The nerve of these guys! Karzai ‘wins’ anyway
by William Bowles • Wednesday, November 4, 2009 16:50
Have you ever seen anything more outrageous? Talk about double standards! For weeks the BBC bombarded us with outrage concerning the elections in Iran with wall-to-wall coverage of the protests and predicting some other kind of ‘colour’ revolution, a green one this time (what will USAID, NDI, Freedom House, George Soros et al do, when they run out of colours?).
Compare the BBC’s squeals of outrage over the Iranian elections with how the BBC ‘delicately’ deals with the Afghan elections. No wall-to-wall coverage of Afghan outrage over a stolen election. Instead,
More or less? And pointed out by whom? Reading ‘between the lines’ here the BBC is actually telling its readers that Karzai is ‘our man in Kabul’ whether crooked or not. Then the BBC, ever faithful mouthpiece for the Empire informs us that the first ‘condition’,
So, just like the ‘election’ it’s not the reality that counts but how things are seen as far as the BBC is concerned. Government? What government?
Fat chance! The ‘election’ that got Karzai ‘elected’ in the first place was a fix. Corruption? Karzai’s brother is a high-up in in the opium trade, a trade worth around $65 billion a year (around 2% gets interdicted)! The CIA are up to their necks in opium and have been so since the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
The paradox of requesting a corrupt government to end its own corruption is of course studiously avoided. And what of the hated Taliban?
What is going on here!? On the one hand we have our glorious leader G Brown telling us that in slaughtering Afghanis and getting his troops killed, it’s all about stopping the Taliban/al-Qu’eda from taking over the UK, and on the other hand he’s trying to do deals with the (formerly hated?) Taliban, offering to swap bases for provinces like it’s a game of Monopoly!
And then in another story that reinforces the proffered deal it is clear that the US intend to stay in Afghanistan regardless of ‘elections’ fixed or otherwise.
The BBC’s scandalous ‘news’ reports on events in Afghanistan are more of a coverup than coverage. But in a story today on the BBC Website we finally get to hear from Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai’s opponent in the fraudulent elections.
Difficult to assess? But clearly the elections were fixed, of that there is no doubt, so why the difficulty? Amazing, when it comes to assessing motives in Iran the BBC is not short of words (or pictures) but in a country that has been invaded and thousands of its people slaughtered, allegedly to install ‘democracy’, the Beeb is suddenly bereft of explanations as to why Abdullah Abdullah says the elections were stolen.
1. For more on ‘colour revolutions’ see ‘Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III Part 2’ By Andrew Gavin Marshall
2. See ‘War, the CIA and Narco-Trafficking Afghanistan, American Drug Colony’ By MIKE WHITNEY, Counterpunch, 8 September, 2004.
Chossudovsky, Michel. “Who Is Osama Bin Laden?”.
3. See ‘What’s the US objective in Afghanistan?’, “Pentagon officials are going public with a plan to set-up indefinitely in the region.” Real News Network, 3 November, 2009
This article is archived at: http://www.creative-i.info/?p=11753
If you forward this email to anybody, they can subscribe by clicking here
Email me with comments, whinges, suggestions and especially monies: •••@••.•••
William Bowles: BBC hypocrisy re/ Afghanistan
Moderator: •••@••.••• (comments welcome)