Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 1, 2011
Reading Zaeef: 20. Getting Out

Reading Abdul Salam Zaeef: My Life with the Taliban:

I was astonished to read the terms listed on this piece of paper. The group of soldiers and some senior officials were recording everything with their video camera as I listened to the translator. They handed me the paper to sign it, but I threw it back at them in anger.

“I am innocent, and not a criminal,” I said. “I never have, nor will I, accept any kind of accusations. And never will I excuse or thank the Americans for releasing me. If I have committed any crime, which tribunal or court has proved me a criminal!?

“Secondly, I was a Talib, I am a Talib and I will always be a Talib, but I have never been a part of Al Qaeda!
“Third, I was accused of terrorist activities, which I have never done. So how could I admit to doing something that I never did to start with? Tell me!
“Fourth, Afghanistan is my home. No one has the right to tell me what to do in my homeland. If I am the owner of my house, how can someone else come and tell me what to do in it?
“Fifth, I am still detained here, innocently detained. I can be arrested again, accused of any crime, so I am not going to sign any kind of paper.”

They insisted that I sign the paper. They told me that I would not be released if I refused, but still I did not sign it. Even if it would have meant that I spend the rest of my life in prison, I could never accept to confess to being a criminal. Many times they left and came back, but I still did not sign.

Finally, they told me to write something myself instead of what was written on the paper. I was obliged to write something, so I took the pen and wrote the following:
I am not a criminal. I am an innocent person. Pakistan and the United States of America have betrayed me. I was detained for four years without specific accusations. I am writing this out of obligation and stating that I am not going to participate in any kind of anti-American activities or military actions. Wasalam.

After that, I signed what I had written and they left me alone. I wondered if they would accept what I had written. After a short while a Red Crescent delegation came and congratulated me on being released.

They became angry. “Why do you hate us?” they asked.

“I do not like you,” I told them. “Just look at what you are doing, and what you did to me and other Muslims. What do you expect?”

They looked at me with bulging eyes and mottled faces.

“Do you want to go back to Guantánamo?” they asked.

“Whatever you do is your business,” I answered. “You kept me in Guantánamo for four years when I had done nothing. If you want to do it again, there is nobody to stop you. But if it’s a question of freedom, then I have the right to tell you to leave me alone. But if it’s a question of power, then do as you wish, for you have all the power. But I don’t want to see you. So throw me in jail or leave me alone, it’s up to you.”

They left.

Comments

Of all the things instituted since september 2001 to despair of, it is the absolute freedom amerika has to enforce amerika’s law anywhere in the world, that should cause the most alarm.
The horror Zaeef suffered was just a practice run developing team amerika for the main event.
Every offensive act from Oblamblam threatening to bring those behind the bombing of Copt xtians in Egypt “to justice” to 15 year old dutch ‘hackers’ being handed over to the FBI on specious intellectual property grounds, is but a softening up process for what is to follow.
As the corrupt senators and congressmen of amerika take their money to make more laws, we can expect to see the FBI, DEA and CIA backed up with amerikan military, dispatched to all points of the globe; attempting to ensure that amerikan monopolies on capitalist markets are enforced.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 1 2011 21:02 utc | 1

Zaeef may have meant well, but like his comrades, was vastly unequipped to direct the affairs of state and make things work for the people of Afghanistan. I mean, when he is the ambassador to Pakistan, he has a long discussion with the interior minister of Pakistan about the meaning of the ablution of feet in the Koran.
To be sure, Afghanistan Taliban didn’t corner the market on religious crazy — after all, we have Sarah Palin –but, Zaeef comes across as a premodern naif.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 1 2011 22:20 utc | 2

there is some funny stuff in there too. The insults are comically abstract. it appears the gravest epithet among the Pashtun is “wild-turbaned man.”

