Tuesday 7 April 2009

NATO / US Protects Afghan Heroin Crop

Right then lets get the bullshit out of the way.

British and US soldiers aint in Afghanistan to protect British and US national security.

They are there simply because our idiot, pro-open national borders, pro-globalism, pro-immigration governments have allowed so many Islamist terrorist scum into our countries and so weakened our national borders that unless they put boots on the ground in those areas to stop them becoming terrorist training camps that we in the US and UK are going to have shit bombed out of us by Jihadists forever.

This is because the Jihadists in the UK all have dual passports to Islamist nations and have free movement back and forth from our nations back into those nations where they can train for Jihad.

The pro-open borders, pro-globalism, pro-immigration idiots are the cause of the problem - as the open borders, globalism and immigration are the reasons the terrorists can get into our nations.

Rather than executing the terrorists, deporting their supporters and closing down our national borders so that immigrants, terrorists and spongers cannot get into our nations - our bent governments want them for cheap votes and cheap labour.

Therefore British and American soldiers have to die in Afghanistan because our governments wont seal our national borders to protect us from the inner terrorist enemy and the millions more ready to walk into our country.

There is no national security argument for us being in Afghanistan - if we sealed our national borders, executed the terrorists in our country and deported their supporters we would have no security risks in our nations.

Who gives a shit if bunch of primitive, well armed goat herders living in the middle ages want to live in their own rat hole of a country under Sharia law.

I dont.

Fuck em.

Let them do what they want in their own country.

If they allow British and American terrorists to train in Afghanistan all we need to do is fly over at 30,000 feet and carpet bomb them and their training camps back into the stone age.

Job done.

The reson we are there is because ;

1) our leaders will not ensure our national security

2) to ensure that the heroin crop is protected

The heroin in Afghanistan, along with the oil money the west pays to the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, funds the global jihad.

Yet instead of destroying the heroin we protect it - so that it can flood into the UK, be delivered to the Islamist Junkie Jihadists in the UK and they can sell it to white kids so that they become addicts and die and therefore become assymetric warfare casualties of the global jihad.

Heroin keeps a generation of young people pacified, quiet and tranquilised.

They are too busy injecting and smoking the shit to rise up against the governments that are ripping them off - instead they stick needles in their arms and remain as passive spectators before their nations slow suicide.

Apart from dust, sand, disease and heroin Afghanistan is a desert.

The only thing it grows that the world wants is heroin - and the only crop the soldiers are ordered to protect is their heroin crops.

Instead of bombing the Taliban, who in reality are a bunch of pissed off goat herders, drug growers, drug exporters, Afghan nationalists and angry victims of collateral damage working for Pakistani military intelligence - the US and UK should be bombing the heroin fields.

The Taliban do not exist - there is the Pakistani ISI, Pakistan army, Pakistani jihadists and pakistani funded terror cells - but no Taliban.

The Taliban are a pakistani front group - they are not a real group.

They are about as real as Al Qaeda.

The real war against the Taliban is against the Pakistani government, army and intelligence services and in Pakistan , it is not against the poor Afghani's who are paid to fight for Pakistan in their proxy army against the West.

Without the aid and assistance of Pakistan = no taliban.

Without the money from heroin then Pakistan would be virtually bankrupt.

Our governments allow heroin to be grown in Afghanistan as they know it will go through Pakistan and benefit pakistan.

It then goes into the US and UK and benefits Pakistani Muslim Jihadist gangs who send the money back to Pakistan where it is laundered.

The heroin crop keeps Pakistan financially alive.

The heroin users in the UK and US keep the global Jihad alive by paying for the heroin.

British and US tax payers pay for US and UK soldiers to guard the heroin crops in Afghanistan.

The reason why our governments allow this to happen is because we are so dependent upon Middle East oil that if we started kicking the terrorist out of our countries, executing them and removing the inner enemy - the Middle East 'allies' of the West would no longer sell us their oil.

Remember that the 911 hijackers were Saudis - not Iraqi's or Afghan's.

Whilst the Middle East oil barons tell us they are our friends, they subsidise the Wahhabist Jihadist lunatics in the UK.

If we withdrew from Afghanistan, bombed the poppy fields from 30,000 feet with napalm whenever anyone saw one being grown on a satellite image and our governments executed the heroin importers and dealers in the UK aand US then the global jihad would be virtually finished over night.

The only money going the Jihadists then would be via the Saudi government and their billionaire extremists who fund the Jihad with oil money.

