Biden

[pritch]

Given their penchant for Suicide Bombers, they only need it to work Once....

Was reading somewhere, who knows where, that Afghans don't like suicide bombers. They are predominantly Sunni muslims, but within that, their particular Afghan flavour of Islam frowns on suicide. It was considered therefore that the Taliban were unlikely to resort to suicide veats etc.

"Arabs" resident in the country may be less reluctant.

[Viking01]

One other thing. It was Mr Pliger I think mentioned the IMF/World Bank. When Australia and NZ sent troops to Timor the Indonesian plan was to wait until they landed then bomb them into oblivion. It was apparently the IMF/World Bank that got them to drop that plan.

Did hear an interesting story from a former NZ Police officer who worked in Timor. His job involved teaching locals about identifying bodies and processing documentation of same. There was a problem, albeit a good one, there were very few bodies available at the time.

Then Kiwi soldier Private Manning was killed by the Indonesians. A short time later Helen Clarke arrived on an official visit to Timor with an NZSAS escort. After her visit she left. Without her escort. Shortly thereafter a somewhat continuous stream of bodies started arriving for processing aiding the Police officer's training programme immensely.

Afternoon.

Interesting that you mention both John Pilger and the IMF / World Bank.

John Pilger
His book "Distant Voices" dedicated a whole chapter to East Timor. In the book, he mentions Australia's Gough Whitlam meeting with Suharto in Java in 1974, and Australian officials effectively "green-lighting" an invasion of East Timor. Not that they had any right to do so.

IMF and World Bank
I had to nod my head as I read the comments in your post. Quite believable.

When you're fronting a lending institution like the IMF (or WB), it's difficult to justify (publicly visible) lending to persons or institutions with a poor reputation. Whether it be violation of human rights (e.g. civilian deaths by militia operated by dictators) or the environment (e.g. poisoning of rivers - waterways and fish - by mining companies).

But it's even harder to justify when your "most valued clients" are often the worst offenders. Hence the situation the IMF and World Bank find themselves in (not that it stops them lending):

https://www.globalresearch.ca/enforc...d-bank/5750683

If there is one book I'd recommend many read, it is "Pillaging the World - The History and Politics of the IMF" by Ernst Wolff. Only 200 pages, good concise reading, and you get a useful history lesson from 1945 through to about 2018. While I have a hard copy edition, it is also available in PDF form online:

https://www.perlego.com/book/1035872...of-the-imf-pdf

Investigative Journalists
Just as an aside, there is one thing I feel our Pacific neighbour across the Tasman does do well, and that is to produce good investigative journalists (though some reading this will disagree).

Their ability to find and to search through some of the political cesspools around the world, tell a story of the various shady dealings, and identify which politicians and financiers had their little fingers involved.

The following article was originally available on the American Herald Tribune (until it had its domain seized by the US Government a year or two back - so much for US freedom of the press), but the article has since been re-issued on Russia Insider:

https://russia-insider.com/en/three-...ssange/ri28270

The name Wilfred Burchett will not be familiar to most, but he was the first western investigative journalist to get into Japan immediately after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pilger and Assange have literally followed in his shoe steps.

Burchett smuggled himself into Japan and travelled to Hiroshima (unknown to the US military authorities), and managed to write and smuggle out articles on the effects of the atomic bombing (deaths and radiation sickness) - despite the best efforts of US authorities to prevent that happening.

He also investigated and wrote about the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Needless to say, the US authorities were again extremely unhappy about his having done so. And if you think that Assange's home government (Australia) has been less than supportive of him and his endeavours, well, it was tough times for Burchett as well. His auto-biography can be found online.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...bel_Journalist

[When I last searched for a copy online several years ago, only a few hard copies were available (starting at $300), but I now see that paper-back copies are available.]

[husaberg]

One other thing. It was Mr Pliger I think mentioned the IMF/World Bank. When Australia and NZ sent troops to Timor the Indonesian plan was to wait until they landed then bomb them into oblivion. It was apparently the IMF/World Bank that got them to drop that plan.

