Afghanistan: US Black Propaganda Fails to Discredit Opposition to American Hypocrisy

Bogus stories on military operations

ABC news is reporting something that doesn't add up. The report states that many people are signing up for operations in the coming months.

Small problem: These types of operations are not difficult, and personnel -- if they were actually involved -- wouldn't wait months, but a few days.

ABC reports conduct that doesn't make sense.

Notice the report states, "Large numbers" without quantifying what this means -- and how does it relate to the total number of personnel, civilians, foreign troops, and local politicians. To some people, "substantial" means seven [7].

Also note it discusses and offensive in the "coming months" -- if that's true, then why are they announcing "what they know or plan" and simply plan for it with a surprise? That makes no sense.

If the e-mail is legitimate, then NSA would have an intercept back to the origin, and a confirmation on other e-mails. This means the planning center could be wiped out. That makes no sense.

The timing of the operations seems curious. Here we are in late March, and they're talking about what is going to happen in the summer. Who wants to fight in the summer; and why tell them what you're going to do? That makes no sense.

An "unpredictable wave of resistance" makes no sense: If they're announcing something -- and being specific -- but calling it "unpredictable" then we're asked to believe two opposite things. This is a classic sign of the US saying, "let's make our enemy look stupid. We judge this is a black operation organized by Central Command; and the public affairs office reported this fact to the Afghani leadership.

The win is simple: Because the statements would overplay the problem -- as was done in Iraq -- anything below this "high expectation" would be considered a success both militarily and for the Afghan Government. Same crew working in Iraq as Afghanistan.

Saying that [paraphrasing] "Muslims know the west plans to destroy beliefs" makes no sense. The real issue the Afghan resistance has isn't with the belief, but the fact that the Americans made big promises, and subsequently abandoned their obligations. This non-sense changes the issue from whether the US is or is not effective in providing support for civil order; to one of religion. Maybe Karl Rove dreamed this one up, or a small minded officer who likes to surf the internet.

That the US was blamed in the statement -- for not supporting Hamas and for the violence in Iraq-- doesn't seem strange: If you can make those who "favorably view democratic results -- the election of Hamas as evil" then you can discredit those who agree with the bogus statements.

* * *

If your position in the State Department -- that of rejecting democratic results of Hamas -- isn't popular, all you have to do is associate the majority view with the unfavorable view. However, Hamas is a democratic force; any claim that it is a terrorist group is irrelevant given the Israelis in the 1940s and US in 1776 were terrorists as well. People change.

What better way to discredit those who support the democracy than to say, "Hay if you support Hamas then you are aligning yourself with the Taliban." Small problem: the US has had secret negotiations with the Taliban.

Perhaps when the arrogant Americans start practicing in their Congress the principles they are supposedly fighting for abroad -- rule of law -- we might be able to have a serious discussion. Curious Congress and the White House spend alot of time "concerned" about the rule in a region they "control" -- Iraq and Afghanistan; but do nothing when that principle is destroyed in a place they "govern" -- America.

Hypocrites!