Why is Canada in Afghanistan? by Louis Evan Palmer
In the simplest terms, Canada is there because the United States is there. It's a case of sticking together no matter what although this is way beyond your older brother taking the wrong turn and making you an hour late for a family function. This is a case of sticking together in the commission of a war of aggression and war crimes. So the question then becomes, why is the United States in Afghanistan? They're there because their leadership decided on war with Afghanistan based on unproven allegations regarding an act of terrorism on US soil.
The terrorism act itself is under question because it's not clear how planes crashing into the WTC could cause them to collapse the way they did. If that's the case then even if the correct perpetrators have been identified, their act of violence did not cause all, or most of, the damage and loss of life.
To help prove their case, it would have been normal for the authorities to secure the crime scenes and collect and later closely examine the evidence; in New York the damaged buildings. But this was not the case, the NY debris was hauled away under strict security and sold as scrap to China and other countries. This is suspicious.
The perpetrators identified by the FBI have not been corroborated by any other non-US-government sources. In fact, as many as 7 of them have turned up alive in the Middle East. Despite this the FBI's list has not been revised. They don't show up on the passenger manifests and the airport videos seem to have missed many of them as well. To prove their case, it would be expected that the American authorities would have been secured all available video coverage and made it public to justify their allegations. This is not the case, videos have not been released, black boxes have been supposedly not found or were damaged and secreted away. Again, suspicious.
Therefore, we have unproven allegations as to the perpetrators which then focus on an alleged leader of the plot who is living in a cave in Afghanistan. There were allegations against the same leader to do with two explosions in Africa outside of American embassies which resulted in attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan. Again, the "proof" is mostly unsubstantiated allegations.
By way of comparison, a terrorist attack in Berlin in 1986 at a club which killed a score of people was blamed on Libya and used by President Reagan to justify bombing Triploi in an attempt to assassinate Gadhafi. A German television documentary presented compelling evidence that the Berlin night club bombing was actually an American/Israeli black operation. These false flag operations are more common than usually thought and rarely exposed in the mass media. We must be very skeptical of unproven claims as to who is responsible for a given criminal act. We accept less evidence for a war than we do for a prosecution against an ordinary citizen!
Another aspect of the 911 attacks is their likelihood of success. Prior to the attacks and based on past experience, any plane that diviated from its flight plan would be subject to a fighter plane(s) intercept. There were many such intercepts both before and after 911. Based on that, the chances of succeeding in a 911-style hijacking in North American skies were zero. They would have been intercepted. Except that there were several air attack simulations running on that very day. That is more than a coincidence. That is aiding and abetting. Regardless of anything else, the hijackers knew there would be no intercepts for a good part, if not all, of their flights. This also is suspicious. How would they have known? Was that information easily obtainable?
To completely solve this crime, authorities would have to identify the planners and who would benefit. If so, regarding who would benefit, why has the trading information as to who was profiting from unusually voluminous transactions in 911-affected stocks and other financial instruments been suppressed? This doesn't make sense. Do we want to fully solve these crimes or not?
The situation from September 12th to October 7th was deliberately emotion-laden and logic-toxic. When the mob that you've stirred up yourself is screaming for blood, you can't serve them reason. That is surely by design. You serve them war! Afghanistan 2001! Iraq 2003! TBA 2007?
Canada must withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as possible. While the Canadians, all arms, are doing a superb job and not shirking from difficult assignments and duties, this is a poisonous deeply-flawed mission. It shows that both the UN and NATO have become compromised.
Even if the allegations about Bin Laden and al Qaeda were true, an invasion and occupation of an entire country to get one or two ring-leaders is not justified or legal. The United States funded and supported BinLaden and all the foreign jihadists for more than ten years to lure the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan in 1979, to fight the Soviets during their occupation to the extent of providing them with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and to launch attacks into the Soviet Union itself.
Alleging a betrayal against one man and a few of his cohorts does not give grounds for an invasion and occupation. That it could be launched so quickly, in weeks, shows that it was planned, up-to-date and ready to go. Who knows, equipment may have even been pre-positioned!
In 1989 after the Soviets were forced to withdraw, the US was perfectly content to leave Afghanistan alone in its civil war. They and the rest should follow that same path in Afghanistan & Iraq now. Aid them as ethics and conscience should dictate but let them manage their own country.
Why is Canada in Afghanistan?, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment