It is beginning to look as if Pakistan isn't playing a double game at all, but is wholly on the side of the jihad, while the American money continues to pour in. "Pakistan and Iran 'backing Afghan attacks on British troops,'" by James Kirkup in the Telegraph, July 1 (thanks to Block Ness):
Bomb attacks that are killing British troops in Afghanistan are being funded and supplied from Iran and Pakistan, a senior officer has said.Major General Gordon Messenger also revealed that Taliban insurgents are altering their tactics to launch more long-range sniper attacks on Nato forces.
A total of 309 British personnel have died in Afghanistan sine [sic] 2001. Many have been killed by improvised explosive devices, bombs planted along roads and pathways[.]
The general, the spokesman for Britain's mission in Afghanistan, said that UK forces and Afghan civilians now face an "unprecedented threat" from such devices.Maj Gen Messenger told reporters in London that British military intelligence has found "evidence" that some of the IED attacks are being supported from outside Afghanistan.
"We are looking beyond Afghanistan in terms of the provision of some of the more sophisticated components and the provision of finance," he said. "There is evidence that something is coming in from Iran, something is coming in from Pakistan."
Some reports have suggested that military chiefs and intelligence agencies in both Pakistan and Iran are supporting the Taliban....
War is deceit. Time to cut off the jizya.
Both these evil axers nations know that they can drop all charades of helping the USA against their idealogical bretherens, the taliban and al qaeda. Perhaps one of the bama changes is to the Bush policy of "If you are not with us, you are against us". Now thye know that when push comes to shova the Bama will stand with the muslims. To some of us here this is no way a surprise.
Iran sure are busy lil' bees ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ahmadinejad: Iran and Syria will create a new world order
Report: Syria President Assad urges Washington to play a stronger role in Mideast peacemaking.
By News Agencies and Haaretz Service / July 1, 2010
Tags: Iran Syria Israel news Iran and Syria plan to create a new world order, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday.
"Iran and Syria have a joint mission to create a new world order on the basis of justice, humanity and belief in God," Ahmadinejad told visiting Syrian Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash.
Syria is Iran's main ally in the Middle East and both countries consider Israel to be their political arch-foe.
"At the current juncture, the role of Iran and Syria is historic and therefore bilateral cooperation should be increased," Mehr news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
Excerpt:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/ahmadinejad-iran-and-syria-will-create-a-new-world-order-1.260993
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Iran and Pakistan -- Iran and Russia -- Iran and Syria
The list just keeps getting longer and longer ...
It reminds me of the Austrian sniper rifles supplied to Iran and popping up in Iraq within a few weeks.
http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2007/02/austrian_sniper_rifles_from_ir.html
I suppose the Iranians said "inshallah", shrugged and didn´t bother to hide their triumphant grins.
Why should the Pakis be any different? We are talking about one of the most hysterically over the top islamic countries. They are WORTHLESS as allies. Never to be trusted, busier than anyone hiding their infidel past.
Nota Bene:
In Pakistan the Shi'a, who constitute only 20% of the population, are subject to repeated attacks by Sunni groups, such as Sipah-e-Sahaba, that target Shi'a mosques, Shi'a schools, Shi'a professionals (doctors, engineers, lawyers). These attacks are seldom punished.
But Sunni-ruled Pakistan and Shi'a-ruled Iran can make common cause against the Infidels.
And the Americans who have spent so much money in a vain attempt to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds do not realize that every bit of aid they offer will be pocketed, without gratitude, and every concession on battlefield tactics they offer, will be accepted, without even a hint of grateful recognition or even understanding (though if any civilians should be hit, all hell toward the Infidel Americans will break lose, because -- this is what the Americans refuse to believe -- those who are not members of the Taliban or of Al Qaeda are still not our friends, still are not to be trusted, still are inculcated with deep and permanent hostility to us, because they are Muslims and we are Infidels), should take note.
