Category: Afghanistan

  • Islamabad,

    Amir Khan Muttaqi Acting Foreign Minister of Afghanistan’s has arrived Pakistan on a three-day visit, News channel reported.

    According to the report, a high-level delegation of the Taliban-led Afghan government also accompanied Muttaqi.

    During visit, acting foreign minister will hold meeting with Prime Minister Imran Khan, his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, and other Pakistani government officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

    The Afghan delegation will also take part in the Troika Plus meet on Afghanistan which is set to start on Thursday, November 11. Special representatives from China, the Russian Federation, the United States and Pakistan will also participate to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.

    Pakistan has still not recognized the caretaker setup in Afghanistan. Earlier, FM Qureshi, visit to Kabul, had told the media that he invited Mutaqqi to attend the Troika Plus meet.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Afghanistan, a country gripped by misery, tyranny and an uncertain future, is having moments of joy and pride, thanks to the men’s national cricket team, reports Yasmeen Afghan.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Nearly as suspenseful as the Taliban’s meteoric return to power after the final withdrawal of American armed forces from Afghanistan is the uncertainty over what will come next amid the fallout. Many have predicted that Russia and China will step in to fill the power vacuum and convince the facelift Taliban to negotiate a power-sharing agreement in exchange for political and economic support, while others fear a descent into civil war is inevitable. Although Moscow and Beijing potentially stand to gain from the humiliating U.S. retreat by pushing for an inclusive government in Kabul, the rebranded Pashtun-based group must first be removed as a designated terrorist organization. Neither wants to see Afghanistan worsen as a hotbed of jihad, as Islamist separatism already previously plagued Russia in the Caucasus and China is still in the midst of an ongoing ethnic conflict in Xinjiang with Uyghur Muslim secessionists and the Al Qaeda-linked Turkestan Islamic Party. At this point everyone recognizes the more serious extremist threat lies not with the Taliban but the emergence of ISIS Khorasan or ISIS-K, the Islamic State affiliate blamed for several recent terror attacks including the August 26th bombings at Hamid Karzai International Airport in the Afghan capital which killed 13 American servicemembers and more than a 100 Afghans during the U.S. drawdown.

    Three days later, American commanders ordered a retaliatory drone strike targeting a vehicle which they claimed was en route to detonate a suicide bomb at the same Kabul airport. For several days, the Pentagon falsely maintained that the aerial assault successfully took out two ISIS-K militants and a servile corporate media parroted these assertions unquestioningly, including concocting a totally fictitious report that the blast consisted of “secondary explosions” from devices already inside the car intended for use in an act of terror. Two weeks later, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) was forced to apologize and admit the strike was indeed a “tragic mistake” which errantly killed ten innocent civilians — all of whom were members of a single family including seven children — while no Daesh members were among the dead. This distortion circulated in collusion between the endless war machine and the media is perhaps only eclipsed by the alleged Russian-Taliban bounty program story in its deceitfulness.

    If any Americans were aware of ISIS-K prior to the botched Kabul airstrike, they likely recall when former U.S. President Donald Trump authorized the unprecedented use of a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, informally referred to as the “Mother Of All Bombs”, on Islamic State militants in Nangarhar Province back in 2017. Reportedly, Biden’s predecessor had to be shown photos from the 1970s of Afghan girls wearing miniskirts by his National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, to renege on his campaign pledge of ending the longest war in U.S. history. As it happens, the ISIS Khorasan fighters extinguished by the MOAB were sheltered at an underground tunnel complex near the Pakistani border that was built by the C.I.A. back in the 1980s during the Afghan-Soviet war. Alas, the irony of this detail was completely lost on mainstream media whose proclivity to treat Pentagon newspeak as gospel has been characteristic of not only the last twenty years of U.S. occupation but four decades of American involvement in Afghanistan since Operation Cyclone, the covert Central Intelligence Agency plan to arm and fund the mujahideen, was launched in 1979.

    Frank Wisner, the C.I.A. official who established Operation Mockingbird, the agency’s extensive clandestine program to infiltrate the news media for propaganda purposes during the Cold War, referred to the press as it’s “Mighty Wurlitzer”, or a musical instrument played to manipulate public opinion. Langley’s recruitment of assets within the fourth estate was one of many illicit activities by the national security apparatus divulged in the limited hangout of the Church Committee during the 1970s, along with C.I.A. complicity in coups, assassinations, illegal surveillance, and drug-induced brainwashing of unwitting citizens. At bottom, it wasn’t just the minds of human guinea pigs that ‘The Company’ sought to control but the news coverage consumed by Americans as well. In his testimony before a congressional select committee, Director of Central Intelligence William Colby openly acknowledged the use of spooks in journalism, as seen in the award-winning documentary Inside the C.I.A.: On Company Business (1980). Unfortunately, the breadth of the secret project and its vetting of journalists wasn’t fully revealed until an article by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame appeared in Rolling Stone magazine, whereas the series of official investigations only ended up salvaging the deep state by presenting such wrongdoings as rogue “abuses” rather than an intrinsic part of espionage in carrying out U.S. foreign policy.

    The corrupt institution of Western media also punishes anyone within its ranks who dares to swim against the current. The husband and wife duo of Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, authors of a new memoir which illuminates the real story of Afghanistan, were two such journalists who learned just how the sausage is made in the nation’s capital with the connivance of the yellow press. Both veterans of the peace movement, Paul and Liz were initially among those who naively believed that America’s humiliation in Vietnam and the well-publicized hearings which discredited the intelligence community might lead to a sea change in Washington with the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976. In hindsight, there was actually good reason for optimism regarding the prospect for world peace in light of the arms reduction treaties and talks between the U.S. and Moscow during the Nixon and Ford administrations, a silver lining to Henry Kissinger’s ‘realist’ doctrine of statecraft. However, any glimmer of hope in easing strained relations between the West and the Soviet Union was short-lived, as the few voices of reason inside the Beltway presuming good faith on the part of Moscow toward détente and nuclear proliferation were soon challenged by a new bellicose faction of D.C. think tank ghouls who argued that diplomacy jeopardized America’s strategic position and that the USSR sought global dominion.

    Since intelligence assessments inconveniently contradicted the claims of Soviet aspirations for strategic superiority, C.I.A. Director George H.W. Bush consulted the purported expertise of a competitive group of intellectual warmongers known as ‘Team B’ which featured many of the same names later synonymous with the neoconservative movement, including Richard Pipes, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Bush, Sr. had replaced the aforementioned Bill Colby following the notorious “Halloween Massacre” firings in the Gerald Ford White House, a political shakeup which also included Kissinger’s ouster as National Security Advisor and the promotion of a young Donald Rumsfeld to Secretary of Defense with his pupil, one Richard B. Cheney, named Chief of Staff. This proto-neocon soft coup allowed Team B and its manipulated estimates of the Soviet nuclear arsenal to undermine the ongoing Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) between Washington and the Kremlin until Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev finally signed a second comprehensive non-proliferation treaty in June 1979.

    The behind-the-scenes split within the foreign policy establishment over which dogma would set external policymaking continued wrestling for power before the unipolarity of Team B prevailed thanks to the machinations of Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. If intel appraisals of Moscow’s intentions and military capabilities didn’t match the Team B thesis, the Polish-American strategist devised a scheme to lure the USSR into a trap in Afghanistan to give the appearance of Soviet expansionism in order to convince Carter to withdraw from SALT II the following year and sabotage rapprochement. By the time it surfaced that the C.I.A. was supplying weapons to Islamist insurgents in the Central Asian country, the official narrative dispensed by Washington was that it was aiding the Afghan people fight back against an “invasion” by the Red Army. Ironically, this was the justification for a proxy conflict which resulted in the deaths of at least 2 million civilians and eventually collapsed the socialist government in Kabul, setting off a bloody civil war and the emergence of the Taliban.

    Even so, it was the media which helped manage the perception that the C.I.A.’s covert war began only after the Soviets had intervened. Meanwhile, the few honest reporters who tried to unveil the truth about what was happening were silenced and relegated to the periphery. Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould were the first two American journalists permitted entry into the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1981 by the Moscow-friendly government since Western correspondents had been barred from the country. What they witnessed firsthand on the ground could not have contrasted more sharply from the accepted tale of freedom fighters resisting a communist “occupation” disseminated by propaganda rags. Instead, what they discovered was an army of feudal tribesman and fanatical jihadists who blew up schools and doused women with acid as they waged a holy war against an autonomous, albeit flawed, progressive government in Kabul enacting land reforms and providing education for girls. In addition, they learned the Soviet military presence was being deliberately exaggerated by major outlets who either outright censored or selectively edited their exclusive accounts, beginning with CBS Evening News and later ABC’s Nightline.

    Not long after the Taliban established an Islamic emirate for the first time in the late 1990s, Brzezinski himself would shamelessly boast that Operation Cyclone had actually started in mid-1979 nearly six months prior to the deployment of Soviet troops later that year. Fresh off the publication of his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, the Russophobic Warsaw-native told the French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998:

    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the National Security Advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujaheddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?