Then we would see them for what they reall are - and we would be revealed as totally dependent slaves upon their oil.

We must end our dependence on foreign oil so we can tell the Saudi Wahhabists to fuck off out of country and ensure we do not fund the Jihad with our oil money.

We must withdraw from Afghanistan and seal our national borders.

We must execute the heroin importers, dealers that bring the heroin into our nations and if needed also execute the users of heroin if they refuse to come off of it.

Every fix they take pays for another IED or bomb on a tube train.

No more pity for the heroin addict funders of the Junkie Jihad in our countries - they aint victims they are criminals and they deserve to die for treason for funding the enemies of the West.

We must get rid of the globalist governments that will not execute the terrorists, who will not deport their supporters and who will not seal our national borders.

Afghanistan is not worth the blood of a single British soldier - we are over there because the enemy are over here.

We must remove the inner enemy from our nations and that includes both our governments, the drug importers, the drug users and the Jihadist immigrants they allow into our nations.

The primary enemy is not the terrorists, it is our own governments.


Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all timeBy CRAIG MURRAY
Last updated at 20:45 21 julij 2007

Comments (6) Add to My Stories This week the 64th British soldier to die in Afghanistan, Corporal Mike Gilyeat, was buried. All the right things were said about this brave soldier, just as, on current trends, they will be said about one or more of his colleagues who follow him next week.
The alarming escalation of the casualty rate among British soldiers in Afghanistan ? up to ten per cent ? led to discussion this week on whether it could be fairly compared to casualty rates in the Second World War.
Scroll down for more...

But the key question is this: what are our servicemen dying for? There are glib answers to that: bringing democracy and development to Afghanistan, supporting the government of President Hamid Karzai in its attempt to establish order in the country, fighting the Taliban and preventing the further spread of radical Islam into Pakistan.

But do these answers stand up to close analysis?
There has been too easy an acceptance of the lazy notion that the war in Afghanistan is the 'good' war, while the war in Iraq is the 'bad' war, the blunder. The origins of this view are not irrational. There was a logic to attacking Afghanistan after 9/11.
Afghanistan was indeed the headquarters of Osama Bin Laden and his organisation, who had been installed and financed there by the CIA to fight the Soviets from 1979 until 1989. By comparison, the attack on Iraq ? which was an enemy of Al Qaeda and no threat to us ? was plainly irrational in terms of the official justification.
So the attack on Afghanistan has enjoyed a much greater sense of public legitimacy. But the operation to remove Bin Laden was one thing. Six years of occupation are clearly another.