Sunnis may want to kill Shi'a and Shi'a to kill Sunnis. But when both can help kill an even greater enemy, the non-Muslim, they will be happy to reinforce one another, to have their efforts overlap.
The Shi'a in Iran are not alarmed about helping those who if they could would kill Shi'a in Pakistan (or Shi'a Hazara in Afghanistan). They have a bigger goal right now: helping others kill Americans.
Can General Petraeus take that in, and make sense of it, even if it doesn't fit with all that talk about the "laws of insurgency" that made him, and some of his mediagenic colonels such as the seconded strine Col. Kilcullen, in retrospect look foolish (or as they looked, at the time, to at least one commentator at this website).
We'll see.
For a non western perspective on AFG
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2930
I clicked on the link given in the post just above, and among the comments from 2007 found this:
"It's ridiculous to call Hekmatyar or any fundamentalist a CIA asset. All the fundie players were ISI assets, and CIA hardly had any access except via ISI.
And since when is LeT [Lashkar-e-Toiba] defunct? They're still killing plenty of people.
Hah, as if Taliban will ever abandon AlQaeda. We all know the promises won't be worth the paper they're written on. Mushy can't seriously pit his own army against Taliban or hope to defeat them.
The real test of wills will be proven by whether or not the US dares to reduce aid to Pakistan. If the US can't even do that, then they've no chance at all of effecting any change in Pakistani support for Taliban."
Stop paying the Jizyah.....close the bank....
Re the jizya to Afghanistan, at least.
I saw this in our Aussie ABC news.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/01/2942384.htm?section=justin
'US blocks $4 billion in Afghanistan aid'.
'A United States House of Representatives committee has voted to block more than $US4 billion ($4.8 billion) worth of aid to Afghanistan until the Karzai government roots out corruption.
'The move comes amid reports of corrupt politicians moving huge amounts of foreign aid out of the country.
'The chairwoman of the committee in charge of the budget, Nita Lowey, has described the corruption allegations as "outrageous".
'The allegations were made in a Washington Post newspaper report that claimed government insiders were shipping billions of dollars of donations out of Afghanistan in cash-filled suitcases. {And if the Afghan Muslims are doing that, we all know that the Pakistanis are doubtless doing the same, and the Iraqis, and every other Muslim entity upon whom Infidel 'aid'/ 'jizya' is lavished...dda}.
'Ms Lowey said **she would not release "one more dime" for assistance to Afghanistan until she was confident that taxpayers' money was not being used to line the pockets of corrupt officials, drug lords and terrorists** {my emphasis -dda}.
"Too many Americans are suffering in this economy for us to put their hard-earned tax dollars into the hands of criminals overseas," she said.
"We will not commit billions more in taxpayer money for Afghanistan until there are assurances that such funds will be used for their intended purposes and that the government of Afghanistan is willing and able to root out corruption within its ranks."
source: BBC/ AFP. END.
OF course, we here all know that Muslim promises to Infidels, those 'assurances' and empty protestations of 'willingness' to 'root out corruption', are worth exactly nothing.
Ms Lowey would be better to state plainly that the money stops unless and until there is clear proof, garnered by beady-eyed independent non-Muslim investigators, of a real and lasting decline in corruption; the nice twist being that to set such a condition, would mean in essence stopping, from this point onward and into the foreseeable future, all 'aid' to all Muslim countries, not just to Afghanistan; for corruption, nepotism, fraud, graft and grift of every description are the natural and normal condition of all Muslim countries, and continue to be, so long as said countries continue to be Muslim.
One of my favourite online articles.
http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2006/04/life-in-iraq-part-ii-civilization-of.html
Friday April 28, 2006: Life in Iraq Part II, A Civilisation of Deception. Posted on The Autonomist web-site.
We seem committed to thinking in a linear way regardless of how poor the results. I'd do things a little differently. If, for example, someone attacked me, I wouldn't necessarily attack him in kind: I might attack some of his friends and colleagues, telling those left that I wouldn't have done so if X hadn't attacked me first. They might ask what my attack on third parties has to do with anything. I might suggest that if the third parties remaining don't want to be attacked again because of X's behaviour, they might attend to it or face random attacks till they do.
