"In
1992, Kabul under Hekmatyar came to be a bullet riddled city, a center
of lawlessness, crime and atrocities fueled by complex tribal
rivalries. Mullah Omar, who once fought against the Soviets, started
the Taliban movement with fewer than 50 armed madrassah students in his
hometown of Kandahar. The most credible and often-repeated story of how
Mullah Omar first mobilized his followers is that in the spring of
1994, neighbors in Singesar told him that the local governor had
abducted two teenage girls, shaved their heads, and taken them to a
camp where they were raped repeatedly. 30 Taliban (with only 16 rifles)
freed the girls, and hanged the governor from the barrel of a tank." [Wikipedia]
A few years, after the Taliban had secured control of most of Afghanistan, and had its government accepted, if not officially recognized, by a number of countries, including the US seeking to have peace and permission for an oil pipeline, I got into a taxi in New York City. The handsome soft speaking bearded driver was listening to a recording of the Qur'an being read before a large outdoor audience, which, at intervals, was roaring approval as I listened over the taxi's tiny radio speaker.
I asked the driver what was the topic of the passages being read. "Childbirth," he answered. I notice color photos of his three young children on his dashboard.
"If you don't mind my asking, I would be interested to know what you, as a family man, think of the Taliban?
His
firmly spoken answer was, "The Taliban are righteous, they have brought
peace and safety and protection to our people suffering rape, homicide
and violent thievery. Taliban do not fight for money but for decency
and respect inspired by our religion Islam." Making women wear the
burka has ended the rapes and now the streets, neighborhoods and
families are safe."
This is one of many OEN articles on the subject of Jimmy Carter's administration orchestrating a heartless attack on a friendly Afghan government and turning a sputtering violent reaction in tribal areas to the schooling of their daughters into a full blown civil war. Yet another try at awakening public interest in our gunning down Taliban as if they had something to do with 9/11, as if Taliban were not fighting another foreign invasion, as if our own wealthy David Rockefeller led country had not been the real backer of al-Qaida.
How many lives could Jimmy Carter save by coming forward and explaining this, and urging his country to do the right thing and stop the slaughter of Taliban, who along with other red blooded Afghani will never give up fighting foreign invaders.
Since the earlier jay janson articles were written, other heartless things that Carter did as president have been documented. Though in recent years Carter has taken some helpful public positions, especially on Palestine, few of us expect Carter to implicate himself publicly in the present murder of Afghani 'insurgents' even though the documented facts do implicate him for beginning the whole thirty year crucifixion of Afghanistan in mid 1979.
In addition to pressure Carter was under from David Rockefeller's right hand man, Presidential Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, to order this dastardly secret CIA attack on Afghanistan, what pressure from oil giants and armaments industry must Carter have been feeling, when in 1977, he lauded and backed the Shah of Iran up to the bitter end against his rebelling subjects, (as investors like Henry Kissinger hurriedly laundered their holdings).
What insistence was coming from Wall Street as Carter provided support to the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, and extended large amounts of military aid to El Salvador, whose army was engaging in widespread massacres, including the slaying of its archbishop, and four American Maryknoll nuns.
From where in the corporate community came pressure in the case of Indonesia's murderous invasion and occupation of East Timor, when Suharto was running out of military equipment, and the Carter administration authorized a dramatic increase in arms sales to Jakarta, approving sales of fighter jets and ground-attack bombers as they were being employed to bomb and napalm the population?
Was this gentle speaking peanut farmer turned politician his own man when he considered his response to General Chun's military dictatorship in South Korea crushing the democracy movement in Kwangju in May 1980? Paratroopers carried out three days of barbarity killing two thousand people. The US received two requests for assistance: the citizens committee that had called for democracy requested help in negotiations; General Chun requested the release of 20,000 troops under US command to join the storm troopers. Carter honored the latter request and US naval and air units were deployed in a further show of US support. A few days later, Carter sent the head of the Export-Import Bank to Seoul to assure the military junta of US economic support, approving a $600 million loan. As Chun took over the presidency by force, Carter said that while we would prefer democracy, "The Koreans are not ready for that, according to their own judgment, and I don't know how to explain it any better." Did Carter's orders reflect the man the public had come to know as a gracious person? (Gen. Chun was later tried for crimes against the Korean people and received the death sentence).
Carter's heartless statement explaining that there was no need to dispense monies to Vietnam to repair damage caused by the U.S. nor to apologize to the Vietnamese people, as "the destruction was mutual." Was Carter expressing his personal opinion or what 'needed' to be said for business reasons?
This kindly soft-spoken, Nobel Peace Prize laureate to be, could not have been acting on his own in facilitating volunteers from all over the Muslim world to come to fight the Russians and radicalizing Persian speaking Afghanis with the more strict teachings of the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. Bin laden, 9/11, and thirty years of death and destruction for Afghanistan is what Jimmy Carter could enlighten the public about.
Carter, since leaving office has sought to put himself carefully on the side of the oppressed everywhere, speaking out for plight of the Palestinian civilian population, trusted to judge the validity and fairness of elections. As his life ends, could he be courageous enough to divulge the secrets of who and what nefarious forces were pressuring him during his presidency.
