• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghanistan - Three Major Falsehoods Being Promoted

Armymedic

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
410
An excellent, thought provocing article about the missions in Afghanistan.
While I do not agree with all his opinions, you can not argue against history.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2006/04/02/pf-1515979.html
Reprinted under the Fair Dealings Act.
Don’t expect to change the Afghanis
By ERIC MARGOLIS

As Canadian casualties mount in Afghanistan, it’s important to correct three major falsehoods being promoted by the ill-informed, flag-waving media.

1. “Taliban are terrorists.” In 1989, at the end of Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy, civil war, and crime. Rape was endemic. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, armed a group of religious students (talibs). He set about fighting banditry, rape and drug dealing, imposing order based on traditional tribal and religious law.

Taliban were not 9/11-style terrorists, but a religious, anti-Communist movement drawn from the Pushtun tribe.

Most of the Taliban’s energies went to fighting Afghan Communists. Iran, India and Russia openly backed the Communists — rechristened, Northern Alliance.

Most of the so-called “terrorist camps” in Afghanistan were in fact bases used by Muslim volunteers who had come to fight Communists there and in Central Asia.

The Taliban shut down production of opium and heroin. But its backwards leaders proved themselves to be harsh and incompetent. Female education was temporarily banned because Communists had infiltrated the nation in the 1970’s through the school system. The Taliban oppressed minority Hazaras, and blew up Buddhist idols.

But Washington gave millions in aid to the Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. once considered using them and Osama bin Laden’s 300 al-Qaida followers to stir revolt in China’s western Muslim regions, and in Russian-dominated Central Asia. The U.S. cut off aid after the Taliban refused to give a key strategic pipeline deal to a U.S. oil firm.

The Taliban’s leaders knew nothing of 9/11, a plot actually hatched in Germany. When the U.S. demanded bin Laden be handed over, the Taliban refused: He was a guest and national hero, wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle. The Taliban offered to send bin Laden to an international tribunal once the U.S. presented evidence of his involvement. Washington refused and invaded, blaming the Taliban for 9/11.

Unable to withstand U.S. power, Mullah Omar ordered his men to blend back into the Pushtun population and wage low-grade guerrilla war against the invaders. Other movements, like Hizbi-Islami, joined in battling foreign occupation. Canada unwisely chose to pick a fight with fierce tribesmen whose only desire is to end foreign occupation and be left alone.

2. “Canada is defending ‘democracy’ in Afghanistan.” This is pure propaganda. The U.S. installed the puppet Karzai regime in Kabul, then held an election even more rigged than the ones run by the Soviets. The U.S. spends hundreds of millions to bribe Afghan warlords, most of whom are up to their turbans in drug dealing. Since the Taliban’s overthrow, opium production is up 90%. The U.S.-NATO ruled narco-state Afghanistan now produces most of the world’s heroin. Karazi’s regime would collapse the moment foreign troops leave.

Besides drug lords, the U.S., Canada and NATO are also in  league with resurgent Communists — who, with the Soviets, killed 1.5 million Afghans and tortured tens of thousands. The Uzbeks — now U.S. and Canadian allies — are more vicious and brutal than Taliban, and deeply involved in drug trading.

3. “Canada is defending women’s rights.” Laughable nonsense. The Taliban, demonized by western propaganda, mistreated its females no worse than other Afghans. Women are mistreated across South Asia. In India, brides are burned and people hanged for marrying below their caste. An estimated 10 million female fetuses were aborted in India since 1985, according to the leading medical journal Lancet.

Canadian troops are not social workers and won’t change local customs. Only naive fools think they could. American and Canadian journalists who rushed to Afghanistan see none of this because they stay safely “embedded” with occupation forces. They get the usual cook’s tour and cheery assessments, and are fed PR handouts. Cheerleading for war and flag-waving may sell papers, but it is not responsible journalism.

:army:

BTW, Mr. Margolis,
An "Afghani" is a unit of currency. An "Afghan" is a citizen of Afghanistan, and a term used only by foriegners.
 
The U.S. installed the puppet Karzai regime in Kabul, then held an election even more rigged than the ones run by the Soviets

Margolis is so far off base here that its laughable.  I happened to work in the Elections Security Operations Centre the night of the first Presidential election and was heavily involved with Presidential election planning for Kabul Province.  This election, and the subsequent parliamentary election, were UN-conducted, monitored by the Joint Election Monitoring Board - a UN/Afghan agency - and secured by a variety of outside agencies, including UN-hired  contractors.  The US hardly "installed" Karzai and hardly had the opportunity to "rig" the voting.  Thousands of ballot boxes were collected from across Afghanistan, with enormous effort, and concentrated in Kabul, where they were guarded by a CANADIAN-led Afghan Army contingent.

As for the comparison with Soviet "elections" - Margolis needs to read his history and give his head a shake.  The rest of my comments are probably unprintable.

Frankly, I'm offended by the accusation and the hundreds of dedicated international workers who made the elections happen - sometimes at great risk to their own lives - are owed an apology. 
 
Armymedic said:
1. “Taliban are terrorists.” In 1989, at the end of Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy, civil war, and crime. Rape was endemic. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, armed a group of religious students (talibs). He set about fighting banditry, rape and drug dealing, imposing order based on traditional tribal and religious law.

Taliban were not 9/11-style terrorists, but a religious, anti-Communist movement drawn from the Pushtun tribe.

Most of the Taliban’s energies went to fighting Afghan Communists. Iran, India and Russia openly backed the Communists — rechristened, Northern Alliance.

The last line, especially, is complete and utter bull shite. The Taliban overthrew a UN recognized government in 1996, which had previously been a mujaheddin faction. They were in no way affiliated with the communists to my knowledge.

The remaining factions that formed an anti-taliban resistance, known as the Northern Alliance, were the same faction that, for the most part, peacefully recognized the transition of power to Karzai, in what Teddy has pointed out to be a not bad election considering.

These groups were by and large Islamic in their outlook, though some remnants of the Soviet regime were part of them, this could not be considered a decisive portion.

Quite possibly Mr. Margolis forgot that the Soviet Union had fallen by this point, and with it the Comintern....

Besides drug lords, the U.S., Canada and NATO are also in  league with resurgent Communists

You know, i just watched "Good Night, and Good Luck"... something is ringing a bell. If Mr. Margolis was a member of this site, this is where I'd be asking for a source (not the drug lords bit, the Communists??).

As for his quip about the women...*shakes head*. Yes, women are still mistreated, but it is getting better. He should google "Women in Afghanistan" and he will get a picture of what is going on. And I find it highly circumspect that the Taliban shut down the female schools due a fear of resurgent communists, when they had just happened to impose <a href="http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-afghanwomen2.htm">this</a> list of restrictions on women due to extremist reglious beliefs.

This is not history (more hersey and rumour), and it will easily be taken apart by the members of this site.
 
Erci Margolis is either a complete lunatic or a very, very lazy and ignorant journalist.
 
Heh, well I can't say I've come to expect anything less from the Sun group of newspapers.
 
I'll take "Lazy and Ignorant Journalist for $1000 Alex"    ;D



Have to remind myself the next time I see this character in theater, which as far as I know he's never been, to latch onto him and take him out to the towns and villages and let him talk to the locals.

You have to love journalism from the safety of an office in Toronto    ::)
 
Well, he has been there, but not recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Margolis

Of course if you ask him, we're all part of the military "PR" machine that's spinning what's happening in Afghanistan.  We're all the same, after all - and part of the big conspiracy... ::)

Another case of selective "facts" being used to support a severely tilted political viewpoint.  Margolis has a reputation as an Islamist apologist with views that were likely tainted years ago by his time with the Mujahidin.  He's widely quoted as an "expert", when he's no such thing.

Edited to fix link...
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Agree 100%.  The guy is a tool....


Matt.

+1


BTW Mullah Omar is a HUGE Opium head -- he had a lot of drug induced statues down down aroidn Kandahar and some outliyign areas...


 
Armymedic said:
An excellent, thought provocing article about the missions in Afghanistan.
While I do not agree with all his opinions, you can not argue against history.

Well...it certainly is thought provoking, and he certainly does present his opinions (as facts, unfortunately) but it is not really history. As Teddy and others have pointed out, he has not bothered to do much actual research on recent conditions. I was in Afgh during the  national election, which occupied a considerable part of my time as LO between ISAF and CJTF76. The major thought that his article provokes for me is that either Margolis does not know what he is talking about, or he does and he is counting on the great ignorance of the Canadian public to let his "version" slip by as "truth".

Yet another journalist desperately hoping for failure in Afghanistan, meanwhile professionaly disparaging those Canadian media who are taking risks alongside the troops.

Cheers
 
As I've said before, my mother once told me that if I had nothing good to say about someone then I should keep my mouth shut. On that note! :-X
 
Washington refused and invaded, blaming the Taliban for 9/11. 

Since when?  I thought they blamed 9/11 on Al Queda..  I guess I missed the memo...
 
Lost_Warrior said:
Since when?  I thought they blamed 9/11 on Al Queda..  I guess I missed the memo...

I think the line of thinking is the Taliban created an environment which was healthy for AQ
 
Armymedic said:
But Washington gave millions in aid to the Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. once considered using them and Osama bin Laden’s 300 al-Qaida followers to stir revolt in China’s western Muslim regions, and in Russian-dominated Central Asia. The U.S. cut off aid after the Taliban refused to give a key strategic pipeline deal to a U.S. oil firm.

Does anyone have the scoop on this Trans Afghanistan pipe line?  From what I've seen, it would only benefit Pakistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.  How does it help the US?  If there was some sort of tender put out, and the US company didn't get it, then who did?  Was the plan even viable?
 
Spending 5 minutes on Google, it seems that Margolis is writing mostly half-truths, he's not completely wrong but doesn't tell the whole truth. He's selectively spinning histroy to support his view.

interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

ie.

But Washington gave millions in aid to the Taliban until four months before 9/11

Margolis doesn't go on to mention that the aid was in the form of grain for humanitarian relief...


Mike.


 
So Ol ' Eric is trying to make a comeback.  One of the great moments of CBC news history was Peter Mansbridge being so respectfull as Margolis sneered at the idiot Americans lying about being near Baghdad, how they were bogged down in a bloodbath a 100 klicks away, etc. etc. etc. Eric the expert military commentator disappeared from the CBC the next day. Guess they didn't have time for him, what with all those pictures of Yanks walking around the Baghdad airport and the Marine tanks in downtown Baghdad.


 
zipperhead_cop said:
Sounds like Margolis and (our) Britney Spears have something in common. ;D

It's funny that you mention that....I was thinking the same thing.


Matthew.  :salute: :cdn:
 
Lawrence Martin of the Globe essentially falls for the Margolis line in this silly piece, April 6, "Are we being taken for a ride on Afghanistan, too?" (full text not online).  Too lazy--as with so many Canadian journalists--to do any research on how the Afghan government was formed and the elections held--all under UN, not American, auspices. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060406.COMARTIN06%2FTPStory%2FComment&ord=18285295&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

Mark
Ottawa
 
I was disgusted by Martin's piece, and sent the following letter yesterday:

".. am writing in response to Lawrence Martin’s article “Are We Being Taken For a Ride In Afghanistan, Too?”



I am a Canadian soldier who has served in Afghanistan. The frivolous tone with which Mr. Martin addresses the combat death of one of our soldiers shocks me. Perhaps the adjectives he so thoughtlessly throws about (“negligent, careless, reprehensible, reckless and quite likely idiotic”) might apply equally well to his own work. I suspect that Mr Martin, like some others who are rushing to judgement on this incident and indeed on our commitment to Afghanistan in general, have little real understanding of what they are taking about. This pre-judgement is not, in my opinion, in keeping with any recognizable standard of fairness or accuracy in journalism.  Martin has taken the military’s ethical and forthright effort to be transparent about this incident and mocked it, and by extension mocked all of us who serve. His less than subtle message is that neither we in uniform, nor those reporters who share risks with us to provide an understanding of our soldiers that Canadians sorely lack, can be trusted at all. Just like Mr Margolis, whose opinions he uses to pad out the rather factually deficient structure of his own piece, Mr Martin appears to be one of those journalists who hopes desperately for the failure of our mission in Afghanistan. Respect the fallen and await the outcome of the investigation..."

Cheers

 
Back
Top