    B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

    B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    B: What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

    If this stunning admission straight from the horse’s mouth is too candid to believe, Fitzgerald and Gould obtain confirmation of Brzezinski’s Machiavellian confession from one of their own skeptics. Never mind that Moscow’s help had been requested by the legitimate Afghan government to defend itself against the U.S. dirty war, a harbinger of the Syrian conflict more than three decades later when Damascus appealed to Russia in 2015 for military aid to combat Western-backed “rebel” groups. Paul and Liz also uncover C.I.A. fingerprints all over the suspicious February 1979 assassination of Adolph Dubs, the American Ambassador to Afghanistan, whose negotiation attempts may have inadvertently thrown a wrench into Brzezinski’s ploy to draw the USSR into a quagmire. Spurring Carter to give his foreign policy tutor the green light to finance the Islamist proxies, the timely kidnapping and murder of the U.S. diplomat at a Kabul hotel would be pinned on the KGB and the rest was history. The journo couple even go as far as to imply the branch of Western intelligence likely responsible for his murder was an agent from the Safari Club, an unofficial network between the security services of a select group of European and Middle Eastern countries which carried out covert operations during the Cold War across several continents with ties to the worldwide drug trade and Brzezinski.

    Although he was considered to be of the ‘realist’ school of international relations like Kissinger, Brzezinski’s plot to engineer a Russian equivalent of Vietnam in Afghanistan increased the clout of neoconservatism in Washington, a persuasion that would later reach its peak of influence in the George W. Bush administration. In retrospect, the need for a massive military buildup to achieve Pax Americana promoted by the war hawks in Team B was a precursor to the influential “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” manifesto by the Project for the New American Century cabal preceding 9/11 and the ensuing U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Fitzgerald and Gould also historically trace the ideological roots of neoconservatism to its intellectual foundations in the American Trotskyist movement during the 1930s. If a deviated branch of Marxism seems like an unlikely origin source for the right-wing interventionist foreign policy of the Bush administration, its basis is not as unexpected as it may appear. In fact, one of the main reasons behind the division between the Fourth International and the Comintern was over the national question, since Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution” called for expansion to impose global revolution unlike Stalin’s “socialism in one country” position which respected the sovereignty and self-determination of nation states while still giving support to national liberation movements.

    The authors conclude by highlighting how the military overhaul successfully championed by the neoconservatives marked the beginning of the end for U.S. infrastructure maintenance as well. With public attention currently focused on the pending Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to repair decaying industry at home just as the disastrous Afghan pullout has put President Joe Biden’s favorability at an all-time low, Fitzgerald and Gould truly connect all the dots between the decline of America as a superpower with Brzezinski and Team B. Even recent statements by Jimmy Carter himself were tantamount when he spoke with Trump about China’s economic success which he attributed to Beijing’s lack of wasteful spending on military adventures, an incredible irony given the groundwork for the defense budget escalation begun under Ronald Reagan was laid by Carter’s own foreign policy. Looking back, the spousal team note that the ex-Georgia governor did not need much coaxing after all to betray his promises as a candidate, considering his rise to the presidency was facilitated by his membership alongside Brzezinski in the Trilateral Commission, an elite Rockefeller-funded think tank. What is certain is that Paul and Liz have written an indispensable book that gives a level of insight into the Afghan story only attainable from their four decades of scholarly work on the subject. The Valediction: Three Nights of Desmond is now available from Trine Day Press and the timing of its release could not offer better context to recent world events.

    The post A New Memoir Reveals How Brzezinski’s Chessboard Led to US Being Checkmated in Afghanistan first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • RNZ News

    In just a few weeks the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated sharply as millions cope without desperately needed international aid, New Zealand journalist Charlotte Bellis says.

    Bellis is Al Jazeera’s senior producer in Afghanistan and reported on the turmoil in August as the Taliban took over the government and thousands of people tried to flee.

    She has dealt with Taliban leaders for a long time, and has sensed a change in their attitudes since they first ruled the country before being toppled 20 years ago.

    She had to leave the country in mid-September because the network feared for her safety and Bellis noted on Twitter that the Taliban were detaining and beating journalists trying to cover protests.

    Now she has returned and told RNZ Sunday Morning that she was not worried about her safety.

    “The situation here is pretty dire and there are a lot of stories still to be told and I feel invested in what’s happening here and I also just love the country. It’s a beautiful place to be with amazing people and I genuinely like being here.”

    However, the country is facing an uncertain future with its population suffering more than ever now that international aid has been cut off.

    UN warns of humanitarian crisis
    This week the United Nations warned that Afghanistan is becoming the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and Bellis agrees.

    “The Taliban took over about two months ago and I just can’t believe how quickly everything has deteriorated.

    “People cannot find food, there’s no money, they can’t pay for things, employers can’t pay their workers because there’s no cash, they can’t get money out even from the ATMs.”

    Millions of jobs have disappeared, half of the population does not know where their next meal is coming from and already children are dying from malnutrition, Bellis said.

    All the aid agencies are appealing to the world to listen.

    23 million need urgent help
    She is about to go out with the UN Refugee Agency whose teams are organising some aid distribution as the temperatures drop to 2 degC overnight as winter approaches. They are handing out blankets, food and some cash to thousands of the needy in camps in Kabul.

    “But it’s such a Band-Aid. There is no way they can reach the number of people they need to reach — it’s  like 23 million people who need that kind of assistance,” she said.

    Neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran were very concerned, in part because they fear a huge influx of refugees. They have closed the borders to try and keep them away.

    The process of getting money and food into people’s hands had broken down, she said, with a lot of it due to United States sanctions.

    Three quarters of the country ran on foreign donations before the Taliban took over and that has dried up because no countries are recognising the Taliban’s legitimacy to govern.

    Bellis has spoken to one senior Taliban official who said that at recent meetings between the Taliban and the US in Doha the Americans would not tell the Taliban what policies they needed to enact to unfreeze billions of dollars in funding.

    “They [the Americans] are playing with millions of people’s lives.”

    School problem for girls
    She believes some Taliban leaders are pragmatic and would be willing to agree to high school girls being educated but are worried they will alienate their conservative base.

    In the main, primary school age girls are able to attend their lessons but the problem is at secondary school level.

    “If you’re a high school girl in Kabul it’s awful – sitting around thinking how did this happen. It’s really frustrating and really frustrating for everyone to watch and say this doesn’t make sense.”

    Taliban Badri 313 fighter
    An elite Taliban Badri 313 fighter guarding Kabul airport … facing threats from ISIS-K. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR

    Bellis said while she feels safe at the moment, the main problem is the terrorist group, ISIS-K, who have made threats against the hotel where she is staying.

    The Taliban have said they will protect guests and have placed dozens of extra guards outside.

    ISIS-K is believed to only number between 1200 and 1500 yet they are a potent force with their random attacks, such as beheading members of the Taliban, whom they hate.

    She believes the Taliban’s biggest worry is that ISIS will appeal to its most fundamentalist members.

    ISIS attracting recruits
    ISIS is also believed to be trying to attract recruits who would be trained as fighters and be paid $400 a month which is a substantial amount of money in Afghanistan.

    Bellis said she feels guilty staying at a hotel with the scale of poverty and deprivation she is witnessing.

    “Right outside the door people are desperate,” she said.

    She visited a major maternity hospital in Kabul yesterday and the only medication available for women giving birth was paracetamol.

    “Imagine going into labour and thinking, OK if anything goes wrong I’ve got paracetamol. It’s just life and death on so many levels.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Web desk,

    Pakistan cricket team will move closer to a semi-final of ICC T20 World Cup 2021, it takes on Afghanistan in a Group 2 Super 12 game at Dubai International Stadium on Friday and match will start at 7:00 pm. Afghans won the toss and choose to bat first.

    Shaheens were in full form and has an impressive fast-bowling cast that can blow away the less experienced Afghanistan batters. Afghans give a target of 148 on the loss of 6 wickets.

    Afghanistan have their mystery spinners, against Pakistan’s batting line but line is in-form with opening pair of captain Babar Azam and Mohammad Rizwan. Experienced Shoaib Malik came to the pitch to chase but did not contained the wicket, and finally Asif Ali, becomes a reliable finisher.

    At one point after the loss of 3rd wicket Pakistan cricket lovers becomes nervous but skipper Asif Ali played well and hits 3 sixers one after another in the 19th over and become a finisher.

    Pakistan has so far played 3 matches in super 12 T20 Worldcup 2021, winning all of them and on the top of Group with scoring 6 points.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Sustained impunity in Afghanistan a concern as attacks against journalists rise

    New York, October 28, 2021 – Over the past decade, 226 of the 278 journalists killed in a nexus of corruption, organized crime, extremist groups, and government retaliation, have been murdered with impunity, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 2021 Impunity Index, published today. The annual Index spotlights countries where journalists are murdered and their killers go free.

    “When justice is subject to corruption and political power feuds, these forces silence journalists and the critical stories they tell,” said Gypsy Guillén Kaiser, CPJ’s advocacy and communications director. “It is imperative that authorities fully investigate these crimes and stop censorship by murder. This task cannot be left to the families, colleagues, and civil society groups tirelessly seeking justice.”

    The Index shows little change from 2020, with Somalia remaining the worst country for impunity in journalist killings for the seventh year. It is followed by Syria, Iraq, and South Sudan. Illustrating the sustained lack of accountability, seven of the countries on the list have appeared every year. In 81% of all cases in the Index, CPJ recorded complete impunity.