.

I was reading about the F111 the other day and seen this.

Former Indonesian defense minister Benny Murdani told his counterpart Kim Beazley that when others became upset with Australia during cabinet meetings, Murdani told them “Do you realize the Australians have a bomber that can put a bomb through that window on to the table here in front of us?
As explained by Peter E Davies in his book F-111 & EF-111 Units in Combat, RAAF F- 111s participated in numerous Red Flag and Pacific region exercises such as Pitch Black, but they also flew operations in a potentially hostile situation. In 1999 F-111Cs and RF-111Cs were moved to the ‘bare base’ at Tindal, in the Northern Territory, as part of the No 95 Contingency Strike Wing in response to tensions over the Indonesian province of East Timor during a period of civil disorder there. Tindal was opened in 1989 (replacing RAAF Darwin) as one of several forward basing areas for strike fighters. East Timor had been taken over by Indonesia in 1975 after Portugal withdrew its colonial control, and a violent opposition to repressive Indonesian rule ended with a UN-sponsored agreement to allow East Timor independence in 1999.The RAAF flew in support of a UN-mandated, Australian-led International Force for East Timor (INTERFET), which was sent in in September 1999 to restore order. Australia’s purchase of F-111s had originally been prompted by Indonesia’s expansionist policies, threatening Malaysia and Singapore. National security demanded a long-range strike aircraft to cope with that threat.

The Australian government made a formal request to Indonesia’s leadership that the RAAF be allowed to fly reconnaissance missions over the area. In response, the Indonesian military stated that it would shoot down any F-111s that attempted to overfly East Timor. At Tindal, up to ten F-111Cs were kept on alert with LGBs available if strikes were indeed required in support of INTERFET. The aircraft were ready to make a 1000-mile, four-jet flight with 16,000 lbs of LGBs, which could have been used to attack Indonesian communications centres in East Timor if required.

By the end of October 1999 the Indonesian Army had renounced its claim to the disputed area and withdrawn from East Timor. Reconnaissance flights by two RF-111Cs commenced on 6 November and continued until 9 December, the aircraft involved steering clear of Indonesia but providing valuable photographic data that was used to improve East Timor’s road network.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pig-...-111-aardvark/

[Viking01]

The poor Timorese people have had a rough deal, from the time that the Indonesians were given the "green light" to invade western Timor in 1975, through to even current day.

East Timor

Our Australians friends - having first agreed to the above - obviously decided in the interim (due to oil and gas discoveries in the Timor Sea) that "independence for the east Timorese" was beneficial to Australia.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...eaten-powerful

So while East Timor secured independence in 1999, Australia was well positioned to try and secure the "lions share" of access to such oil and gas reserves.

Not only did Australia delay finalising agreement on sea boundaries, they were able to extract reserves from "their side of the final boundary line" in the interim:

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content...yed-east-timor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4487788.stm

Sadly, there were also some internal political disagreements in East Timor post the 2005 Timor Sea Agreement, which delayed new development (apart from a lack of capital for financing new infrastructure).

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/1...-in-hot-water/

But the World Bank is ever confident:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country...leste/overview

West Timor
Apart from extracting mineral wealth from West Timor, Indonesia has exercised a transfer of Indonesian people to West Timor, effectively rendering the indigenous West Timorese as a minority in their own country (state):

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content...ew-timor-leste

[TheDemonLord]

Morning.
Thanks for the reply, as always.

1. Suicide Bombers
Not quite sure I see the point you're making, especially when responsibility for the latest Kabul bombing has been claimed by / attributed to ISIS - KP. If you scroll down to the section sub-heading within the following link:

What we know so far – IS claims responsibility for attack
"The Islamic State group’s affiliate in Afghanistan has claimed responsibility for the attack outside the Kabul airport."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...080ef844e76c7e

Not that specific Attack - More a generalized 'let's assume there are some Islamic Fundamentalists with an Axe to grind against the US and a belief that Matyrdom will grant them 77 Virgins' - A Couple of Blackhawk helicopters on a one-way attack, for example, could do some serious Damage and with a range that the Taliban previously didn't have.

2. Buyers of US Arms Seized by the Taliban
So, just who are some of "these clientele" that the Taliban might sell US weapons to ?

Is it some-one to whom the (i) US (ii) UK (iii) France or Germany (iv) Russia, haven't been selling weapons to the last 10+ years ?

Otherwise, Yes, I'd be mighty upset that some-one was trying to "move in on my patch" and flog off "second hand weapons" that they'd suddenly acquired. Even worse when they didn't offer supply of maintenance spares.

What's the business of "selling armaments globally" coming to ? Always buy from a reputable buyer, I say.

Of course, Arms deals have and will always be a murky business - no denying it there. Insert the Yes, Minister clip about Arms Dealing.

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the Taliban would prefer the Dollar value of the equipment - I can think of some Institutions in South America with a Lot of Cash, a history of getting illegal goods from point A to point B who might be rather interested in some cutting-edge US Tech.

3. Joe Biden Press Conferences
I'm not defending either Red or Blue teams, their front-men or their sponsors.

Though if I recall rightly, Trump did attempt to initiate US troop draw-downs during his term, and the US military administration effectively ignored his direction to do so. [ Just as well John Bolton and Mike Pompeo were there to keep things in hand, and Trump on the "straight-and-narrow".]

So there's two points to cover here IMO - one is whether the Decision in general to pull out of Afghanistan was correct, then the discussion about the actualities of how it was done.

On the first point - yes, it's true Trump negotiated with the Taliban, a Decision I actually disagree with. However, that said, I agree with his reasoning for doing so - namely that the US can't build an Empire and they are throwing good lives at the problem, not to mention the financial cost, so it's time to end it. I personally think that the US should have done what Britain did in the age of Empire and actually run the place properly - and you need to do it for at least 3 generations - but that's a different take.

Trump has been clear on what his withdrawal plan was: Civilians, Equipment, Military and sabotage/destroy anything that couldn't be taken. Which is the basis for an orderly withdrawal. As mentioned above, he negotiated with the Taliban, they initially reneged on the deal, so Trump dropped a MOAB on them.

Biden on the otherhand, I mean - he said in a press conference that he was letting the Taliban provide perimeter security for them as they withdrew and that they'd given the Taliban a list of Names of people they'd like to get evacuated.

That's literally about as bad as putting a convicted Pedophile as the sole-carer at the Kindergarten.

4. Decision to Exit Afghanistan
Political vs Military Decision - Again, I don't quite see your point.

You're likely quite right in your assertion, in that the decision to exit Afghanistan was ultimately a political decision.

But surely the same could be said about the decision to invade Afghanistan in the first place.

If I recall rightly, Bush Junior used the following as the justification in calling for the Afghan invasion in the first place:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-107publ40.htm

And that the same piece of legislation has effectively been used by both Red and Blue administrations since, to justify all manner of US government actions subsequent (e.g use of Guantanamo Bay to hold detainees; eaves-dropping on communications of US citizens, etc).

As for whether the US military "made the decision" (or "agreed with the decision"). What is the relevance ?

Or are you telling me that the US military (and its backers) now make the decision for the US to wage (or cease making) war external to the US ? Outside of the US Senate ?

Cheers, Viking

I kinda touched on whether we should have or not above - when I said it was Political, I meant the time frames and the manner were all so Biden could say he got out by the 20th anniversary of September the 11th.

I do not believe it was the case that Biden told the US military 'We need to get out, go and make it happen in the best way possible', and then letting the Military drive to meet the objective.

I believe it is more likely Biden said 'You need to be out by this date, don't care how, just do it'.

Or to put it another way - It's one thing to give the Military an objective 'Go and eliminate that High Value Target' and then letting the Military decide on the best method to achieve the goal (Drone strike, CIA assassin, SEAL Team/Special Forces Raid, 3rd party contractors etc.) and it's another to say 'I want to get this guy and I want to do it by dropping a Nuke on his head'.

[TheDemonLord]

Was reading somewhere, who knows where, that Afghans don't like suicide bombers. They are predominantly Sunni muslims, but within that, their particular Afghan flavour of Islam frowns on suicide. It was considered therefore that the Taliban were unlikely to resort to suicide veats etc.

"Arabs" resident in the country may be less reluctant.

Doesn't necessarily need to be a Suicide Vest per se, as above - One way missions spring to mind, flying a Blackhawk into a crowded area and letting rip with the Miniguns (as an example)

[husaberg]

Trumps reason "they never helped us in WW2".....

US troops express anger at Trump's Syria policy: 'We betrayed' the Kurds

While Trump administration officials have argued that Turkey would have attacked the Kurds even if US troops had remained, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and a large bipartisan group of US lawmakers have slammed Trump for not opposing the Turkish operation more forcefully and for taking no concrete action to stop it.
Republican lawmakers in particular have harshly denounced Trump's decision as a betrayal of the Kurds and a strategic blunder that will weaken American credibility, reverse gains against ISIS, make it harder for the US to build alliances and give a boost to Russia and Iran.The Trump administration belatedly sought to halt the Turkish advance Monday, announcing a series of sanctions targeting Turkey's Defense, Energy and Interior ministers as well as the Defense and Energy ministries.
Vice President Mike Pence also revealed that Trump had spoken with both Turkey's President Erdogan and the Kurdish-leader of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Gen. Mazloum Kobani Abdi, adding that Trump had "received a firm commitment" from Erdogan not to attack the Syrian Kurdish

[Viking01]

1. Not that specific Attack - More a generalized 'let's assume there are some Islamic Fundamentalists with an Axe to grind against the US and a belief that Matyrdom will grant them 77 Virgins' - A Couple of Blackhawk helicopters on a one-way attack, for example, could do some serious Damage and with a range that the Taliban previously didn't have.

2. Of course, Arms deals have and will always be a murky business - no denying it there. Insert the Yes, Minister clip about Arms Dealing.

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the Taliban would prefer the Dollar value of the equipment - I can think of some Institutions in South America with a Lot of Cash, a history of getting illegal goods from point A to point B who might be rather interested in some cutting-edge US Tech.

So there's two points to cover here IMO - one is whether the Decision in general to pull out of Afghanistan was correct, then the discussion about the actualities of how it was done.

3. On the first point - yes, it's true Trump negotiated with the Taliban, a Decision I actually disagree with. However, that said, I agree with his reasoning for doing so - namely that the US can't build an Empire and they are throwing good lives at the problem, not to mention the financial cost, so it's time to end it. I personally think that the US should have done what Britain did in the age of Empire and actually run the place properly - and you need to do it for at least 3 generations - but that's a different take.

Trump has been clear on what his withdrawal plan was: Civilians, Equipment, Military and sabotage/destroy anything that couldn't be taken. Which is the basis for an orderly withdrawal. As mentioned above, he negotiated with the Taliban, they initially reneged on the deal, so Trump dropped a MOAB on them.

Biden on the other hand, I mean - he said in a press conference that he was letting the Taliban provide perimeter security for them as they withdrew and that they'd given the Taliban a list of Names of people they'd like to get evacuated.

That's literally about as bad as putting a convicted Pedophile as the sole-carer at the Kindergarten.

4. I kinda touched on whether we should have or not above - when I said it was Political, I meant the time frames and the manner were all so Biden could say he got out by the 20th anniversary of September the 11th.

I do not believe it was the case that Biden told the US military 'We need to get out, go and make it happen in the best way possible', and then letting the Military drive to meet the objective.