Head of the Afghan armed forces: General Abdul Rashid Dostrum
Few seem to turn a hair at the officially expressed view that our occupation of Iraq may last for decades.
Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell has declared, fatuously, that the Afghan war is 'winnable'.
Afghanistan was not militarily winnable by the British Empire at the height of its supremacy. It was not winnable by Darius or Alexander, by Shah, Tsar or Great Moghul. It could not be subdued by 240,000 Soviet troops. But what, precisely, are we trying to win?
In six years, the occupation has wrought one massive transformation in Afghanistan, a development so huge that it has increased Afghan GDP by 66 per cent and constitutes 40 per cent of the entire economy. That is a startling achievement, by any standards. Yet we are not trumpeting it. Why not?
The answer is this. The achievement is the highest harvests of opium the world has ever seen.
The Taliban had reduced the opium crop to precisely nil. I would not advocate their methods for doing this, which involved lopping bits, often vital bits, off people. The Taliban were a bunch of mad and deeply unpleasant religious fanatics. But one of the things they were vehemently against was opium.
That is an inconvenient truth that our spin has managed to obscure. Nobody has denied the sincerity of the Taliban's crazy religious zeal, and they were as unlikely to sell you heroin as a bottle of Johnnie Walker.
They stamped out the opium trade, and impoverished and drove out the drug warlords whose warring and rapacity had ruined what was left of the country after the Soviet war.
That is about the only good thing you can say about the Taliban; there are plenty of very bad things to say about them. But their suppression of the opium trade and the drug barons is undeniable fact.
Now we are occupying the country, that has changed. According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60 per cent. This year will be even bigger.
Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.
It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.
How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government ? the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.
When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons ? especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance ? to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.
President Karzai is a good man. He has never had an opponent killed, which may not sound like much but is highly unusual in this region and possibly unique in an Afghan leader. But nobody really believes he is running the country. He asked America to stop its recent bombing campaign in the south because it was leading to an increase in support for the Taliban. The United States simply ignored him. Above all, he has no control at all over the warlords among his ministers and governors, each of whom runs his own kingdom and whose primary concern is self-enrichment through heroin.
My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe.
I watched the tankers of chemicals roaring into Afghanistan.
Yet I could not persuade my country to do anything about it. Alexander Litvinenko ? the former agent of the KGB, now the FSB, who died in London last November after being poisoned with polonium 210 ? had suffered the same frustration over the same topic.
There are a number of theories as to why Litvinenko had to flee Russia. The most popular blames his support for the theory that FSB agents planted bombs in Russian apartment blocks to stir up anti-Chechen feeling.
But the truth is that his discoveries about the heroin trade were what put his life in danger. Litvinenko was working for the KGB in St Petersburg in 2001 and 2002. He became concerned at the vast amounts of heroin coming from Afghanistan, in particular from the fiefdom of the (now) Head of the Afghan armed forces, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, in north and east Afghanistan.
Dostum is an Uzbek, and the heroin passes over the Friendship Bridge from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it is taken over by President Islam Karimov's people. It is then shipped up the railway line, in bales of cotton, to St Petersburg and Riga.
The heroin Jeeps run from General Dostum to President Karimov. The UK, United States and Germany have all invested large sums in donating the most sophisticated detection and screening equipment to the Uzbek customs centre at Termez to stop the heroin coming through.
But the convoys of Jeeps running between Dostum and Karimov are simply waved around the side of the facility.
Litvinenko uncovered the St Petersburg end and was stunned by the involvement of the city authorities, local police and security services at the most senior levels. He reported in detail to President Vladimir Putin. Putin is, of course, from St Petersburg, and the people Litvinenko named were among Putin's closest political allies. That is why Litvinenko, having miscalculated badly, had to flee Russia.
I had as little luck as Litvinenko in trying to get official action against this heroin trade. At the St Petersburg end he found those involved had the top protection. In Afghanistan, General Dostum is vital to Karzai's coalition, and to the West's pretence of a stable, democratic government.
Opium is produced all over Afghanistan, but especially in the north and north-east ? Dostum's territory. Again, our Government's spin doctors have tried hard to obscure this fact and make out that the bulk of the heroin is produced in the tiny areas of the south under Taliban control. But these are the most desolate, infertile rocky areas. It is a physical impossibility to produce the bulk of the vast opium harvest there.
That General Dostum is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minister of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. Dostum is known for tying opponents to tank tracks and running them over. He crammed prisoners into metal containers in the searing sun, causing scores to die of heat and thirst.
Since we brought 'democracy' to Afghanistan, Dostum ordered an MP who annoyed him to be pinned down while he attacked him. The sad thing is that Dostum is probably not the worst of those comprising the Karzai government, or the biggest drug smuggler among them.
Our Afghan policy is still victim to Tony Blair's simplistic world view and his childish division of all conflicts into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. The truth is that there are seldom any good guys among those vying for power in a country such as Afghanistan. To characterise the Karzai government as good guys is sheer nonsense.
Why then do we continue to send our soldiers to die in Afghanistan? Our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is the greatest recruiting sergeant for Islamic militants. As the great diplomat, soldier and adventurer Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alexander Burnes pointed out before his death in the First Afghan War in 1841, there is no point in a military campaign in Afghanistan as every time you beat them, you just swell their numbers. Our only real achievement to date is falling street prices for heroin in London.

Remember this article next time you hear a politician calling for more troops to go into Afghanistan. And when you hear of another brave British life wasted there, remember you can add to the casualty figures all the young lives ruined, made miserable or ended by heroin in the UK.

They, too, are casualties of our Afghan policy.

Add to Technorati Favorites

1 comment:

opit said...

And then there is the likelihood that everything we are told about Afghanistan ignores basic facts : like the Taliban being in essence the former government - whatever their policies were - and that the mission is to destroy the leadership the natives previously had. Ain't that some initiative for building self government: destroy experienced personnell.
The real reasons British soldiers are dying there ? What were they around 1842, when the Khyber Pass was the set for a loss of British Expeditionary members to the tune of 12,000 at one fell swoop : basic military history.
Think foreign interference with the country defined by a line separating the local Pashtun in two - Durand Line courtesy Britain - is anywhere near an end after being of interest farther back than the East India Company ?
Next week, right ?