    In countries like Mexico, which has consistently remained the deadliest country for journalists in the Western Hemisphere, there have been some key convictions in the cases of journalists Javier Valdez Cárdenas and Miroslava Breach Velducea. However, attacks have continued unabated, with at least three killed thus far in 2021, a chilling sign of how murder can stifle the press freedom environment.

    While the Index reflects some of the most dangerous countries for journalists, it doesn’t include the full scope of threats to press freedom, from imprisonment to surveillance, to physical attacks. For example, Afghanistan’s spot on the Index did not change, yet its vibrant media landscape has been decimated since the Taliban took control of the country during the U.S. withdrawal. As Afghanistan’s judicial system collapses, the prospect of justice for the 17 journalists killed in the last 10 years moves further out of reach.

    CPJ remains steadfast in its commitment to securing justice for journalists and ensuring family and colleagues get the answers they deserve. In an important step, CPJ and partners, as part of A Safer World For The Truth, will host a Permanent People’s Tribunal to hold governments accountable for the murder of journalists, delivering indictments to Mexico, Sri Lanka, and Syria. The opening hearing is November 2, coinciding with the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists. Learn more and RSVP here.

    CPJ’s Global Impunity Index calculates the number of unsolved journalist murders as a percentage of population. The 2021 Index examines journalist murders that occurred between September 1, 2011, and August 31, 2021. Only those nations with five or more unsolved cases are included on the index. Read about our methodology.

    Note for Editors:

    Find the report “Killers of journalists still get away with murder: CPJ’s 2021 Global Impunity Index,” and information on CPJ’s Global Campaign against Impunity on our website. Translations are available in Arabic, Dari, English, French, Hindi, PashtoPortuguese, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Turkish, and Urdu. To arrange an interview with a CPJ expert, email press@cpj.org.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In an Orwellian twist, Kabul’s famous Intercontinental Hotel was the venue for an awards ceremony on October 18 for the families of suicide bombers who managed to successfully explode their vests, reports Yasmeen Afghan.

  • File photo taken on 5 February 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell holds up a vial that he said was the size that could be used to hold anthrax as he addresses the UN Security Council in New York. (Photo by Timothy A. Clary / AFP)

    The pro-Apartheid Israel former African-American military commander, mass murderer and genocidal liar, Colin Powell, has just died. Mendacious, racist and pro-war Western Monopoly media and politicians have been fulsome in their praise for the first Black US Secretary of State, white-washing his deadly lies over non-existent Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and ignoring the millions dying in the Powell-complicit Vietnamese, Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian Genocides.

    By way of a posthumous International Criminal Court (ICC) war crimes prosecution brief, summarized below are the horrendous human consequences of Colin Powell’s evil role over 40 years in deadly US state terrorism atrocities from the Vietnam War to the ongoing Palestinian Genocide by nuclear terrorist Apartheid Israel (dates and Indigenous deaths from violence and war-imposed deprivation are given in brackets):

    (1). Powell lying and white-washing of the Vietnamese Genocide (1955-1975; 11.9 million deaths).

    (2). Powell lying and the illegal invasion of Panama (1989; 3,000 deaths).

    (3). Powell lying, the Gulf War and mass murder of Iraqi children by Sanctions (1990-2003; 1.9 million deaths).

    (4). Powell lying, America’s 9/11 false flag atrocity and the War on Terror (2001 onwards; 34 million deaths).

    (5). Powell lying and the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (2001-2021; 6.7 million deaths).

    (6). Powell lying and the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq (2003-2011; 2.7 million deaths).

    (7). Powell lying, the Apartheid Israel-linked Iran-Contra scandal, Opiate Holocaust and the ongoing deadly Sanctions against Iran (post-1979, 4 million Iranian deaths; post-2001, 5.8 million global opiate deaths).

    (8). Powell lying and the ongoing Palestinian Genocide by Apartheid Israel (1914 onwards; 2.2 million deaths).

    (9). Powell lying, General Smedley Butler’s truths, and the Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust (post-1950; 1,500 million avoidable deaths from imposed deprivation).

    (10). Critics of mendacious mass murderer Powell (post-1950 US Asian wars; 40 million deaths).

    (11). Egregiously dishonest Mainstream praise for serial war criminal, mass murderer, liar and child-killer Powell that soils and endangers America and the World (lying, inaction and Climate Genocide may cause 10 billion deaths this century).

    (12). Powell, post-WW2 German CAAAA (C4A; Cessation, Acknowledgement, Apology, Amends, and Assertion of “never again”), and the need for de-Nazification of America and its Western allies.

    For details see Gideon Polya, “Vietnamese, Afghan & Iraqi Genocides: Mainstream media ignore war crimes of Colin Powell,” Countercurrents.

    The post Racist Western Monopoly Media Ignore Colin Powell’s Horrendous War Crimes first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    The US government is reportedly close to securing a deal with Pakistan that will ensure its ability to continue military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan, the nation where the Biden administration proudly “ended” a decades-long war.

    “The Biden administration has told lawmakers that the US is nearing a formalized agreement with Pakistan for use of its airspace to conduct military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan, according to three sources familiar with the details of a classified briefing with members of Congress that took place on Friday morning,” reads a new report from CNN.

    “The briefing comes as the White House is still trying to ensure that it can carry out counterterrorism operations against ISIS-K and other adversaries in Afghanistan now that there is no longer a US presence on the ground for the first time in two decades after the NATO withdrawal from the country,” the report reads.

    So as has been obvious for months the US empire will still be retaining military control over a key geostrategic region adjacent to Iran and China, will still be enriching the military-industrial complex by raining explosives upon human beings on Afghan soil, and will still be continuing George W Bush’s “war on terror” scam. It just won’t come with the bad cosmetics of maintaining a ground troop presence.

    After all the Biden administration’s proud self-fellating fanfare for “ending” this war, it turns out it was nothing more than a slight formatting adjustment.

    Cool withdrawal, bro.

    As we discussed after Biden took office, this is the modern model of US warfare; a de-emphasis on Bush-era Hulk Smash ground invasions in favor of drone warfare, missile strikes, starvation sanctions, proxy wars, staged coups, special ops, and cold war maneuverings. Constant footage of flag-draped coffins coming home during Bush’s wars caused a PR nightmare for the empire from which it still hasn’t fully recovered, but technological and strategic advancements has made such bad publicity largely a thing of the past. Troops deployed overseas are now far more likely to die by their own hand than by combat.

    The goal of the empire is to be able to topple governments and dominate the globe without incurring a negative perception among the inhabitants of the US and its client states. It has been doing this with a combination of (A) shifting to more “light touch” interventionism which doesn’t garner as much negative attention as full-scale ground invasions and (B) a global perception management campaign of historically unprecedented scale and sophistication.

    Ideally the imperialists want to be able to dominate the planet with economic sanctions and the occasional strategic drone strike combined with mass-scale psychological manipulation. It is not a coincidence that nations where they are unable to do these things at will are the nations we are most aggressively propagandized against.

    The empire isn’t getting less tyrannical, it’s just getting better at public relations. The need for critical thinking and alternative perspectives has never been higher.

    ____________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Human Rights Watch has logged illegal seizures of land and homes then given to Taliban supporters

    Thousands of people have been forced from their homes and land by Taliban officials in the north and south of Afghanistan, in what amounted to collective punishment, illegal under international law, Human Rights Watch has warned.

    Many of the evictions targeted members of the Shia Hazara community, while others were of people connected to the former Afghan government. Land and homes seized this way have often been redistributed to Taliban supporters, HRW said.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  •  

    As US troops finally made their exit from Afghanistan after 20 years of occupation, the Sunday shows—which have always aimed to set Washington agendas—were filled with guests who had direct ties to the military/industrial complex.

    FAIR analyzed three weeks of ABC‘s This Week, CBS‘s Face the Nation, CNN‘s State of the Union, Fox News Sunday and NBC‘s Meet the Press during the Afghanistan withdrawal (8/15/21, 8/22/21, 8/29/21). We recorded 36 featured guest appearances and 33 roundtable participant appearances. Those who appeared on more than one show were counted every time they appeared; there were 24 unique featured guests and 32 unique panelists.

    Of the 24 unique featured guests, only two were not from the US: Roya Rahmani, the former ambassador to the US from Afghanistan, and Yasmeen Hassan, the Pakistani director of the NGO Equality Now. The two were interviewed jointly in one CNN segment (8/29/21)—the only segment in the study to center on the situation of Afghan women.

    MIC ties

    HR McMaster, Meet the Press

    Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster (Meet the Press, 8/29/21): “We surrendered to a jihadist organization and assumed that there would be no consequences for that.”

    Twenty of the 22 unique featured guests from the United States had ties to the military/industrial complex. These MIC associates accounted for 28 of US guests’ 34 appearances. They included 13 appearances by elected officials who are recipients of military industry PAC money, 12 appearances by current or former government officials who serve or have served as consultants or advisors to the military industry, and eight appearances by former members of the military. (Some guests had multiple ties.)

    The two exceptions were National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who appeared five times, and career diplomat and former ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker (CBS, 8/22/21). Even these exceptions didn’t stray far from the MIC orbit: Crocker was cozy enough to the military to be named an honorary Marine in 2012, and Sullivan was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a somewhat misleadingly named think tank that regularly takes five- and six-figure donations from various tentacles of the military/industrial complex.