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 1 2011 22:25 utc | 3

the cables that wikileaks have released show western functionaries are not very far from the primitive

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 2 2011 0:49 utc | 4

It is easy to criticise people operating in another cultural perspective as being weird chiefly because there is insufficient time space to provide context for every incident. What is one of the worst epithets on the western internet? Being a “tinfoil hatter” how weird does that sound taken out of context?
As for Zaeef’s ability to represent Afghanistan, the first thing I noticed about that section of his book was how careful he had been to omit anything that might have relevance to Afghanistan’s day to day relations with the rest of the world, just as he left out a huge amount of his instructions/conversations with his boss the minister of Foreign Affairs Mutawakil, who he refers to as Mr Mutawakil in some places (i.e. when Mutawakil appears to be coming and going freely in front of the amerikans while Zaeef is in custody) and Mullah Mutawakil after he(Mutawakil) has secured Zaeef’s release.
One of the major causes of the mess western style societies have got themselves in is an overreliance on technocrats, that is experts alleged to be working for the good of the community as a whole whose specialisation has become so particular, few have any idea what the technocrats are really up to. The consequence of that is a society heading in directions vastly divergent from that the citizens believe it to be going, much less where they want it to head.
I have spent enough time working with people whose level of what we foolishly call civilisation is much lower than that of Afghans, to know that considering all such people foolish or naive, is a common error, one that those who make it may soon come to regret. Apart from the machines and technical dross that absorb so much of our time, Westerners still relate to each other pretty much the same as people everywhere do. It is true that in a large society with its characteristic of anonymity, some people manage to deceive for much longer than they would in a smaller community but there are large anonymous cities in Afghanistan where sharpies and conmen pull their stunts and then hide in the crowd so I would be surprised if Zaeef found westerners’ deceptions surprising. Offensive probably but not surprising.
I’m sure the reasons Zaeef was selected for the only real ambassador’s job the Taliban administration still had was precisely because he was so obviously pious, yet strong-willed. By selecting him, the administration knew he would be reliable and truthful with them, at the same time as he presented a personage to the Muslim world of somebody admirable, an incorruptible man, thereby insinuating that the entire leadership was pious and incorruptible.
But by no means simpleminded, Zaeef appears to see through many of the traps laid by Pakistan at the behest of amerika with little difficulty. He reports home and then leaves it up to Mullah Omar to decide whether to respond in kind or to choose not to lower themselves to that level.
Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that all of Afghanistan’s Taliban leadership clique were of that character.
The best leaders are almost always those who don’t want to be leaders and from what we can infer from this book, it seems that Zaeef was an exception in that regard as is the case most places. In fact nowadays the complexities of becoming a leader in systems that have been running for hundreds of years, pretty much precludes the ‘reluctant hero’.
In some senses Zaeef was a perfect ambassador for the situation Afghanistan was in before September 2001. After that it hardly mattered who was in the job or what was done BushCo had been scared shitless as bullies are when they receive a dose of their own medicine, so there was no way anything anyone could have done to prevent amerika lashing out. Afghanistan was an obvious choice. It was weak, still in the throes of a reorganisation, and by stretching a very long bow could be accused of being implicated in the action.
There were no other viable alternatives – as we discussed at the time. Saudi &/or Egypt would have been much too difficult and the long term cost was far too high for amerika or the zionists.
I think it is a bit harsh to compare Zaeef with what’s herface Palin. I reckon it is highly unlikely Palin believes any of that weird shit she spouts, which it seems to me is pretty much made up as she goes along.
I don’t favour theocracies but at least the Taliban style is based on social mores established after centuries of scholarship into the superstition. The values they promote are the same as the society has clung on to for generations. The xtian fundies often come up with weird shit no one has ever heard of before, stuff that has been developed to advance themselves politically.
