[cid:img_2551438_0]<http://www.creative-i.info>

(And you know you should) ________________________________

The nerve of these guys! Karzai 'wins' anyway

by William Bowles<mailto:edi...@williambowles.info>  Wednesday,
November 4, 2009 16:50

Have you ever seen anything more outrageous? Talk about double
standards! For weeks the BBC bombarded us with outrage concerning
the elections in Iran with wall-to-wall coverage of the protests
and predicting some other kind of colour revolution, a green one
this time (what will USAID, NDI, Freedom House, George Soros et al
do, when they run out of colours?).[1]

Millions of Iranians simply did not believe the result. The main
demand of the protesters has been an annulment of the result and
an election re-run.

Q&A: Iran election
aftermath<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8101621.stm>, BBC
News, 22 June, 2009

Compare the BBCs squeals of outrage over the Iranian elections with
how the BBC delicately deals with the Afghan elections. No wall-to-wall
coverage of Afghan outrage over a stolen election. Instead,

There was no further reference to fraud. It was pointed out that
the figures were more or less in line with the opinion polls -
President Karzai, the candidate of the majority Pashtun people, in
the high 40s and Dr Abdullah in the low 30s.  Karzai back in favour
- conditionally<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8338987.stm>,
BBC News, 2 November, 2009

More or less? And pointed out by whom? Reading between the lines
here the BBC is actually telling its readers that Karzai is our man
in Kabul whether crooked or not. Then the BBC, ever faithful
mouthpiece for the Empire informs us that the first condition,

is that the Afghan government has to start taking a lead in security
operations. This was already one of the conditions attached to the
British government's decision in principle to increase its forces
by 500 to 9,500.

But it goes well beyond that into a strategic necessity. The
international forces have to be seen as acting in support of the
Afghan government and not the other way round.  ibid

So, just like the election its not the reality that counts but how
things are seen as far as the BBC is concerned. Government? What
government?

The second is that there have to be moves to end corruption and get
better government.  ibid

Fat chance! The election that got Karzai elected in the first place
was a fix. Corruption? Karzais brother is a high-up in in the opium
trade, a trade worth around $65 billion a year (around 2% gets
interdicted)! The CIA are up to their necks in opium and have been
so since the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing
by its Afghan allies 'because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan
has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.'
In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles
Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight
the Cold War. 'Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible
to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to
devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... 'I don't think
that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout....
There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective
was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.[2]

The paradox of requesting a corrupt government to end its own
corruption is of course studiously avoided. And what of the hated
Taliban?

US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah
Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if
they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would
be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast,
a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net
requesting anonymity for not being authorized to talk about the
sensitive issue with the media.  US Offers Taliban 6 Provinces for
8 Bases<http://www.uruknet.de/?p=59657>, Uruk Net 2 November, 2009

What is going on here!? On the one hand we have our glorious leader
G Brown telling us that in slaughtering Afghanis and getting his
troops killed, its all about stopping the Taliban/al-Queda from
taking over the UK, and on the other hand hes trying to do deals
with the (formerly hated?) Taliban, offering to swap bases for
provinces like its a game of Monopoly!

And then in another story that reinforces the proffered deal it is
clear that the US intend to stay in Afghanistan regardless of
elections fixed or otherwise.[3]

The BBCs scandalous news reports on events in Afghanistan are more
of a coverup than coverage. But in a story today on the BBC Website
we finally get to hear from Abdullah Abdullah, Karzais opponent in
the fraudulent elections.

Former Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah has said
Hamid Karzai's re-election is "illegal".

/../

BBC correspondents say it is difficult to assess the motives for
Dr Abdullah's remarks at this point, or whether they might be seen
as a call to action by his supporters.  Karzai poll victory 'is
illegal<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8341727.stm>,
BBC News, 4 November, 2009

Difficult to assess? But clearly the elections were fixed, of that
there is no doubt, so why the difficulty? Amazing, when it comes
to assessing motives in Iran the BBC is not short of words (or
pictures) but in a country that has been invaded and thousands of
its people slaughtered, allegedly to install democracy, the Beeb
is suddenly bereft of explanations as to why Abdullah Abdullah says
the elections were stolen.

References

1. For more on colour revolutions see Colour-Coded Revolutions and
the Origins of World War III Part 2<http://www.creative-i.info/?p=11740>
By Andrew Gavin Marshall

2. See War, the CIA and Narco-Trafficking Afghanistan, American
Drug Colony<http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney09082004.html> By
MIKE WHITNEY, Counterpunch, 8 September, 2004.

Chossudovsky, Michel. "Who Is Osama Bin
Laden?"<http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html>.

3. See Whats the US objective in Afghanistan?<http://ymlp121.com/?p=11690>,
Pentagon officials are going public with a plan to set-up indefinitely
in the region. Real News Network, 3 November, 2009

This article is archived at: http://www.creative-i.info/?p=11753

If you forward this email to anybody, they can subscribe by clicking
here<http://williambowles.info/mailing_list/index.html>

Email me with comments, whinges, suggestions and especially monies:

edi...@creative-i.info<mailto:edi...@creative-i.info>

________________________________

[cid:img_2551438_1]<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/>
This work is licensed under a CreativeCommons
License<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/>.

For specifics please see Terms and
Conditions<http://www.williambowles.info/wb/terms.html>

________________________________ Change email address / Leave mailing
list<http://ymlp121.com/u.php?YMLPID=gusyuhhgsgujmg> Powered by
YourMailingListProvider<http://ymlp121.com/m/>

___________________________ subscribe mailto:

newslog+subscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:newslog+subscribe@googlegroups.co m>

websites:

http://www.governourselves.org/ http://escapingthematrix.org/
http://thecreditbankdevelopmentmodel.blogspot.com/ http://cyberjournal.org

archives:

http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topics
http://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal/topics

Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com<mailto:r...@quaylargo.com>  (comments
welcome)

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of cilogo_47.jpg]

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a
name of somerights20_15.gif]