    No elected officials without military/industrial complex ties were invited on to discuss the situation in Afghanistan in the three weeks studied. Nor were any scholars, activists or civil society leaders aside from Hassan.

    Though roundtable panelists are predominantly journalists, one—Council on Foreign Relations fellow Gayle Tzemach Lemmon—also had MIC ties.

    Skewed against withdrawal

    Liz Cheney on This Week

    Rep. Liz Cheney (This Week, 8/15/21): “Everybody who has been saying, ‘America needs to withdraw, America needs to retreat,’ we are getting a devastating, catastrophic, real-time lesson in what that means.” Cheney took $104,500 from military industry PACs in the 2020 election cycle.

    The arguments expressed in these Afghanistan segments skewed against withdrawal, despite the fact that a majority of the public has consistently supported withdrawal. In a Quinnipiac poll (9/10–13/21), respondents supported Biden’s decision to withdraw, 54% to 41%; Monmouth (9/9–13/21) found 63% in support of withdrawal “regardless of how it was handled” versus only 27% opposed. When offered the option of approving of withdrawal while disapproving of Biden’s handling of it, an ABC/Washington Post poll (8/29/21–9/1/21) found a total of 78% in favor of withdrawal.

    The format of the Sunday shows for the three weeks studied typically featured a Biden administration guest questioned about Afghanistan as the headliner, followed by a Republican guest offering a counterpoint. Featured guests on other topics (often the Covid pandemic) sometimes followed, wrapped up with a roundtable of three or four panelists analyzing the week’s news. (CBS and CNN did not have roundtables.)

    Hosts tended to ask questions of the administration guests that predominantly—sometimes exclusively—concerned the process of withdrawal, rather than the wisdom of it. For instance, in four of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s seven appearances, and three of National Security Adviser Sullivan’s five appearances, they were only asked process questions, and made no statements in support of the decision to withdraw.

    Lindsey Graham, Face the Nation

    Sen. Lindsey Graham: (Face the Nation, 8/29/21): “You cannot break ISIS’s will through drone attacks. You’ve got to have people on the ground hitting these people day in and day out.” Graham took $256,700 from military industry PACs in the 2020 election cycle.

    But the Republicans brought on to offer “balance”—such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Ben Sasse and Rep. Liz Cheney—were frequently introduced as opponents of withdrawal, not just critics of the process, and given ample opportunity to discuss that opposition.

    As a result, the shows tilted toward anti-withdrawal voices. Of the 16 appearances by featured guests with Democratic affiliations, only eight voiced support for withdrawal; of the 17 appearances by Republicans, 11 expressed opposition to withdrawal itself, not just how it was handled. (One opposition voice, Crocker, served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and was therefore counted in both groups.)

    Three other pro-Trump Republicans—Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo and Rep. Steve Scalise—expressed support for the general idea of withdrawal, but opposition to Biden’s withdrawal. Haley argued: “President Trump very much wanted to see soldiers come out of Afghanistan. So it’s not about soldiers coming out.” But she also argued that Biden should have kept troops in under the circumstances: “This was a complete and total surrender and an embarrassing failure…. The Biden administration needs to go back and extend that August 31 deadline.”

    Of the roundtable panelists, 11 presented arguments opposed to withdrawal, while  seven presented arguments in favor; 15 did not voice an argument on either side.

    Pro-occupation journalists

    Peter Baker on Meet the Press

    New York Times‘ Peter Baker (Meet the Press, 8/15/21; with Washington Post‘s Anne Gearan): “It’s a dark day for America…. And it’s a dark day, especially, for the Afghan people.”

    Many of those panelists offering pro-war arguments were—perhaps unsurprisingly to regular FAIR readers (1/31/19, 8/24/21)—journalists. New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker (NBC, 8/15/21) parroted talking points popular among Republican guests:

    There’s a relatively minor investment of national resources in the last few years, right?….

    In one day, we’ll have six times as many people die of Covid in America as we’ve had combat casualties in five years. So we were not actually sustaining a big war effort. Very few troops there in the scheme of things. Much less than we have in South Korea, much less than we have in Germany, for an outsized impact, right? We’ve had a stable, if not very satisfying, situation in Afghanistan. I think Anne [Gearan, Washington Post White House correspondent] is right. The conclusion is we can’t make it better. But we now see in the last few days, we can make it worse….

    And it’s a dark day. It’s a dark day for America. It’s going to be the end of a 20-year experiment, 20 years of epic failure. And it’s a dark day, especially, for the Afghan people, 38 million people who are now going to be returned to the tender mercies of the Taliban.

    This Week Jonathan Karl

    ABC‘s Jonathan Karl (This Week, 8/29/21): “Now the big question is, does Afghanistan once again become a safe haven for terrorist attacks on US interests around the world or at home?”

    ABC reporter Jonathan Karl offered this analysis as a panelist on ABC‘s This Week (8/29/21):

    Now the big question is, does Afghanistan once again become a safe haven for terrorist attacks on US interests around the world or at home?… You know, maybe part of the reason why Afghanistan had not been such, is that it was a military presence in Afghanistan. But now we will have this over-the-horizon capability, but the bottom line is the terror threat has increased, and our ability to combat it has decreased….

    President Biden has portrayed this as, he has two choices. Basically, go back in, be in the middle of a revived civil war. Send in more troops, or leave as quickly as possible. Those were, I think, not the two choices, and the bottom line is that the intelligence that he was receiving, and the advice from his military, was not on the dangers of staying a little while longer. It was on the dangers of leaving too quickly.

    Helene Cooper, Meet the Press

    New York Times correspondent Helene Cooper (Meet the Press, 8/22/21): “For 20 years, Joe Biden has believed that he knew more about Afghanistan, and he was the only realistic skeptic in a roomful of people who had pipe dreams.”

    Similarly, New York Times Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper argued on NBC‘s Meet the Press (8/22/21):

    The one thing that I feel like this whole conversation on Afghanistan constantly doesn’t reckon with is what some people in the military would call the original sin. And that is the decision that President Biden made that withdrawing 3,500 troops from Afghanistan, rejecting the advice of his Defense secretary and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to leave 3,000 to 4,500 people there, was not going to lead to the insane chaos that we are seeing now….

    What I find so interesting about all this is for 20 years, Joe Biden has believed that he knew more about Afghanistan, and he was the only realistic skeptic in a roomful of people who had pipe dreams about this…. That’s exactly the problem, because he came in and he was not going to listen. He believed the Pentagon had rolled a successive number of administrations for 20 years. And he was going to stand up to them.

    Such trust in the military for policy decisions, not just tactical ones, extended to questions from Sunday hosts, as when NBC‘s Chuck Todd (8/22/21) pressed the National Security Council’s Sullivan:

    So you followed the military advice on closing Bagram. But the same military advisers were telling you to keep a force on the ground. They told you not to pursue this withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, correct?

    Parity: partisan, not gender

    The Sunday shows clearly made an effort to prioritize partisan parity: 17 guests were Republican elected officials or were affiliated with Republican administrations, while 16 guests had similar Democratic affiliations. (Four guests had no partisan affiliations.) The panels had a similar breakdown, with five having Republican affiliations and four tied to Democrats.

    The programs showed no similar concern for gender parity among their interview guests. Of the 36 featured guest appearances, only six were women. Fox featured no women as guests in the three-week study period, and no outlet had more than two. The roundtable guests were essentially balanced by gender, with 17 women and 16 men.

    Chris Wallace and Anthony Blinken, Fox News Sunday

    Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday, 8/22/21) to Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “Joe Biden…has made a pretty cold calculation that, for instance, the plight of Afghan women…is not a matter of national security.”

    While they made no efforts for gender parity among interview guests, women did appear frequently as talking points against the withdrawal (FAIR.org, 8/23/21). Fox News‘ Chris Wallace (8/22/21)—one of the network’s few remaining journalists to not wear their partisanship on their sleeve—offered his frank assessment of Biden’s choice:

    It seems to me that we learned a lot about Joe Biden this week. That for all of the talk about his empathy, that, in fact, he has made a pretty cold calculation that, for instance, the plight of Afghan women—and there’s every reason to believe their lives are going to get a lot worse now with the Taliban in charge—is not a matter of national security.

    ABC‘s Karl (8/15/21), in a question to Blinken, likewise emphasized Afghan girls:

    So what does all this mean for America’s image in the world, and for what President Biden has spoken so forcefully about, the need to fight on behalf of democracy and democratic values? To see us leaving, and an extremist group coming in and taking power that wants to close down the right of girls to go to school, that is executing surrendering soldiers, that is anything but representative of those democratic values that President Biden has said that the United States must stand for.

    CNN (8/29/21), however, was the only outlet to actually feature an Afghan woman as an interview guest.