A quick example. There is a mob in this part of the world called ‘the brethren’. They set up here at the start of the 20th century & there are branches in amerika, australia and england. You pretty much have to be born into this mob of xtian loonies, altho they do take in some ‘outsiders’ occasionally. The boss fella usually comes from amerika although the politicking around that shit is intense and very unxtian. Anyway the current boss (naturally there are no boss-ettes) who took over in the late 90’s is an australian who decided that they had become big enough, established enough and most importantly rich enough, to carve themselves a slice of the right wing fundie xtian action available from buying up politicians.
This is pretty strange because the original bossfella, their prophet or whatever they called him had reinforced the cult brainwashing by enforcing strict rules against getting involved in ‘worldly affairs’ as they call it. The poor little buggers I went to school with who were captives of the cult, weren’t allowed TV’s radios, or newspapers and had to eat their lunch in a separate area from the ‘outsiders’ (us normal humans). University is also verboten so they stick to technical careers, jewellery watchmaking used to be a favourite, tho optometry and other expensive quasi health skills are more popular with the brethren of my generation. There was a special rule against voting in elections, which I suppose the original boss thought would be enough, that making a rule against bribing pols was superfluous if a) ya couldn’t vote & b) ya had no idea about what it was pols got up to since you didn’t follow current affairs at all.
However the acquisition of wealth has become a major for the brethren and like many other sub-cultures operating within the larger disparate culture, a single minded dedication to money making can pay big dividends. The ability to dismiss those you rip off as being ‘unchosen’ lesser beings can also make it easy to shed any qualms about sharp practices. Combine that with the sort of vertical integration of a market in a small town that can occur when several families from the same cult own each segment of a particular market, and pretty soon everyone is making money and keeping ahead of the Joneses, by spending it on the few things their vicious & jealous god permits them to own. Expensive single malt scotch (no rule against men drinking) and huge gas guzzling motor vehicles are popular status symbols for the brethren.
Where was I? Yeah these guys decided that owning a piece of the political leadership in every country they operated in would be a good way to go. They tipped a few mill into Dubya’s campaign right at the start when options were cheap, and as a result were handsomely rewarded with contracts to run the birth control /sex education type classes, that were just bullshit xtian superstition disguised as education, that Dubya was pushing instead of useful info, and condoms etc. After the amerika success they did the same in Oz and tipped a couple of mil into deputy John Howard’s back pocket, and grabbed big subsidies from the education department for the ‘church schools’ they had begun to build to keep their kids away from normal humans.
When they came here they blew it badly and ended up implicating the then tory leader Don Brash in a scandal that meant not only did he refuse any more contact with or money from them, he got hammered by the Labour mob in the election.
It was only in the ensuing scandal when the big bossfella flew to NZ to try and sort it out, that the truth about interference in oz & amerika surfaced.
I reckon Palin, and just about all the rest of the right wing xtian god botherers are of that mould. Their religion isn’t their guiding principle it is just a means to an end, a tool for getting power and material wealth.
Of course that will be the case for the Taliban if they get back in and hold power long enough to become corrupted, but the two years or whatever they did spend in the box seat wasn’t sufficient time for too much of that sort of carry-on, so Zaeef was proabably one of many straight arrows in a bent man’s game.
Sure Zaeef probably has any number of beliefs that we would find objectionable, but for my money that is true of a huge chunk of humanity; what separates Zaeef and a zillion other superstitious people of different ilks, from the evil religious assholes is the fact they don’t spend all their days trying to make everyone else believe the same as them.
I dunno about other peeps, but I have spent a measurable amount of my life chasing bible bashers away from my front door.
Living in the west we tend to forget, or maybe not even know in the first place, is that most religions don’t go around ‘spreading the word’ trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. A bit more of that restraint from the xtians & I may take em off the list of being the first people up against yonder wall come the revolution.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 2 2011 2:08 utc | 5