I believe it is more likely Biden said 'You need to be out by this date, don't care how, just do it'.

Or to put it another way - It's one thing to give the Military an objective 'Go and eliminate that High Value Target' and then letting the Military decide on the best method to achieve the goal (Drone strike, CIA assassin, SEAL Team/Special Forces Raid, 3rd party contractors etc.) and it's another to say 'I want to get this guy and I want to do it by dropping a Nuke on his head'.

Morning. Thanks for the reply.

A few tasks to do today, so just a quick reply this morning. For ease of reply, I numbered the four key points above.

1. Suicide Bombers
OK. I hadn't realised that the discussion had shifted from the Taliban to "Islamic Fundamentalists with Axe Sharpening Skills" in general.
But if I understand it correctly, the key point to take away is "Not to supply high technology weaponry to friendly / useful Islamic fundamentalists in future". Only axes. Noted.

Just a point of accuracy: I thought that the standard offer from Muhammad was 72 virgins ("companions"), not 77. I'll not make any flippant comments, given the experience of the Danish Jyllands Posten newspaper back in 2005.

2. Buyers and Sellers of Arms
South American parties. Noted.

While (with the volume of USD currently washing through the US banking system) the sale proceeds would probably get lost in the rounding, I'd still advise them not to settle in USD, and not to use US banking channels (or SWIFT) for remittance of payment.

3. Cost of Maintaining Empire
English Empire. Noted.

Though I never fully understood why they gave away the Empire in the first place. Was it because the natives wanted their countries back (e.g. India - 1947, South Africa - 1992, China and Hong Kong - 1997) ?

Better Quality of Management. Noted.

Though if Boris and his colleagues are anything to go by, perhaps it's time to consider increasing the allocation of peanuts. [ No, not pay them more; get a better class of .... ]

4. Decision to Exit Afghanistan
Strategic vs Tactical. Noted.

One can only hope that the US will make a sincere effort to "do better in future" (especially when they come to exit from Iraq and Syria). And, as per your earlier observation (about potential saving of lives and money), maybe the sooner the better.

Cheers, Viking

[TheDemonLord]

Morning. Thanks for the reply.

A few tasks to do today, so just a quick reply this morning. For ease of reply, I numbered the four key points above.

1. Suicide Bombers
OK. I hadn't realised that the discussion had shifted from the Taliban to "Islamic Fundamentalists with Axe Sharpening Skills" in general.
But if I understand it correctly, the key point to take away is "Not to supply high technology weaponry to friendly / useful Islamic fundamentalists in future". Only axes. Noted.

Just a point of accuracy: I thought that the standard offer from Muhammad was 72 virgins ("companions"), not 77. I'll not make any flippant comments, given the experience of the Danish Jyllands Posten newspaper back in 2005.

I'll be honest that I don't see much of a difference between the two. I'm sure on some finer aspects of interpretation of the Qu'ran, there are disagreements - but in terms of the general picture...

2. Buyers and Sellers of Arms
South American parties. Noted.

While (with the volume of USD currently washing through the US banking system) the sale proceeds would probably get lost in the rounding, I'd still advise them not to settle in USD, and not to use US banking channels (or SWIFT) for remittance of payment.

That depends on whether the Taliban will sell of course, but yeah there's many an unsavory group with relatively deep pockets who could potentially get their hands on some rather Spicy tech.

3. Cost of Maintaining Empire
English Empire. Noted.

Though I never fully understood why they gave away the Empire in the first place. Was it because the natives wanted their countries back (e.g. India - 1947, South Africa - 1992, China and Hong Kong - 1997) ?

Well, Hong Kong was a lease as a reparations for the Opium Wars IIRC - but in terms of Colonies - Giving them the option was IMO the right thing, and the success of the Commonwealth - whereby 'If you want to keep a close relationship with us, Cool, if not, That's cool too' - it's voluntary and I think it's been a reasonable success.