    Featured Sunday Show Guests on Afghanistan (8/15–29/21)

    Name Title Party Appearances Military/Industrial Complex Ties
    Antony Blinken Secretary of State D 7 Founded WestExec, consulting firm with military industry clients. Former partner in Pine Island, military industry–centered investment group.
    Jake Sullivan National Security Advisor D 5 Senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which receives funding from multiple MIC members*
    Ben Sasse Senator, Nebraska R 2 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Liz Cheney Representative, Wyoming R 2 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Adam Kinzinger Representative, IIllinois R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs; former military
    Chris Murphy Senator, Connecticut D 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    H.R. McMaster Former National Security Advisor R 1 Former board, Atlantic Council, funded by multiple MIC members; former military
    Jariko Denman Former Army Ranger 1 Former military
    Joni Ernst Senator, Iowa R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs; former military
    Larry Hogan Governor, Maryland R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Lindsey Graham Senator, South Carolina R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Lloyd Austin Secretary of Defense D 1 Former board member, Raytheon; former partner in Pine Island, military industry–centered investment group; former military
    Michael McCaul Representative, Texas R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Mike Mullen Former Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff D 1 Partner at Pine Island, military industry–centered investment group; former board member at General Motors; former military.
    Mike Pompeo Former Secretary of State R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Mitch McConnell Senator, Kentucky R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Mitt Romney Senator, Utah R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Nikki Haley Former UN Ambassador R 1 Former board member, Boeing
    Peter Meijer Representative, Michigan R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs; former military
    Ryan Crocker Former Ambassador to Afghanistan D/R 1 Honorary Marine*
    Steve Scalise Representative, Louisiana R 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs
    Roya Rahmani Former Afghan Ambassador to US 1
    Seth Moulton Representative, Massachusetts D 1 Campaign funding from MIC PACs; former military
    Yasmeen Hassan Executive Director, Equality Now 1

    * Not counted in statistics as a military/industrial complex tie.


    Research assistance: Dorothy Poucher, Jasmine Watson, Adam Weintraub

    The post Afghanistan Withdrawal: Sundays With the Military Industrial Complex appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • The only way to save Afghanistan is solidarity of the progressive, democratic and secular forces, writes Malalai Joya.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • On October 8, a terrible blast struck the worshippers attending Friday noon prayers at the Gozar-e-Sayed Abad Mosque in the Khan Abad district of Bandar, the capital of Kunduz, one of Afghanistan’s largest cities in its northern belt. This is a mosque frequented by Shia Muslims, who were referred to as “our compatriots” by Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid. Forty-six people died immediately in the blast, and local officials said that many more people were injured in the incident.

    The post Afghanistan Tackles The Islamic State appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • War and conflict rarely benefit the lives of ordinary people. Indeed, the very nature of war is destructive. In the case of Afghanistan, once the US war and occupation ended, any delusive stability or vitality in the nation’s economy collapsed too.

    The post Washington Demands Acquiescence In Afghanistan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is facing another extradition hearing on 27-28 October. The US authorities are appealing an earlier ruling that Assange should not be extradited to the US on health and safety grounds.

    Now the US and its allies are to be put on ‘trial’ by a tribunal. They are accused of committing atrocities, for example in Iraq, and of torture at Guantánamo Bay. While the tribunal possesses no legal powers, it’s intention is to set the record straight and demonstrate that Assange is not the criminal here.

    The tribunal – referred to as the Belmarsh Tribunal, after the prison where Assange continues to be held – will commence proceedings on 22 October.  There are 20 members of the tribunal, including:

    • Historian Tariq Ali
    • Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
    • Former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa
    • Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg
    • Former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon
    • Award-winning film maker Ken Loach
    • Hellenic parliament member Yanis Varoufakis.
    What it’s all about

    Via a press release, Tariq Ali explains the tribunal’s origins:

    The Tribunal takes inspiration from the Sartre-Russell Tribunal, of which I was also a member. In 1966, Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre issued a call for a War Crimes Tribunal to try the United States for crimes against humanity in their conduct of the war in Vietnam. A number of us were sent to North Vietnam to observe and record the attacks on civilians. I spent six weeks under the bombs, an experience that shaped the rest of my life.

    “The tribunal convened in Stockholm in 1967. The jury members included Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Isaac Deutscher, Vladimir Dedijer, Mahmud Ali Kasuri, and David Dellinger, among others. The aim was not legal but moral: to bring the crimes to the notice of the public.

    “In London on 22 October 2021, we will do the same. Assange must be freed and the many crimes of the War on Terror placed centre stage.”

    Jeremy Corbyn says it’s all about accountability:

    Wikileaks exposed crimes of US empire in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. At the Belmarsh Tribunal, we will turn the world the right way up, placing crimes of war, torture, kidnapping and a litany of other gross human rights abuses on trial.

    The perpetrators of these crimes walk free, often still prominent public figures in the US, U.K. and elsewhere. They should be held accountable for the lives they destroyed and the futures they stole.

    To understand why the imprisonment of Assange is a travesty of justice, it’s important to appreciate some of the many crimes, including war crimes, exposed by WikiLeaks.

    War crimes

    As reported on by The Canary, during one of Assange’s extradition hearings Reprieve human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith provided details of some of the war crimes committed by the US.

    In a March 2019 article, the Canary’s John McEvoy reported that “according to a highly sensitive 2006 UK military report into Iraq, UK and US war planning “ran counter to potential Geneva Convention obligations””. He added how a “US cable from April 2009 [published by WikiLeaks] shows UK business secretary Peter Mandelson “pushing British oil and other corporate interests in Iraq””. A “2009 cable also reveals that the government of former PM Gordon Brown “put measures in place to protect [US] interests” during the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq”. Another “US cable also shows how the US and UK governments “rigged the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stop it being able to hold [Tony] Blair and [George W.] Bush accountable for the crime of aggression over Iraq””.

    In 2018, journalist Mark Curtis reported that a WikiLeaks published cable revealed that former foreign secretary David Miliband helped “the US to sidestep a ban on cluster bombs and keep the weapons at US bases on UK soil, despite Britain signing the international treaty banning the weapons the previous year”.

    More allegations

    In 2016, The Canary reported on several allegations of US war crimes based on testimony given by whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

    Another article in The Canary referred to a cable published by WikiLeaks that “suggested that the US had intended to convince Spanish officials to interfere with the National Court’s judicial independence”. This was in connection with an allegation “that the [six US officials] accused conspired with criminal intent to construct a legal framework to permit interrogation techniques and detentions in violation of international law”. The cable shows that the US secretly pressurised the Spanish government to ensure no prosecutions took place.

    The Canary also reported on allegations of a cover-up relating to hundreds of UK war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. These included UK involvement in the use of torture centres in both countries. One such centre was Camp Nama where it’s alleged:

    British soldiers and airmen helped operate a secretive US detention facility in Baghdad that was at the centre of some of the most serious human rights abuses to occur in Iraq after the invasion. Many of the detainees were brought there by snatch squads formed from Special Air Service and Special Boat Service squadrons.

    Britain was also implicated in the extraordinary rendition (kidnapping and imprisonment) of detainees.

    Underestimating deaths

    As for the number of Iraqis killed during the war, The Canary reported on figures far higher than the official estimates.

    According to journalist Nafeez Ahmed:

    the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

    Ahmed added that the overall figures of fatalities from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s – from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation – constituted:

    around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the ‘war on terror’), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

    Back to front

    The prosecution of Assange is arguably political. Indeed, journalist John McEvoy points out how mass media has responded to recent news of a plot to kill Assange with “ghoulish indifference”.

    UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has commented how Assange has been “systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed”. In other words, the Belmarsh Tribunal will at the very least help remind us that it’s the perpetrators of war crimes who should be prosecuted – not the person who helped reveal those crimes.

    As such, Assange should be released forthwith.

    Featured image via Veterans for Peace / Wikimedia Commons

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Since the Taliban took control of Kabul and Afghanistan’s central government on August 15, efforts to support Afghan women have become extremely challenging. According to some prominent US feminists with strong ties to Afghan women, the Taliban “has no legitimacy beyond the brutal force it commands,” and governments, the United Nations, and regional actors should not recognize or work with it.

    The post How Feminists Can Support Afghan Women Living Under The Taliban appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Australian Federation of Islamic Councils says event due to feature two senior Taliban representatives was not intended to ‘legitimise any group’

    The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (Afic) has cancelled its planned online forum that was due to include two senior Taliban representatives, after it faced heavy criticism from within the Muslim and Afghan communities.

    “I genuinely thought it was a joke,” said Mariam Veiszadeh, a lawyer and community rights advocate from the Afghan-Australian community.

    Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Ministers from Muslim-majority nations to travel to Kabul to discuss women and girls schooling ban

    Foreign ministers from several Muslim-majority countries are planning to go to Kabul in part to urge the Taliban to recognise that the exclusion of women and girls from education is a distortion of the Islamic faith.

    The proposal has the support of western diplomats who recognise that calls from them concerning universal values are going to have less traction with the Taliban than if the call comes from leaders of largely Islamic states.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • US and Taliban delegations met in Qatar’s capital Doha on October 9-10, the first such meeting since the political developments of August when the latter took over the country. Following the meeting, the US has reportedly agreed to provide “humanitarian assistance” to Afghanistan. However, the foreign ministry in Afghanistan said that such assistance “should not be linked to political issues.”

    The post US And Taliban Delegations Meet In Doha appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Language is politics and politics is power. This is why the misuse of language is particularly disturbing, especially when the innocent and vulnerable pay the price.

    The wars in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern, Asian and African countries in recent years have resulted in one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes, arguably unseen since World War II. Instead of developing a unified global strategy that places the welfare of the refugees of these conflicts as a top priority, many countries ignored them altogether, blamed them for their own misery and, at times, treated them as if they were criminals and outlaws.

    But this is not always the case. At the start of the Syrian war, support for Syrian refugees was considered a moral calling, championed by countries across the world, from the Middle East to Europe and even beyond. Though often rhetoric was not matched by action, helping the refugees was seen, theoretically, as a political stance against the Syrian government.

    Back then, Afghans did not factor in the Western political discourse on refugees. In fact, they were rarely seen as refugees. Why? Because, until August 15 – when the Taliban entered the capital, Kabul – most of those fleeing Afghanistan were seen according to a different classification: migrants, illegal immigrants, illegal aliens, and so on. Worse, at times they were depicted as parasites taking advantage of international sympathy for refugees, in general, and Syrians, in particular.

    The lesson here is that Afghans fleeing their war-torn and US-occupied country were of little political use to their potential host countries. As soon as Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, and the US, along with its NATO allies, were forced to leave the country, the language immediately shifted, because then, the refugees served a political purpose.

    For example, Italian Interior Minister Luciana Lamorgese was one of the first to advocate the need for European support for Afghan refugees. She told a ‘European Union forum on the protection of Afghans’, on October 8, that Italy will work with its allies to ensure fleeing Afghans can reach Italy via third countries.

    The hypocrisy here is palpable. Italy, like other European countries, has done its utmost to block refugees from arriving at its shores. Its policies have included the prevention of refugee boats stranded in the Mediterranean Sea from reaching Italian territorial waters; the funding and the establishment of refugee camps in Libya – often depicted as ‘concentration camps’ – to host refugees who are ‘caught’ trying to escape to Europe; and, finally, the prosecution of Italian humanitarian workers and even elected officials who dared lend a hand to refugees.

    The latest victim of the Italian authorities’ campaign to crack down on refugees and asylum-seekers was Domenico Lucano, the former mayor of Riace in the Southern Italian region of Calabria, who was sentenced by the Italian Court of Locri to over 13 years in prison for “irregularities in managing asylum seekers”. The verdict also included a fine of €500,000 to pay back funds received from the EU and the Italian government.

    What are these “irregularities”?

    “Many migrants in Riace have obtained municipal jobs while Lucano was Mayor. Abandoned buildings in the area had been restored with European funds to provide housing for immigrants,” Euronews reported.

    The decision was particularly pleasing to the far-right Lega Party. Lega’s head, Matteo Salvini, was the Interior Minister of Italy from 2018-19. During his time in office, many had conveniently blamed him for Italy’s outrageous anti-immigrants’ policy. Naturally, the news of Lucano’s sentencing was welcomed by Lega and Salvini.

    However, only rhetoric has changed since Italy’s new Interior Minister, Lamorgese, has taken office. True, the anti-refugee language was far less populist and certainly less racist – especially if compared to Salvini’s offensive language of the past. The unfriendly policies towards the refugees remained in effect.

    It matters little to desperate refugees crossing to Europe in their thousands whether Italy’s policies are shaped by Lamorgese or Salvini. What matters to them is their ability to reach safer shores. Sadly, many of them do not.

    A disturbing report issued by the European Commission, on September 30, showed the staggering impact of Europe’s political hostility towards refugees. More than 20,000 migrants have died by drowning while attempting to cross the Mediterranean on their way to Europe.

    “Since the beginning of 2021, a total of 1,369 migrants have died in the Mediterranean”, the report also indicated. In fact, many of those died during the West-championed international frenzy to ‘save’ the Afghans from the Taliban.

    Since Afghan refugees represent a sizable portion of worldwide refugees, especially those attempting to cross to Europe, it is safe to assume that many of those who have perished in the Mediterranean were also Afghans. But why is Europe welcoming some Afghans while allowing others to die?

    Political language is not coined at random. There is a reason why we call those fleeing in search for safety ‘refugees’, or ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘illegal aliens’, ‘undocumented’, ‘dissidents’, and so on. In fact, the last term, ‘dissidents’, is the most political of all. In the US, for example, Cubans fleeing their country are almost always political ‘dissidents’, as the phrase itself represents a direct indictment of the Cuban Communist government. Haitians, on the other hand, are not political ‘dissidents’. They are hardly ‘refugees’, as they are often portrayed as ‘illegal aliens’.

    This kind of language is used in the media and by politicians as a matter of course. The same fleeing refugee could change status more than once over the duration of his escape. Syrians were once welcomed in their thousands. Now, they are perceived to be political burdens to their host countries. Afghans are valued or devalued, depending on who is in charge of the country. Those fleeing or escaping the US occupation were rarely welcomed; those escaping the Taliban rule are perceived as heroes, needing solidarity.

    However, while we are busy manipulating language, there are thousands who are stranded at sea and hundreds of thousands languishing in refugee camps worldwide. They are only welcomed if they serve as political capital. Otherwise, they remain a ‘problem’ to be dealt with – violently, if necessary.

    The post Heroes or Parasites: Europe’s Self-serving Politics on Refugees first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ramzy Baroud.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Taliban are hunting down women’s rights activists in Kabul. Yasmeen Afghan files this account of one such activist who is now underground.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • A view of a Kabul suburb

    Afghanistan’s humanitarian situation is spiraling into catastrophe.

    Millions of Afghans are now facing severe economic stress and food insecurity in the wake of the Taliban’s August takeover, set off by widespread lost income, cash shortages, and rising food costs. Officials with the UN and several foreign governments are warning of an economic collapse and risks of worsening acute malnutrition and outright famine.

    Surveys by the World Food Program (WFP) reveal over nine in ten Afghan families have insufficient food for daily consumption, half stating they have run out of food at least once in the last two weeks. One in three Afghans is already acutely hungry. Other United Nations reports warn that over 1 million more children could face acute malnutrition in the coming year.

    One main cause of the crisis is that governments in August stopped payments from the World Bank-administered Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, previously used to pay salaries to millions of civil servants, doctors, nurses, teachers, and other essential workers. Afghanistan’s health and education systems, among other sectors, are collapsing. Millions of Afghan families have lost their incomes.

    At the same time, Afghan banks and global financial institutions, including Western Union, MoneyGram, and the Central Bank of Afghanistan, now lack enough paper currency to cover withdrawals. Account holders receiving foreign transfers or with “money in the bank” — ordinary Afghans, companies, UN agencies, humanitarian aid organizations — can’t access their money.

    Donor governments are understandably concerned about actions that would bolster or appear to legitimate Taliban authorities who are arbitrarily arresting and attacking activists, journalists, and former government workers and adopting policies and practices that violate the rights of women and girls to education, employment, and freedom of movement. They have already imposed severe restraints on activists, women, and the media and resumed executions.

    But Afghanistan’s underlying economic and humanitarian problems, which disproportionately affect women and girls, cannot simply be ignored because of the Taliban’s record.

    The U.S. Treasury on September 24 did issue new guidance and licenses that authorize electronic transfers with Afghanistan banks and other entities for humanitarian purposes. The problem is that electronic transactions alone cannot address the crisis. The Afghan Central Bank needs to be able to supply physical dollars and afghanis.

    But after the Taliban takeover, the New York Federal Reserve cut off the Central Bank’s access to its U.S. dollar assets and capacity to settle U.S. dollar transactions with other banks — and its capacity to purchase paper dollars from the Federal Reserve to ensure liquidity and currency stability. The World Bank also stopped the bank from accessing its assets held by the International Monetary Fund.

    U.S. dollar transactions, including paper transactions, are integral to Afghanistan’s economy. Most of the country’s gross domestic product comes from outside the country in the form of dollars — donor money, remittances, export income. If the Afghan Central Bank isn’t provided with a method of settling dollar accounts and obtaining new paper currency in dollars, liquidity problems and cash shortages will only grow worse. Local currency issues also need to be addressed. Companies that print Afghan currency in Europe, concerned about sanctions, still cannot ship new bills to Kabul. Taliban authorities have no capacity to print money.

    Afghanistan’s economy has a limited capacity for resilience. The new Taliban authorities, like the previous government, do not possess adequate revenue sources to fund basic government services. This is a country that has relied on outside donors to help with such services for most of its modern existence.

    The UN has announced a plan to send $45 million to support the health sector via UN agencies — but this will not solve the paper and liquidity crises. It’s not the UN’s role to fly millions of physical U.S. dollars into Afghanistan. Foreign governments need to figure out how to restore funding to public services, not only health but also education, using the country’s banks and without enriching the Taliban or facilitating their abuses.

    In doing so, the U.S. government and other main donors to Afghanistan will need to adjust sanctions policies and reach agreements allowing the Central Bank to process selected transactions and obtain paper currency. Donors and the Taliban will also need to agree on methods for supporting vital services through independent organizations such as the UN or non-governmental organizations.

    The Taliban will have to accept that concerns about providing direct budgetary support, and preventing corruption, will require independent financial oversight of transactions — something UN and international financial authorities already do. The Taliban will also need to accept that donors will only support assistance and services that are equitably distributed to women and men, girls and boys, and allow systems to monitor and ensure that services benefit all Afghans.

    Inaction is untenable. The Taliban’s cruelties are horrendous, but walking away from past support for vital services, politically and economically isolating the country, and maintaining overbroad, blanket financial restrictions, won’t mitigate the abuses, but only hurt the Afghan people more.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Thousands who fled Taliban are living in hotels with inadequate healthcare in Operation Warm Welcome

    Afghans who recently arrived in the UK after fleeing the Taliban takeover have asked to be sent back, casting doubt over the success of Operation Warm Welcome, the government’s Afghan resettlement programme.

    It was launched by Boris Johnson on 29 August to help Afghan refugees arriving in the UK by providing support so they could “rebuild their lives, find work, pursue education and integrate into their local communities”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The trial of former soldier Dennis Hutchings is underway in Belfast. And once again, the accused is from the lower ranks. Not one of the powerful commanders who gave the orders is facing trial.

    The former Household Cavalry trooper faces a charge of attempted murder. His alleged victim was John Pat Cunningham. Cunningham was 27 and had learning difficulties. He was shot in the back after fleeing an army patrol in 1974. Hutchings has pleaded not guilty to the offence.

    Hutchings has won the support of many in the military community. This includes former Tory veterans minister Johnny Mercer, who has been with him in Ireland. A DUP politician even joined the pair for a photo opportunity. Carla Lockhart claimed on Twitter that Hutchings was a victim of politicised courts:

    Familiar pattern

    Hutchings served in the Household Cavalry as a non-commissioned officer. That means he was part of the workforce not the boss class of officers. In fact, barring a few exceptions, most of the soldiers accused of war crimes from Ireland, Iraq, and Afghanistan served in ‘the ranks’. And here there is a question about accountability.

    What the average soldier does on the ground reflects how they are trained and led. Yet the burden of legal cases always seems to fall on low-ranking personnel and never on the generals and politicians in charge. So what’s the alternative?

    The poor bloody infantry

    Derry writer and politician Eamonn McCann captured this sentiment in a head-to-head debate with ex-general and peer Richard Dannatt in 2019.

    Speaking on the Bloody Sunday massacre, McCann said:

    What we’re seeing [is] what Kipling called the “poor blood infantry”. Your rank-and-file soldiers, they have to carry the can. Somebody organised it, somebody gave the Paras to understand that it would be okay if you go in there and shoot innocent people. Where are they?

    And he went on:

    And I agree with the person who said [gestures to the audience] where are the IRA leaders? Why are the foot soldiers being dragged up all the time? Where are the bosses? The bosses are sitting pretty, and none more so than the bosses of the British Army, now made Lords and the rest of it. And none of them were ever held to account.

    Real justice

    That’s not to say low-ranking soldiers who carry out atrocities should get away scot-free. However, the fact that courts only seem to look at working class squaddies, who have little say over the broader scope of operations, is intolerable.

    The senior officers with the actual power who give the orders should also be in the dock.

    Featured image – Wikimedia Commons/Kenneth Allen

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Kunduz,

    At least 50 people were killed in a bomb attack on a Shiite mosque in the Afghan city of Kunduz on Friday, in the latest violence to rock the country since the Taliban takeover in August.

    “We have received more than 90 wounded patients and 50 dead bodies, but the number will change. We are still receiving more people,” said a Doctors Without Borders, hospital worker, who did not want to be named.

    Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid had earlier said an unknown number of people had been killed and injured when “an explosion took place in a mosque of our Shiite compatriots” in Kunduz.

    There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, but the Islamic State group, bitter rivals of the Taliban, has claimed similar recent atrocities.

    According to News agency, Residents of Kunduz, the capital of a province of the same name, blast hit a Shiite mosque during Friday prayers, the most important of the week for Muslims.

    Zalmai Alokzai, a local businessman who rushed to Kunduz Provincial Hospital to check whether doctors needed blood donations, described horrific scenes.

    “I saw more than 40 dead bodies,” he told foreign news agency. “Ambulances were going back to the incident scene to carry the dead.”

    An international aid worker at the MSF hospital in the city told news agency there were fears the death toll could rise.

    “Hundreds of people are gathered at the main gate of the hospital and crying for their relatives but armed Taliban guys are trying to prevent gatherings in case another explosion is planned,” he said.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Battles in the US Congress that erupted again this week, holding up an extra $1bn in military funding for Israel, underscored just how divorced from reality the conversation about US financial aid to Israel has become, even among many critics.

    For 48 hours last month, a small group of progressive Democrats in the US House of Representatives succeeded in sabotaging a measure to pick up the bill for Israel to replenish its Iron Dome interception missiles. The Iron Dome system was developed by Israel, with generous financial backing from successive US administrations, in the wake of the 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Today, it ostensibly serves to protect Israel from short-range, largely improvised rockets fired intermittently out of Gaza.

    Supplies of the Iron Dome missiles, each of which cost at least $50,000, were depleted back in May, when Israel triggered widespread confrontations with Palestinians by intensifying its settlement of Palestinian neighbourhoods near Jerusalem’s Old City and violently raiding al-Aqsa Mosque. Palestinian militant groups fired large numbers of rockets out of Gaza, which has been blockaded by Israel for the past 15 years. Iron Dome intercepted the rockets before they could land in Israel.

    The group of progressive Democrats, known popularly as the Squad, scotched an initial move by their congressional leadership to include the $1bn assistance to Israel in US budget legislation. But the money for Iron Dome was quickly reintroduced as a stand-alone bill that passed overwhelmingly, with 420 votes in favour and nine against. Two representatives, one of them the prominent Squad member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,  voted “present” – counting effectively as an abstention.

    This week, the furore moved to the Senate when Rand Paul, a strong Republican critic of US foreign aid, refused to nod through the bill and thereby give it unanimous assent. It will now need to go through a more complicated legislative process.

    The latest funding for Iron Dome comes in addition to the $3.8bn Israel receives annually from the US in military aid, which has made Israel the biggest recipient, by far, of such largesse. Putting the new tranche of Iron Dome aid into perspective, it is twice what Washington contributes annually to Nato’s budget.

    The previous administration, under former President Donald Trump, turned US funding for Nato into a big domestic controversy, arguing that the US was shouldering too much of the burden. But there has been barely a peep about the massive military bill the US is footing for Iron Dome.

    Debate stifled

    The Squad’s main achievement in launching its brief blocking move was to force out into the open the fact that the US is paying for Israel’s stockpile of missiles. Like the House leadership, the Israel lobby had hoped the money could be transferred quietly, without attracting attention.

    What little debate did ensue related to whether Israel really needs US military assistance. A few commentators asked why Washington was kitting out one of the richer countries on the planet with missiles in the midst of a pandemic that has hit the US economy hard.

    But the lobby quickly stifled a far more important debate about whether the US should be encouraging Israel’s use of Iron Dome at all. Instead, US funding for the interception missile system was presented as being motivated solely by a desire to save lives.

    In attacking Paul’s decision to block the bill, the biggest pro-Israel lobby group in Congress, AIPAC, argued this week that his move would “cost innocent lives, make war more likely, and embolden Iran-backed terrorists”.

    It was precisely the claim that the Iron Dome is defensive that appeared to push Ocasio-Cortez, usually seen as one of the few US politicians openly critical of Israel, into a corner, leading to her abstention.

    Images from the House floor showed her tearful and being given a hug by another representative after the vote. She later attributed her distress in part to how Iron Dome funding had a polarising effect at home, noting that the House bill was a “reckless” move to “rip our communities apart”.

    That was an apparent reference to factional tensions within the Democratic Party between, on one side, many Jewish voters who back what they see as Israel’s right to defend itself and, on the other, many Black and Hispanic voters who think it is wrong for the US to financially support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians.

    Some saw her indecision as evidence of her ambitions to run for the Senate, where positions critical of Israel would be more likely to damage her prospects of success.

    Expiring in silence

    In Israel, and in Jewish communities beyond, the conversation about US support for Iron Dome is even more detached from reality. The nine US representatives who voted against were roundly castigated for willing the deaths of Israelis by voting to deny them protection from rockets fired from Gaza. In predictable fashion, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, called those who voted against “either ignorant or antisemitic”.

    But some liberals took the argument in a different, even more fanciful direction. They called the Squad “hypocrites” for voting against the $1bn funding, arguing that Iron Dome missiles not only save Israelis, but Palestinians too. One Haaretz commentator went so far as to claim that Palestinians were actually the main beneficiaries of the Iron Dome system, arguing: “The fact Israel has a defensive shield against rocket attacks makes a wide-scale military operation with thousands of – mainly Palestinian – casualties less likely.”

    Of course, there is the small question of whether Israel has indeed been “forced” into its attacks on Gaza. It is precisely its military superiority – paid for by the US – that has freed it to carry out those massive attacks, in which large numbers of Palestinians, including hundreds of children, are killed, rather than negotiate an end to its decades-long occupation.

    Just as in life, bullies resort to intimidation and violence because they feel no need to compromise. But even more to the point, Iron Dome is central to Israel’s efforts to keep Palestinians imprisoned in Gaza, entirely subjugated and stripped of any power to resist.

    With Israel patrolling tiny Gaza’s land borders and coast, sealing off the enclave from the rest of the world, Palestinians have few options to protest their slow starvation – or to gain attention for their plight. Israeli snipers have fired on Palestinians staging unarmed, mass protests at the fence caging them in, killing and wounding thousands. The Israeli navy fires on or sinks Palestinian boats, including fishing boats, in Gaza’s waters if they stray more than a few kilometres from the shore.

    Iron Dome, far from being defensive, is another weapon in Israel’s armoury to keep Palestinians subdued, impoverished, corralled and silent. For those claiming to want peace in Israel-Palestine, the extra funding for Iron Dome just made that prospect even less likely. As long as Palestinians can be made to slowly expire in silence – their plight ignored by the rest of the world – Israel is free to seize and colonise yet more of what was supposed to become a future Palestinian state.

    Systems of domination

    But there is another reason why Ocasio-Cortez should have voted against the Iron Dome resupply, rather than tearfully abstaining – and that is for all our sakes, not just the sake of Palestinians.

    The US foots the bill for Iron Dome, just as it does for most of Israel’s other weapons development, for self-interested reasons: because it helps its own war industries, as Washington seeks to maintain its military dominance globally.

    With western populations less willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters for the sake of modern wars, which seem less obviously related to defence and more transparently about the control of key resources, the Pentagon has worked overtime to reframe the public debate.

    It is hard to disguise its global domination industries as anything but offensive in nature. This is where Israel has played a critical role. Not only has Israel helped to develop weapons systems like Iron Dome, but – despite being a nuclear-armed, belligerent, occupying state – it has leveraged its image as a vulnerable refuge for the long-persecuted Jewish people. It has been able to make more plausible the case that these domination systems really are defensive.

    In recent decades, Israel has developed and tested drone technology to surveil and assassinate Palestinians, which has proved invaluable in the US and UK’s long-term occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel’s latest “swarm” technology – making drones even more lethal – may prove particularly attractive to the Pentagon.

    Israel has also been the ideal partner for the Pentagon in testing and refining the battlefield use of the new generation of F-35 fighter planes, the most expensivemilitary product in US history. Uniquely, Israel has been allowed to customise the jet, adapting its capabilities in new, unforeseen ways.

    Bowing to US hegemony

    The F-35’s ultimate role is to make sure major rival airforces, such as Russia’s and China’s, are elbowed out of the skies. And Israel has been at the forefront of developing and testing a variety of missile interception systems, such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow, which are intended to destroy incoming projectiles, from short-range rockets to long-range missiles.

    Last December, Israel announced it had successfully launched Iron Dome interception missiles for the first time from the sea. Reports noted that the US arms maker Raytheon and the US defence department were involved in the tests. That is because, behind the scenes, the US is not only paying for the development and testing of these systems; it is also guiding the uses to which they will be put. The Pentagon has bought two Iron Dome batteries, which, according to Israeli media, have been stationed in US military bases in the Gulf.

    The US has its own interception systems under development, and it is unclear which it will come to rely on most heavily. But what is evident is that Washington, Israel and their Gulf allies have Iran in their immediate sights. Any country that refuses to bow to US global hegemony could also be targeted.

    US interest in these missiles is not defensive. They are fundamental to its ability to neutralise the responses of rivals to either a US military attack, or more general moves by the US to dominate territory and control resources.

    Just as Palestinians have been besieged by Israel for 15 years, the US and Gulf states may hope one day to deal a knockout blow to Iran’s oil exports. Washington would be able to ignore current concerns that Tehran could retaliate by firing on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz or on hostile Middle Eastern capitals. If Iran’s missiles can be intercepted, it will be incapable of defending itself against increasing economic or military aggression from the US or its neighbours.

    Less safe world

    Following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan this summer, there has been plenty of naive talk that the US is seeking a diminished role in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Ultimately, the US is seeking global dominance at arm’s length – through a combination of long-range military power, cyber warfare, robotics and artificial intelligence – that it hopes will lift the restraints imposed by American casualties and domestic opposition.

    Israel’s playbook with regards to Palestinians is one that elites in Washington trust can be exported to other corners of the globe, and even outer space. Interception missiles lie at the heart of that strategic vision, as a way to neutralise and silence all resistance. This is why no one who cares about a less violent, exploitative and dangerous world should be indifferent to, or neutral on, congressional funding for Iron Dome.

    Missile interception systems are the face not of a more defensive, safer world, but of a far more nakedly hostile, aggressive one.

    • First published at Middle East Eye

    The post Iron Dome: Don’t be deceived, US aid to Israel is not about saving lives first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On 5 October 2021 FORUM-ASIA presented its new publication, “Summary Report: 9th Asian Human Rights Defenders Forum”, an abridgement from an event that facilitates human rights defenders (HRDs) and women human rights defenders (WHRDs) to discuss work and advocacy efforts, and share the experiences and challenges they face.

    From 2019 to date, the situation of defenders and civil society organisations across Asia has grown increasingly challenging. Harassment and violations perpetrated against those defending human rights continue to increase and most perpetrators continue to benefit from impunity.

    The global COVID-19 crisis, which started in 2020, exacerbated the already worrying situation for defenders. In the past one year alone, from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, at least 760 cases of abuses and violations against defenders were recorded across 19 Asian countries, based on FORUM-ASIA’s monitoring. More than half of the cases recorded were related to judicial harassment (409 cases), which is often followed by arbitrary arrest and detention (323 cases). The number of killings is alarming at 55 cases, most of which took place in Myanmar, the Philippines, and Afghanistan.

    Despite the restrictive atmosphere, human rights defenders and people from across Asia continue to bravely fight for their rights. Emblematic examples can be seen within the wave of pro-democracy protests that have been taking place in Thailand, the Civil Disobedience Movement in Myanmar, the Farmers Protest in India, and the anti-Omnibus Law protest in Indonesia, which have been held under the banner of the Milk Tea Alliance, alongside peoples’ movements from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

    Such movements show people’s determination to continuously find new ways to resist the shrinking civic space, and the rise of a new generation of defenders emerging to push for the realisation of human rights.

    This year marks the 20th anniversary of the first AHRDF, and despite all the challenges this year posed, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and its restrictions on travel, FORUM-ASIA organised the event in an online format from 14 to 17 June 2021. This publication, “Summary report: 9th Asian Regional Human Rights Defender Forum,” highlights the key points discussed and provides the key recommendations made at the Forum.

    For the PDF version of the summary, click here.

    http://humanrightsinasean.info/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally on September 25, 2021, in Perry, Georgia.

    As former President Donald Trump makes plans to run for president a third time, his lawyers are taking steps to sue social media sites that have banned him over his incendiary speech.

    According to three sources that spoke to The Washington Post, Trump reportedly wanted to announce a 2024 presidential run during the upheaval in Afghanistan, following the withdrawal of the United States military there in August. His aides talked him out of doing so, saying that he should be patient with a presidential announcement, as entering the race now would trigger several federal election rules — including limiting his ability to raise funds and providing equal time standards on broadcast television to his likely opponent, incumbent President Joe Biden.

    Advisers were also apprehensive about Trump announcing a run ahead of the 2022 midterm races, believing that Democrats could try to tie Republican candidates to the former president, making the race a referendum on their ties to him rather than other issues. If Republicans failed to win either house of Congress, it would also reflect poorly on Trump, his advisers warned.

    “The biggest point we drove home was that he doesn’t want to own the midterms if we don’t win back the House or Senate,” one of the sources told The Washington Post.

    According to recent polling from Quinnipiac University, most Americans are already opposed to a Trump presidential run in 2024.

    Trump’s aides added that offering his support to other Republicans during the midterms would be more beneficial if he wasn’t yet declared a candidate.

    Whether Trump announces a run now or after November of next year, self-promotion will prove a challenge, given that he’s still banned on several social media sites. On Friday, Trump’s lawyers sought to have his access to the site restored by filing a lawsuit against Twitter.

    The lawsuit claims that his First Amendment speech rights are being violated because of the ban, which was imposed on the former president after a mob of his loyalists attacked the Capitol on January 6. The attacks immediately followed an incendiary speech Trump gave that day against the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

    Twitter justified the ban by saying they were concerned his tweets — which contained numerous false allegations of fraud in the 2020 race — would incite additional acts of violence from his followers.

    Trump’s lawsuit contends that Twitter is being “coerced by members of the United States Congress” and “acting directly with federal officials” to continue the indefinite ban on the former president. It also claims that Twitter is “operating under an unconstitutional immunity” to keep him off the platform.

    It’s unclear how Trump’s First Amendment rights are being violated, however. That provision within the Constitution stipulates that no law shall be established by the government that restricts speech — but Twitter, being a private company, is allowed to create rules that users must abide by, and to enforce those rules by banning users that violate them.

    CNN legal analyst Elie Honig was brief in his assessment of Trump’s lawsuit against Twitter.

    “This won’t work,” Honig tweeted, adding no additional commentary to the issue.

    Harvard Law school professor Laurence Tribe, a frequent critic of the former president, was more direct in his opinion on the lawsuit’s chances.

    “Trump’s lawsuit to force Twitter to let him back on its platform is garbage. Pure BS,” Tribe said. “A pile of crap. Frivolous. An abuse of the judicial system. Zero merit. Got it?”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The so-called “Taliban 2.0” has banned secondary education for girls, higher education for women students and teachers, protests and women’s sports. Recent statements by Taliban figures banning perfume have been protested and derided in social media, reports Yasmeen Afghan.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Civil disobedience and stay-at-home strikes continue in Kabul against the Taliban regime, reports Yasmeen Afghan.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.