Would a former president of the United States ever confess having been first and foremost a representative of the ruling class, the interests and plans of our investment bankers having been an imperative priority.
If a contrite and rebellious Carter could publicly come forward with the truth so many of us have informed ourselves of,
might it not give our corporate governance an excuse to instruct the government it owns to withdraw from Afghanistan as it once ordered the withdrawal from Vietnam?
A few years, after the Taliban had secured control of most of Afghanistan, and had its government accepted, if not officially recognized, by a number of countries, including the US seeking to have peace and permission for an oil pipeline, I got into a taxi in New York City. The handsome soft speaking bearded driver was listening to a recording of the Qur'an being read before a large outdoor audience, which, at intervals, was roaring approval as I listened over the taxi's tiny radio speaker.
I asked the driver what was the topic of the passages being read. "Childbirth," he answered. I notice color photos of his three young children on his dashboard.
"If you don't mind my asking, I would be interested to know what you, as a family man, think of the Taliban?
This is one of many OEN articles on the subject of Jimmy Carter's administration orchestrating a heartless attack on a friendly Afghan government and turning a sputtering violent reaction in tribal areas to the schooling of their daughters into a full blown civil war. Yet another try at awakening public interest in our gunning down Taliban as if they had something to do with 9/11, as if Taliban were not fighting another foreign invasion, as if our own wealthy David Rockefeller led country had not been the real backer of al-Qaida.
How many lives could Jimmy Carter save by coming forward and explaining this, and urging his country to do the right thing and stop the slaughter of Taliban, who along with other red blooded Afghani will never give up fighting foreign invaders.
Since the earlier jay janson articles were written, other heartless things that Carter did as president have been documented. Though in recent years Carter has taken some helpful public positions, especially on Palestine, few of us expect Carter to implicate himself publicly in the present murder of Afghani 'insurgents' even though the documented facts do implicate him for beginning the whole thirty year crucifixion of Afghanistan in mid 1979.
In addition to pressure Carter was under from David Rockefeller's right hand man, Presidential Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, to order this dastardly secret CIA attack on Afghanistan, what pressure from oil giants and armaments industry must Carter have been feeling, when in 1977, he lauded and backed the Shah of Iran up to the bitter end against his rebelling subjects, (as investors like Henry Kissinger hurriedly laundered their holdings).
What insistence was coming from Wall Street as Carter provided support to the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, and extended large amounts of military aid to El Salvador, whose army was engaging in widespread massacres, including the slaying of its archbishop, and four American Maryknoll nuns.
From where in the corporate community came pressure in the case of Indonesia's murderous invasion and occupation of East Timor, when Suharto was running out of military equipment, and the Carter administration authorized a dramatic increase in arms sales to Jakarta, approving sales of fighter jets and ground-attack bombers as they were being employed to bomb and napalm the population?
Was this gentle speaking peanut farmer turned politician his own man when he considered his response to General Chun's military dictatorship in South Korea crushing the democracy movement in Kwangju in May 1980? Paratroopers carried out three days of barbarity killing two thousand people. The US received two requests for assistance: the citizens committee that had called for democracy requested help in negotiations; General Chun requested the release of 20,000 troops under US command to join the storm troopers. Carter honored the latter request and US naval and air units were deployed in a further show of US support. A few days later, Carter sent the head of the Export-Import Bank to Seoul to assure the military junta of US economic support, approving a $600 million loan. As Chun took over the presidency by force, Carter said that while we would prefer democracy, "The Koreans are not ready for that, according to their own judgment, and I don't know how to explain it any better." Did Carter's orders reflect the man the public had come to know as a gracious person? (Gen. Chun was later tried for crimes against the Korean people and received the death sentence).
Carter's heartless statement explaining that there was no need to dispense monies to Vietnam to repair damage caused by the U.S. nor to apologize to the Vietnamese people, as "the destruction was mutual." Was Carter expressing his personal opinion or what 'needed' to be said for business reasons?
This kindly soft-spoken, Nobel Peace Prize laureate to be, could not have been acting on his own in facilitating volunteers from all over the Muslim world to come to fight the Russians and radicalizing Persian speaking Afghanis with the more strict teachings of the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. Bin laden, 9/11, and thirty years of death and destruction for Afghanistan is what Jimmy Carter could enlighten the public about.
Carter, since leaving office has sought to put himself carefully on the side of the oppressed everywhere, speaking out for plight of the Palestinian civilian population, trusted to judge the validity and fairness of elections. As his life ends, could he be courageous enough to divulge the secrets of who and what nefarious forces were pressuring him during his presidency.
Would a former president of the United States ever confess having been first and foremost a representative of the ruling class, the interests and plans of our investment bankers having been an imperative priority.
If a contrite and rebellious Carter could publicly come forward with the truth so many of us have informed ourselves of,
might it not give our corporate governance an excuse to instruct the government it owns to withdraw from Afghanistan as it once ordered the withdrawal from Vietnam?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