sorry – musta been so busy on my screed that your post went up in the interim r’giap.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 2 2011 2:10 utc | 6

from the evil religious assholes is the fact they don’t spend all their days trying to make everyone else believe the same as them.
And yet, he chides the Japanese, who visit to beg the Taliban to save the statues, for not following the one true faith.
He says several times that the whack deobandi party JUI in Pakistan most shared the Taliban’s goals. All good stuff, if you’re not a girl.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 2 2011 3:31 utc | 7

also, he pretty much confirms the historical narrative, disabused so often here at MoA without support, that the Taliban basically refused to hand over bin Laden. I’m glad that that record of Taliban-style contumaciousness is confirmed by a central participant to one of history’s greatest mistakes.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 2 2011 3:36 utc | 8

also, he pretty much confirms the historical narrative, disabused so often here at MoA without support, that the Taliban basically refused to hand over bin Laden.
Ahh – slothrop back to shitting on the public floor.
For the record, Zaeff confirms nothing like that and the Taliban did not “basic refuse”:
Zaeef, Chapter 14:

America insisted that Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden or drive him from its territory to a country that would be willing to do so.
The Taliban, however, argued for a trial—to preserve the dignity of Osama bin Laden. The issue caused a significant rift between our two countries. At one point I discussed the issue with the ambassador at his office late in the evening, long after office hours. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan had come up with three possible solutions that they deemed satisfactory for both sides, and I explained all three to him in great detail that night:
Firstly, if America blames Osama bin Laden for the bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, and can present any evidence for its claim, it should present all its findings to the Supreme Court of Afghanistan, and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will legally summon Osama bin Laden to court. If there is proof, he will be found guilty and will be punished according to the Islamic shari’a law.
Secondly, if America finds the first suggestion unpalatable because it does not recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan or because it does not believe in the independent, unbiased and impartial stance of the Supreme Court of Afghanistan, the Emirate suggests that a new court be formed, chaired by the Attorney Generals of three Islamic countries, proceedings of which would be held in a fourth Islamic country. America would be able to present its evidence in this court and make its case against Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan will be a partner of the court and will ensure that Osama is present at the trial and stands to answer any questions and defend himself against any allegations. If Osama is unable to defend himself and is found guilty, he will be punished for his criminal deeds.
Thirdly, if America does not trust a court that is set up by three Islamic countries and does not accept or recognize the Supreme Court of Afghanistan, we can offer to curb any and all activities of Osama. He will be stripped of all communications equipment so that his outreach will be limited to his immediate refugee life here in Afghanistan, and the Emirate will ensure that he does not use its territory for any activity directed against another country.
America rejected all three of our proposals and insisted that the Emirate hand over Osama bin Laden unconditionally, saying that he would be tried in a fair and impartial court in the US and be punished if found guilty. Afghanistan, however, could not accept America’s demand. We explained and reasoned why we could not comply. For one, Afghanistan and America did not have any legal obligations towards each other to hand over criminals. No such contract or agreement was ever signed between the two nations. As is customary in cases like these, any criminal that is not subject to an extradition agreement would be tried in the country where they are imprisoned or found at the time. Bilateral recognition and the sovereignty of each country would be respected.
America insisted on judging Osama in America. No other country was ever discussed; they wouldn’t even consider the UN court in The Hague that would at least have had some measure of independence and impartiality, and would have been an option that would have allowed both parties to keep face.
The Islamic Emirate had two principal objections to America’s demand that we hand over Osama bin Laden. Firstly, if every country were to hand over any person deemed a criminal by America, then America would de facto control the world. This would in turn threaten the independence and sovereignty of all countries. Secondly, America’s demands, and its rejection of all suggestions offered by the Emirate, imply that there is no justice in the Islamic world, and with it no legal authority of Islam to implement justice and law among the people. This stands in direct opposition to Islam itself and its system to protect the rights of the people and to punish criminals. This problem remained unresolved till the very end.
There were other solutions that were discussed but never officially acknowledged by the Emirate or America. One suggestion was made to install a joint court comprising America and some Islamic countries.
Another was to seek a trial at the International Court at the Hague. None of these suggestions were ever seriously discussed since America would not divert from its demand that Osama bin Laden needed to be handed over to its justice system. The USA made it clear that they were willing to use force should Afghanistan not comply with its demand.

Posted by: b | Jan 2 2011 9:28 utc | 9

Well, that’s interesting you bring this passage up. you see, when I read the passage, I immediately said to myself well, that’s the same story circulated about the timeline by Taliban defenders viz. the bin Laden extradition. it’s bullshit because as Steve Coll and others note, this “offer” was made to Turki al-Faisal in June 1998 before the August 7 embassy bombings and before the late-August 1998 US retaliation. In any case, after retaliation, Omar protected bin Laden, even enlisting the help of the Pakistan ISI to sequester bin Laden.
So, let’s take Zaeef at his word. How likely is it that the same offer would have been repeated in his meeting with Rocca in early August 2001? It seems ridiculous. this meeting comes after Omar serially rejected a move on the extradition. in fact, Omar met“>http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CH22Df02.html>met with Crown Prince Abdullah in early summer of 2001 and flatly rejected the same offer made by Saudi Arabia!
I suppose it’s possible that Zaeef didn’t know, so he repeated to the envoy the same offer. But he certainly did know that in late June, in the famous interview with Atyani, Zawahiri and Osama said that there was going to be a big terrorist attack against American and Israeli interests. That’s an interesting interview.
I guess it doesn’t surprise me, b, that you latch onto anything you can find without paying the least attention to the timeline of facts. I suppose you need to do what you need to do, in order to curate your bizarre histories.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 2 2011 17:04 utc | 10

Also, among the most disingenuous versions of history made by Zaeef is his claim that he always kept his distance from ISI. He demonizes Pakistan, but really, by “Pakistan” what he means is “Musharaff.” Zaeef says that he never made any deals with the ISI because he would be trapped in their Web for life. This is really bullshit, because we know from among other sources De Bhorchegrave’s interview with Omar, that virtually all of the Taliban’s expenses were covered by the ISI.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 2 2011 17:09 utc | 11

& if the truth be known the only society today capable of producing real cadres of intelligence in almost every sphere – qualitatively different from imperial imbeciles, are the chines – whom i witness often here in france en secondement to this or that administration
while western societies continue to degrade education at both a practical level & theoretical one – they lose all possibility of vision one one hand & a concrete understanding of local practice on the other

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jan 2 2011 19:04 utc | 12

How likely is it that the same offer would have been repeated in his meeting with Rocca in early August 2001?
Very likely. The offer never changed. It was a very clear and thought out one. The U.S. just never excepted it as it never had conclusive evidence of Bin Laden’s role in the game and didn’t want to risk to loose a neutral trial.
After 9/11 the U.S. refused any kind of negotiation.
U.S. had “Absolutely No Inclination” to Negotiate with Taliban September 2001; Pakistan Disagreed, Claimed “Real Victory” Only Through Talks

On September 13, 2001, U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin “bluntly” told Pakistani President Musharraf that there was “absolutely no inclination in Washington to enter into a dialogue with the Taliban. The time for dialog was finished as of September 11.” Pakistan, as the Taliban’s primary sponsor, disagreed. Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) Chief Mahmoud told the ambassador “not to act in anger. Real victory will come in negotiations… If the Taliban are eliminated… Afghanistan will revert to warlordism.”
Regarding the apprehension of Osama bin Laden, the ISI Chief said it was “better for the Afghans to do it. We could avoid the fallout.” Mahmoud traveled to Afghanistan twice, on September 17, aboard an American plane, and again on September 24, 2001 to discuss the seriousness of the situation with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Ambassador Chamberlin said that the negotiations were pointless since Mullah Omar “had so far refused to meet even one U.S. demand.” Chamberlin told Mahmoud his meetings with Omar were fine, but they “could not delay military planning.”

Posted by: b | Jan 2 2011 19:33 utc | 13

as I said, after the Nairobi bombing, the Taliban were intransigent. This seems true particularly after the meeting with crown prince abdullah.
There is another problem with Zaeef’s story. He says that on up to September of 2001, Omar believed that attack was not imminent. if this is the case, then the Taliban had no reason for diplomacy with respect to Osama’s extradition/being brought to justice.
Of course, after 9/11, all bets were off anyway.
It seems to me that the timeline supports a general view that the United States military posture was pointing toward some kind of confrontation after the Nairobi attacks, and the diplomacy front was oriented to isolating the Taliban in order to prepare for long-term destabilization awaiting a casus belli.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 2 2011 19:53 utc | 14

@Slothrop, your arguments about the truth or naivete of Zaeef’s statements matters zilch to me, especially when looking at the heading of this Chapter 20/MoA post: Getting Out. Zaeef was held for four years in that ‘hell hole’. Under what authority was he held, without even a trial? As debs says, Of all the things instituted … to despair of, it is the absolute freedom amerika has to enforce amerika’s law anywhere in the world, that should cause the most alarm. Yes, I agree that America’s interference should cause the most alarm. However, this has nothing to do with American Law – these things have been done outside the law. Perhaps what should cause the most alarm is that these things are being done with the cooperation, or silence, of other governments.

Posted by: Rick Happ | Jan 2 2011 21:11 utc | 15

not the issue. The issue is the veracity of the biography with respect to the author’s time as a Taliban. b wants to read the book in a way that confirms a preferred interpretation of the Taliban as honest brokers in the events leading up to 911. If you look at the timeline assembled by some of the major writers about the Taliban, Zaeef’s account is enormously thin and I think possibly deceptive.
the Taliban were a bunch of religious cranks who gave succor to al qaeda. b wants to read the book in a way that denies this.
As to whether the Taliban could have averted confrontation with the US is another matter. Would it have mattered if the Taliban gave Osama up? Would that save the regime? It seems, probably not.
I’m glad b decided to read the book and encourage other people here to do so. Maybe we can do this more often?

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 2 2011 21:26 utc | 16

suggestion“>http://books.google.com/books?id=9aQOCMEI7m8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=gillian+tett&source=bl&ots=hY0YJBwmOc&sig=Ixdx9Mj7ugm7ilU7vtScH6RXHr4&hl=en&ei=We4gTeH6C8WqlAegmOnGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13&ved=0CGEQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q&f=false>suggestion

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 2 2011 21:33 utc | 17

C’mon Slothrop lets keep the debates fair, say what you want to say by all means, draw what you want to draw from what Zaeef says, although those of us who disagree will point out where we disagree if we choose to, but don’t be starting up that nasty trick so common amongst big media sites and propagandist blogs, of putting words into another poster’s mouth.
If you reckon “the Taliban were a bunch of religious cranks who gave succor to al qaeda. b wants to read the book in a way that denies this” quote the piece of text where b says the Taliban were not religious cranks or that they did not give ‘succour’ as you call it to al Quaeda.
If you do that then we can discuss it, but if you just sling a characterisation of another contributor out there with no supporting evidence, you are just another nethead making an ad hominem attack whose post is unworthy of any serious response.
As for the book suggestion a sort of reading group thing I am all for it especially if we can source ebook texts. If we believe an author deserves his/her share we need to find a way of making sure they get that from those who can afford it, if people do want to access an ebook minus drm.
Here is that link you posted suggestion”>Fool’s Gold”. It is getting harder and harder to get URL’s correct on blogs because no two blogs use the same method, or so it seems to me. Worse others have completely moved away from HTML a fact they tend to boast on their site, without ever posting what they do use.
Thanks be to b who has kept his the same so it came back to me quickly.
I’m trying to find a copy of the Gillian Tett book and have found several non-fiction titles on the meltdown called Fool’s Gold, but haven’t found her one yet.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 3 2011 0:29 utc | 18

OK I found a copy of Gillian Trott’s book “Fool’s Gold”. This one appears to be an epub (the opensource ebook protocol) which is great for those of us who use ebook readers, but not so hot for those who don’t, and are more familiar with the .pdf format that has been used by adobe reader, foxit reader & a host of other legacy electronic text publication systems. I converted it to a PDF also:
EPUB:
Fools_Gold_-_Gillian_Tett.epub.html
PDF:
Fools_Gold_-_Gillian_Tett.pdf.html
Since Slothrop has read the book it would be better if he lead the discussion.
As far as I can tell this is an anlysis of the derivatives market and how it caused the ‘global financial meltdown’, written by a financial Times journalist. I don’t know anything about her (Gillian Tett) myself so if anyone is familiar with her or her work, that would be an interesting place to kick off. Over in the open thread maybe?

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 3 2011 1:36 utc | 19

right on! I haven’t read this. I read about 60 pages just now and I have to say it may be too much capitalist-hero worship. Maybe somebody knows a better book or books to understand the recent disaster? This book does define the issues pretty well: derivatives, credit derivatives swaps, insurance derivatives, etc. I don’t know much about this stuff which is why I’ve been trying to find a book or two.

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 3 2011 3:06 utc | 20

For a good book on how this economic crisis happened check out Yves Smith’s Econned.

Posted by: b | Jan 3 2011 10:33 utc | 21

Thanks for that b. I agree with Slothrop that many of us need to get much more literate about the crimes that have been committed & the ones about to be committed, the style of which have shifted yet again, in the world’s capital markets, because it is here even more than Afghanistan that Oblamblam has callously conspired to destroy the future of most humans. As the next election gets closer it is vital that the dem spruiks don’t get to create some myth about Oblamblam being a ‘better choice’ for ordinary humans.
The dem media skates past the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ issue by pretending that this outrage was ‘bad luck’ rather than a carefully conceived strategy by the Oblamblam administration to run a rightist agenda while playing the helpless victim of ‘democracy’ rort.
So hammering Oblamblam on his cronyist economics is gonna be the best way of ensuring peeps don’t fall for another 4 years of asshole, and is the only way to let peeps know the dems suck the rich man’s cock, an essential prerequisite to creating space for a genuine humanist administration.
To do that more people need to become a lot more familiar with the nuts and bolts of the systemic scams the demopublican duopoly have enabled.
I haven’t had time in the last few days to wrap around either “Fools Gold” or “Econned” & I suspect that this discussion should probably be led by an amerikan anyway.
Here are links to the book b recommended – Econned by Yves Smith. It came in PDF format a copy of that is here :
ECONNED__HOW_UNENLIGHTENED_SELF_INTEREST_-_YVES_SMITH.pdf.html
It has also been rendered into epub here:
ECONNED__HOW_UNENLIGHTENED_SELF_INTEREST_-_YVES_SMITH.epub.html

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 4 2011 2:43 utc | 22

damn! thanks for these links.
Maybe one more: David Harvey’s new book?

Posted by: slothrop | Jan 4 2011 3:10 utc | 23

slothrop–
Have you checked out the Market Ticker

Posted by: DaveS | Jan 4 2011 14:25 utc | 24