Better Quality of Management. Noted.

Though if Boris and his colleagues are anything to go by, perhaps it's time to consider increasing the allocation of peanuts. [ No, not pay them more; get a better class of .... ]

Hehe - but that's it - the American's have never built an Empire and think that if you just give people representative Democracies they will immediately see the Benefit of it etc.

Whereas the British went in and enforced it (sometimes a little too harshly...)

4. Decision to Exit Afghanistan
Strategic vs Tactical. Noted.

One can only hope that the US will make a sincere effort to "do better in future" (especially when they come to exit from Iraq and Syria). And, as per your earlier observation (about potential saving of lives and money), maybe the sooner the better.

Cheers, Viking

This all comes back to the question:

What is the objective? If the objective is to (for example) get Saddam Hussein - we've done that.
If it's to defeat the local Military - we've done that too.
If it's to setup a stable country that doesn't generate terrorists - well....

[Viking01]

I'll be honest that I don't see much of a difference between the two. I'm sure on some finer aspects of interpretation of the Qu'ran, there are disagreements - but in terms of the general picture...

That depends on whether the Taliban will sell of course, but yeah there's many an unsavory group with relatively deep pockets who could potentially get their hands on some rather Spicy tech.

Well, Hong Kong was a lease as a reparations for the Opium Wars IIRC - but in terms of Colonies - Giving them the option was IMO the right thing, and the success of the Commonwealth - whereby 'If you want to keep a close relationship with us, Cool, if not, That's cool too' - it's voluntary and I think it's been a reasonable success.

Hehe - but that's it - the American's have never built an Empire and think that if you just give people representative Democracies they will immediately see the Benefit of it etc.

Whereas the British went in and enforced it (sometimes a little too harshly...)

This all comes back to the question:

What is the objective? If the objective is to (for example) get Saddam Hussein - we've done that.
If it's to defeat the local Military - we've done that too.
If it's to setup a stable country that doesn't generate terrorists - well....

Thanks.
I suspect that we have a quite different perspective on colonialisation and its benefits, not to mention justifications for recent invasions around the globe (post 2000) by the US / UK / France and Germany.
Cheers, Viking

[pete376403]

I'll be honest that I don't see much of a difference between the two. I'm sure on some finer aspects of interpretation of the Qu'ran, there are disagreements - but in terms of the general picture....

You might say the same thing about Protestantism / Roman Catholicism. After all they are both finer interpretations of the bible, there are disagreement (such as Northern Ireland - 'The Troubles" which was resulted in at least 3500 deaths)

[pete376403]

I'll be honest that I don't see much of a difference between the two. I'm sure on some finer aspects of interpretation of the Qu'ran, there are disagreements - but in terms of the general picture....

You might say the same thing about Protestantism / Roman Catholicism. After all they are both finer interpretations of the bible, there are disagreement (such as Northern Ireland - 'The Troubles" which was resulted in at least 3500 deaths)

[F5 Dave]

No, no, no. The Dog I voted for wouldn't have allowed that sort of thing to happen.
Fake news.

[husaberg]

You might say the same thing about Protestantism / Roman Catholicism. After all they are both finer interpretations of the bible, there are disagreement (such as Northern Ireland - 'The Troubles" which was resulted in at least 3500 deaths)

you are wasting your time i pointed out that to him before including showing him the verses in the bible when he claimed it was only the koran it seems TLDR has a prefered sky pixie, all other are fake news.......

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131118680
Ad his to ignore

Other claims were that he knows more than the US supreme court judges about US law and more about US security than the FBI
Add him to ignore and it cuts down the page size by 40%

[TheDemonLord]

You might say the same thing about Protestantism / Roman Catholicism. After all they are both finer interpretations of the bible, there are disagreement (such as Northern Ireland - 'The Troubles" which was resulted in at least 3500 deaths)

And funnily enough....

I do.