[back] Afghanistan

Dying in Vain - Why Afghanistan?

by Christopher Bollyn 

Updated - February 8, 2010

In Istanbul for a conference on the Afghanistan fiasco on February 5, 2010, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news conference that the situation in Afghanistan is improving after 'a difficult year' in 2009. 

Two Swedes and two Brits were among those killed recently in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, where the real mission has nothing to do with building democracy.  Democracy is not built by a military occupation of foreign armies supporting a corrupt regime.

Have the Americans and Europeans killed in Afghanistan died in vain?  That is the case with eight American soldiers killed last October trying to defend a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan that the military did not deem important enough to reinforce or make more secure.  What really is the mission in Afghanistan?  Have all these people died in vain?

See: Dying in Vain in Afghanistan, February 08, 2010

The administration of Barack Hussein Obama II has requested $70 billion (U.S. dollars) more for its war in Afghanistan for 2010 (on top of $230 billion already spent).  In comparison, the U.S. will spend only $1.6 billion on Amtrak, the national passenger railroad system.  That means that Obama spends about $192 million per day in Afghanistan on a senseless and illegal war, which is more than the U.S. spends in 44 days to provide passenger rail service for 300 million Americans.  The U.S. spends more in 9 days on the Afghanistan fiasco than it spends in one year to provide clean and efficient rail service for the entire nation.  This is hardly the "change" America wants or needs, Mr. Obama.

After 8 years of the costly U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan (with forces from 42 nations) there is still no peace or security.  The recent presidential poll was as bad as elections in Chicago.  The only thing that has improved at all is the opium production.  Terror bombings are frequent, like this one in Kabul on December 15, which killed 8 and wounded 40.  If the U.S. Army and its NATO allies cannot bring security to the capital of Afghanistan after 8 years, what are they doing there?  Conditions under the Taliban were much better than this.  Why are American lives and billions of U.S. tax dollars being wasted on the fiasco in Afghanistan?

A graphic from the Swedish Dagens Nyheter shows the number and nationalities of the forces participating in the occupation of Afghanistan as of November 2009.   These numbers will increase greatly as U.S. and NATO allies send more troops to the eight-year old fiasco known as the "War on Terror."   It should be noted that although the "War on Terror" is an Israeli-designed strategy and the Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak was the first to call for U.S. intervention in Afghanistan - on 9-11 - the Zionist state has not sent troops to Afghanistan (although Israeli intelligence is running the "War on Terror").  The European states, Arab states, even tiny nations like Estonia and Georgia all have troops in Afghanistan -- fighting for the Zionists who dominate their nations.

Note:  Jerry Mazza, an editor of Online Journal, has an excellent article, "Ramping up Afghanistan war to control Caspian oil and gas transport routes" that supports my thesis, first published in October 2001, that the war in Afghanistan is a military campaign to secure pipeline routes for the Israeli-owned gas of Turkmenistan.  The Mazza article is highly recommended.

*   *   *   *   *

In a nationally televised speech at the U.S. Military Acadamy at West Point, President Barack Hussein Obama announced that he will send another 30,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan. Why is Obama sending so many troops to Central Asia?  What is the U.S. military really fighting for in Afghanistan?  Why are we still there?

Obama's December 1 speech at West Point about the war in Afghanistan presented a "false reading of history" about 9-11.  The president's speech on Afghanistan featured a repetition of the fundamental lies about who is really responsible for the terror attacks of 9-11.   The 2009 scientific paper on the discovery of super-thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center by Dr. Steven E. Jones has exposed these claims to be fabrications and revealed to the world that the Twin Towers were pulverized using an extremely sophisticated and powerful nano-composite explosive.  It should be noted that President Obama and his senior staff are fully aware that the U.S. rationale for the invasion of Afghanistan is based on a pack of lies.  History will not judge them lightly for such deceit.

Obama repeated the fundamental lies about 9-11.  Vice President Biden received the evidence of super-thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center in May 2009.  They certainly cannot say they did not know.  Nothing good can come from such criminal deceit.   

Obama repeated the following key lies about 9-11 and Afghanistan during his speech:

Lie No. 1:  I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.

Lie No. 2:  It is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.

Lie No. 3:  If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

Why is Obama lying to the American people about Afghanistan and 9-11?