I might not be able to get to X, but there's a good chance I can get to some of his friends, and they can get to him if they care to.
Not fair? Well, I don't really care about such things.
Its simple: Pakistan is a nation of ungrateful people. How the US and UK will deal with it, who knows. I prefer a black mamba over Pakistan.
I think we worry too much about such issues - the fix is already in.
As we can all see from this news of July 1 :
(see http://tribune.com.pk/story/24967/pakistan-receives-fresh-grant-worth-710m/) - $710M of jiziya has just been delivered to Pakistani banks.
[KARACHI: The State Bank on Thursday said that Pakistan has received fresh foreign aid worth $710 million from three different sources.
The SBP said Pakistan received $470 million from the Asian Development Bank and $175 million from the World Bank. A grant of $65 million was also received from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)]
So, we're all ok till about the time, the next jiziya payment comes due.
Till then, the Pakis will focus on killing various minority muslim groups or better still non-muslims. Alas, not too many non-muslims left in Pakistan any more, so the ahmediyas and shias will have to do, as jihad-targets.
/sarc off
But that is exactly what ordinarily happens in wartime. One attacks not just those particular soldiers who have attacked you, but the entire enemy, attempting to demoralize that enemy so that it gives up. Why did we bomb Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, even in daylight raids, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? Why should the interests of Islam, of Muslims, be treated as exempt from being targets when it is those who act according to what Islam inculcates, and in the name of Islam, who attack us, and do so, nota bene, awith the economic, diplomatic, propaganda, and "moral" support of a great many other Muslims, who function as did many of the German and Japanese who were not in the miiitary but supported their countries' respective war efforts.
If Muslims are taught that the division of the universe that counts is that between Muslim and Infidel, and that a state of permanent war, if not always of open warfare, must exist between the two, and if furthermore they are taught that they have a duty to push back the borders of Dar al-Islam until it contains the whole world, and that they must engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, why should we not, in the war of self-defense that has been thrust upon us, and in which many instruments of Jihad besides the most obvious -- qitaal (combat) and terrorism -- are employed, do what we can to limit the power of the Camp of Islam?
And this can best be done not by invading Muslim countries (though monitoring of what weapons they possess, and what training camps for terrorist groups they may offer, is perfectly appropriate, to be followed when necessary by repeated, but intermittent, attacks on those weapons or weapons projects, and those training camps), but by dividing and demoralizing the enemy, starting with the theme of Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism, that might find an echo among the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arab.
There's plenty that could be done.
But it requires the will, and the intelligence, to do so. How many of those who presume to protect and instruct us are themselves well-prepared? And how many are merely parroting an anodyne party line?
Pakistan is worse than worthless. A worthless entity won't help you, but it won't come in the way of your objectives either. Pakistan actively hurts the interests of the free world, including the US.
Pakistan stands between the free world and a decisive defeat to terrorism. It is able to do so, because India and US were foolish to allow it to acquire nuclear weapons.
Sanjay
There's no reciprocity between the Modern world and that of Islam, and that's the way most on either side seem to like it, ignoring all the realities of consequences arising from frustrated needs unmet due to this manufactured tension between jihadis rampant and dhimmi governments prone. I mean that the jihadis are learning a lesson that has no legitimate or realistic basis, i.e. that the Western world will allow jihadi/Muslim outrages with impunity, thereby emboldening the jihadis and furthering their outrages against us; but there is a limit that Modernist individuals, if not even so much as a sizeable minority, will endure in the face of this manufactured and illusory Modernist "sensitivity" toward the Muslim Other. They are learning from our passivity a false lesson, which encourages them to act further, and in turn, creates worsening dhimmitude and vilification of our own by our own.
