves practically and voluntarily, then, when they see and realize that it works for them, people themselves, more than willingly, will abandon their habits and culture which existed for centuries. Say, bring electricity and water to the houses, give them more information of any kind and access to public institutions (libraries, clubs, theaters,...), produce the automobiles or public transportation which are affordable for most of the families, and the most importantly, show the better perspectives for their children -- educate them, create new jobs... I guarantee you, that in such situation we would be able to see the dramatic changes even during our lifetime. I was a witness of such transformation in the Soviet Kazakhstan in the mid-70s. Just in one decade the place where I grew up went from the slow-pace moving environment full of ancient traditions to something complete different and modern. But, surely, you need some external help to speedup the course of your history. It is impossible to do so, if you live in the closed system. Important thing here -- those external forces should have sincere desire to help you. And not following their selfish and evil agenda like NATO countries do.

19 October, 2009, 21:51

I was too rash to say "never will" - I give you that. Nevertheless, imposing ones' own views and governmental structure never brings about the necessary change. Afghanistan is inhabited by people who are slow to adapt to change. The changes that you have mentioned did not come over night or within a time frame of a single generation. Most likely, Afghanistan will not become a true representative government within our lifetime. That's my personal opinion. It may develop a structure similar to Iran, with a ruling secular leader or a group of leaders at the helm and a constitutional government. However, Muslims will not be in favor of separating church and state. It is a Western ideal that is extremely difficult to implement in Afghanistan. Taliban have to be dealt with, but the general population and the way of life in Afghanistan will be extremely difficult to change.

By the way, most Afghans enjoyed having Soviets in their country because they had infrastructure, electricity 24/7, and running water and sewers. The opposition simply did not like being a puppet (the Mujaheddin). Those who worked in the Afghan government said they did not like being "advised" by the Soviets. Meaning that they simply wanted to run their country as they saw fit, not as someone else told them. When, in the mid-1980's Arab mercenaries began to appear in Afghanistan, the purpose of the war against the Soviets became different. The native Afghans were forced to fight for the Arabs' political agenda because they assured a flow of necessary resources.

All in all, it is a similar picture with the U.S. This is a lesson that they have not learned. It is not the fighting techniques or the weapons that you use that will win Afghanistan. It is through words and specific actions aimed at improving the lives of the ordinary Afghan that will win the battle against the Taliban.

Best,
Alex

19 October, 2009, 21:36

Dear Alexey,

I realize that you are more intelligent to say such a careless
comment like: Although it is the fault of the US for getting
into Afghanistan in the first place. The US invaded Afghanistan
because the country's radical Islamic Taliban government was
giving safe haven to terrorist groups. I have fellow friends
who have died in this war (great men who have fought bravely)
and I believe that they are there to protect us from another terrorist
attack from happening. So tell me please, what did Russia do after
the apartment bombings in September 1999? Did Russia attack
the people who were responsible too? I see a double standard
here. It’s fine if Russia takes action, but it is not fine when the
United States does. We have a right to protect our citizens too.

19 October, 2009, 16:39

Thank you, Alexey, for your response. It slightly clarifies your view, but still... By the way, I like your blog, because you use dialog with your readers. I think, this is very good idea.

So, you may be right that Afghans "never had publically elected officials to represent them in the bigger state-wide government". Officially. It does not mean, though, that (informally) the government is not representative. Because, once it is supported by majority of the population, then it is.

But, lets compare it with the "representative" government, say, in the US, the country, which excises such voting system. Lets take latest (2008) Presidential Election in the States and do some simple and approximate math. Obama had 69,456,897 votes. With the total population of the country (roughly) 305,000,000 it gives only about 23% of the Americans. The question is -- would you consider Obama being a representative leader? Formally, no.

From the other hand, I looked at this information on Wikipedia: "Once in power, the PDPA[ People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan] implemented a liberal and socialist agenda. It moved to replace religious and traditional laws with secular and Marxist ones. Men were obliged to cut their beards, women couldn't wear a burqa, and mosques were placed off limits. It carried out an ambitious land reform, waiving farmers' debts countrywide and banning usury. The government also made a number of decrees on women’s rights, banning forced marriages, giving state recognition of women’s right to vote, and introducing women to political life... The majority of people in the cities including Kabul either welcomed or were ambivalent to these policies". Isn't it sound better of what Western countries are trying to accomplish there today? I mean their final goals. Yet, they (Americans) were the killers of those democratic reforms supported by many Afghans.

Now, back to your torture (:-)). My major problem with your statement is that your said that they [Afghans] "never will". Why? You said that "The culture of Afghanistan and the chosen religion are deeply rooted in the minds of the Afghans". But, if you look at the history of this country, you would notice how many changes it went through. Including religion. From Buddhism to Communism. So, Afghanistan is pretty dynamic and flexible country. By the way, it happened that I grew up in the region with the similar culture. While, of course, I was not an eye witness of how the Soviet culture was established there, but, I tell you that Russian movie "Beloye Solntse Pustyni" very well captured the spirit of such cultures and its transformation. There are traditions and there are local radicals who terrorizes poor peasants and enforces those "traditions". In Central Asia they were called "Basmachi". The Afghan equivalent, I believe, -- Taliban. They are selfish parasites. And they must be eliminated. Without sorry.

So, Alexey, I disagree with you, that Afghans have to chance to become a socially advanced country again. They just need to free themselves from the American and British neo-colonialism.

19 October, 2009, 13:46

Dear Bogdanov,

What I mean by that is Afghanistan has never had a representative government such as one envisioned by the Western leades trying to achieve such a goal in that country. They never had publically elected officials to represent them in the bigger state-wide government. The culture of Afghanistan and the chosen religion are deeply rooted in the minds of the Afghans and that conflicts with the way Western-style representative government works.

Dear Fred,

I would appreciate if you read the text again to understand that I simply point out the fact that CNN and BBC, as the most influential news agencies in their respespective parts of the world (whether you like it or not) are great indicators of shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. Regardless of the fact, when I research my articles I use many sources in order to get a clear picture. I do not trust just one source. I use Der Spiegel, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, BBC, CNN, AP, Lenta.ru, RBC, RT, RIA, and many others. That assures an independant opinion about and analysis that utilizes numerous points of view.

Best,
Alex

19 October, 2009, 05:12

Using CNN and BBC as an introductory reference in one's article just reveals something about the writer.. After CNN and BBC's coverage of the Georgian crisis filled with distortions and out right lies, no "true" journalist would give credence to these channels except for personal gain.

fred......Oregon, USA

17 October, 2009, 19:50

"Afghanistan has never been a representative state and never will be". Alexey, what do you mean by that? In which sense? I am little bit shocked by this statement.