Afghanistan In Disarray? Blame Iran Even If It's B.S.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that at the end of a bad month for the client regime in Afghanistan and the NATO colonial project in general, that the US made the discovery that Iran was supporting al Qaeda and needed to announce it. I also believe other really stupid things like Ethical Oil and that Ezra Levant is a charming, decent human being.

I won't pretend that the Iranian regime isn't a disgusting, repressive semi-dictatorship that kills and imprisons dissidents. And I won't pretend that, like any capitalist state that seeks to project regional power, that it is above unprincipled maneuverings and manipulations. However, I have serious doubts that the Iranian regime is supporting al Qaeda to any great extent. First off, al Qaeda probably doesn't need it. They have gotten much more support in the past from Saudi Arabia and, to this day, from elements inside the Pakistani intelligence apparatus - the ISI. Osama bin Laden wasn't living in Pakistan for a decade without at least some of the authorities knowing about it - do you think it was just an oversight that the Americans didn't tell the Pakistanis before they staged the raid that killed him? It was precisely because the ISI and the military are increasingly unreliable allies.

What's more, al Qaeda despises the Shia sect of Islam, which is the dominant strand in Iran. To al Qaeda they are apostates and worse even than the Americans. Iran supports other Shia movements - like Hezbollah and the Shia dominated Syrian regime. In neighbouring Iraq, where Shia are also the majority, the al Qaeda grouping has staged numerous terror attacks on Shia pilgrims and worshippers, killing perhaps thousands. These guys are mortal enemies.

Is Iran supporting some elements of the insurgency in Afghanistan? Possibly, even probably. After all, America is in Afghanistan, in part, to encircle and contain Iran (as well as China). They would be a foolish state indeed if they didn't try to undermine the strategy of their enemy - just as America did to the Soviets thirty years ago. So what is the evidence offered? Some disputed conjectures about the conditions under which Iran holds al Qaeda "operatives" and bin Laden relatives who are in Iran.

Since 2001, Iran has appeared a somewhat reluctant host for senior al-Qaeda operatives who fled there after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, keeping them under tight restrictions. After an initial period of co-operation with the West, Iran now seems to be a more comfortable haven even if it remains on the edge of al-Qaeda’s orbit.
Western officials point to the release earlier this year of an Iranian diplomat who was held for 15 months after being kidnapped by gunmen in Pakistan.
In negotiations for the diplomat’s freedom, they say Iran promised better conditions for dozens of people close to Osama bin Laden who were being held under tight security. These included some of the terror chief’s children and the network’s most senior military strategist, Saif al-Adel.
Still, the life of the al-Qaeda-linked exiles in Iran continues to be very much a blind spot for Western intelligence agencies. Few firm details have emerged, such as how much Iran limits their movements and contacts.

In other words - there is no evidence of anything except that, from the sounds of it, some al Qaeda people live under house arrest with no contact to other militants. If there was any contact, the Americans would be trumpeting it from the roof tops. No, no, this is nothing more than hand-waving to demonstrate the problems in Afghanistan originate with EVIIILLL Iran, that America has it in hand, and to distract from the deteriorating situation in America's other war.

U.S. accuses Iran of ‘secret deal’ that gives money, recruits to al-Qaeda - The Globe and Mail

Tories Make The Best Stalinists

I just read in the Toronto Star that Stephen Harper's Tories spent a hundred grand on a staged event in Cambridge to provide "an update on its economic recovery program." It was supposed to be a town hall event where people could grill the Great Helmsman himself. But anybody who thought that Stephen Harper, the king of the staged "ordinary family" event would be facing anything but sycophants and a paid actor or two was dreaming in technicolour:

"The event turned what the opposition Liberals had hoped would be an uncomfortable exercise in government transparency into a slick campaign-style rally for Conservative party faithful."

In total there's to be three of these things, where Stephen Harper gets to wave and smile as "Joe the Plumber" tells him what a great job he's doing for working Canadians. According to the Star "critics" are saying it's the latest example of a "Tory penchant for leveraging public money for partisan gain." Now, there's a hilarious understatement. Joe Stalin could have taken pointers from these guys though without TV poor Uncle Joe was forced to erect statues to himself everywhere. Though he did have some pretty flashy white suits to demonstrate that he was a cut above everybody else. Perhaps a little fashion change is in order for our Prime Minister?

The Globe & Mail's Phoney Gaza "Exposé"

You couldn't be in any doubt that the Globe and Mail were supporters of Israel, certainly not after their plaudits for Canada's lonely vote in the UN Human Rights Council against condemning Israel's "grave violations" in Gaza. Of course they even managed to justify Israel's bombing of civilians and civilian buildings with the thoroughly discredited claim that Hamas uses fellow Palestinians as human shields (not noting the irony that the Israel Defense Forces regularly use human shields,including children - despite a ruling by their own supreme court. See photos.)

The Globe's coverage also managed to miss the story that the studiously neutral International

Committee of the Red Cross condemned Israel for letting children starve next to the bodies of their dead mothers after refusing to allow ambulances to reach the wounded. Nor could I find on their website any account of the internationally covered story of Israeli soldiers shooting children carrying a white flag as a family fled - under orders from the IDF.

The Globe did manage to uncover a much more significant and important "scandal" from the war in Gaza, however. Remember how the IDF bombed that school and killed 43 civilians, many of them children? Well, it didn't happen. That's right, as the Globe says the report "doesn't stand up to scrutiny". Sure, 43 civilians were killed, many of them children. But the bombs landed outside the property line of the school. It just so happened that the civilians, fleeing under orders of the IDF, were standing outside of the school's walls, probably because they were crammed into a small school in their hundreds. So, while Israel lied about there being a sniper's nest, a mortar launching site, no casualties, and that the building was booby-trapped, the real story here is that the shells actually landed right outside the school. Besides demonstrating how utterly, utterly craven are the journalists and editors of the Globe and Mail they also raise questions about their own journalistic abilities. Every article about the school bombing that I could find, names the school al Fakhura - somehow the Globe came up with the name "Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys". One wonders if the reporter was in the wrong place entirely.