Jihadis are not learning the lessons of power that should be obvious to those who are essentially powerless in the Modern world, lessons which will impact them and those innocent, as it were, camp-followers of Islam: that there is a limit beyond which the native Modernist will abandon the Order and act independently of it, throwing himself, themselves, into the disorder of non-state action, much as do the privateers of Islam. Thus, I find myself often writing that we mustn't worry about being as bad as they are from fear of becoming like them, we must be far worse than they. But such likely won't happen so long as our governments are ruled by those Voegelin terms "gnostics," those Sowell terms the "anointed," until social conditions are so corrupt between rulers and ruled in the West that our people and our states are outright enemies in serious conflict, not with jihad, but with each other.
We are living in a world of great physical power available to the average modern man, such as myself, by way of example, and when one finds oneself abandoned and even vilified for ones citizenship by ones own nation, (n.b. Obama-Holder and the New Black Panther Party v. civilian voters,) then one might find it outrageous to the point that one takes up arms independently of the Order and the gnostic utopians-- a priori distant from reality-- to clash with the jihad outside the bounds of the Order itself. They can do it; we can do it; and they having done so, continuing to do so, to wage war against us while our gnostic rulers vilify the citizenry, there is a point at which the average man, however few in actual number, might, with all the available power one can muster from a hardware store, for example, freelance. This alienation from our nations affections is a dire thing for most, but natural among men. For some few, privacy in conflict is attractive, and needs only some reason, which is well-made in our benighted time. But the gnostic is unwilling and probably by constitution incapable of conceiving of such men as those few, and thus it must create them as some kind of natural by-product of this utopianism. The average jihadi can create massive destruction with material at hand; and so too can his outraged counter-part, which the former seems not to fear, for good reason to date, and which the gnostic rulership seems not to be able to comprehend the possibility of other than in the abstract of fantastic language games, i.e. in condemning opponents to gnostic utopianism as "racists" and so on. But the average man has resources beyond the ken of the average social talker.
This leads me to the Blackwater corp., comprising ex-service members continuing their careers as private security, and some outside the bounds of legitimate security companies working as aggressive actors, i.e. as mercenaries outright. These are legal and legitimate actors funded by the State. War is again "privatized." However, that is only one step, a step always calling for another.
Not everyone is capable of meeting the requirements of such professional security members as Blackwater requires. Some who might be suitable are not inclined for personal reasons but might still be interested in working in the private security sector against the jihad we all face. It is those latter I think who might well see the betrayal of our delusional gnostic rulers as sufficient cause to privatize themselves in this conflict. There is no reciprocity between our nations and our agreements among ourselves regarding the rules and conduct of war against the jihad; and obviously the jihadis do not share our sentimental concerns at all. Both cases would lead to an intolerable tension were it merely left at that; but worse, our States act against the citizen in favour of the jihad. Intemperate individuals might, forgoing such legitimacy as provided by commercial security commpanies, find themselves free to act in their own best interests, taking into account normal prudence, against jihad in the world at large.
Jihadis do not respect our rules, seeing them as weakness on our part; and our fantasizing elitists turn on the citizenry who object to this ever-worsening dhimmitude; but this is a real world of men, some of whom will find it to their immediate advantage to act independently of the State if the state itself is in collusion with jihad, if only as an act of appeasement. When there are no rules for others, there simply are no rules but prudence. That's a lesson that our opponents should know intuitively, but they don't seem smart enough to get it.
There are four immutable laws of the universe...
1. Everything comes from somewhere...Jiza from US...
2. Everything has to go somewhere...Pakistani pockets...
3. There's no such thing as a free lunch...There is if you are a Pakistan power guy...
4. The obvious gets more obvious the more obvious it gets...Yes it does, doesn't it...
""There is evidence that something is coming in from Iran..."
like those IED's with improved shaped charges stamped "Made in Iran" , such as those being found in Iraq....
MacWalker,
Good writing. I fully agree. So did Dr. John Locke I think.
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other."
John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist.