Antagoniste


26 juin 2013

Zone de guerre… socialiste ! Afghanistan Gauchistan Irak Terrorisme Venezuela

Venezuela Chavez IraqPour l’année 2012, en moyenne 2,93 Irakiens ont perdu la vie chaque jour, principalement dans des attentats perpétrés par des milices sunnites.

Pour l’année 2012, en moyenne 7,53 Afghans ont perdu la vie chaque jour, principalement dans des attentats perpétrés par les talibans.

Toujours en 2012, dans le paradis des travailleurs vénézuéliens, on a dénombré en moyenne 59,43 meurtres par jour…

Maintenant, dites-moi où se trouve la véritable zone de guerre…

Les rues de Caracas sont plus dangereuses que celles de Bagdad ou Kaboul. Si personne n’en parle, c’est probablement parce qu’il est impossible de blâmer les Américains pour la situation au Venezuela.

Les pleureuses professionnelles de la gogauche devraient garder leurs larmes pour les Vénézuéliens, ils en ont plus besoin que les Irakiens ou les Afghans.  L’héritage d’Hugo Chavez aura été la création d’une génération de criminels encore plus endurcis que les talibans et les milices sunnites irakiennes.  La destruction, voilà quelque chose que le socialisme fait mieux que le capitalisme…

P.-S. Ces trois pays ont des populations équivalentes.


12 septembre 2012

Le silence des médias Afghanistan Élection 2012 En Chiffres États-Unis Terrorisme

Voici comment a évolué le nombre de soldats tués en Afghanistan depuis le début de la guerre, soit depuis 2001:

Afghanistan

La guerre en Afghanistan en est maintenant à son 131e mois.  Pour les 87 premiers mois de cette guerre, Bush était le président des États-Unis.  Durant cette période, 564 soldats ont été tués. Pour les 44 mois suivants, la présidence a été occupée par Barack Obama et 1 454 soldats ont perdu la vie.

Autrement dit, Bush a supervisé 66% de la guerre en Afghanistan et sous sa présidence, on a enregistré 28% des pertes.  Obama a supervisé 33% de la guerre en Afghanistan et sous sa présidence, on a enregistré 72% des pertes.

Quand Bush était président, les médias se faisaient un devoir de couvrir avec assiduité chaque perte de vie, n’hésitant pas à nous montrer des cercueils rapatriés en sol américain…  Depuis qu’Obama est devenu président, même si la situation s’est considérablement détériorée, on ne parle plus du tout de l’Afghanistan…


14 mars 2012

Les excuses Afghanistan Coup de gueule États-Unis Terrorisme

Taliban

Quand des soldats américains brûlent des Corans et que les Afghans réagissent en sauvage en tuant des Américains pour se venger cet « affront », il n’en faut pas plus pour que le président Obama accoure pour demander pardon à genou devant le président Hamid Karzai.

Cette semaine, un soldat américain a lui aussi agi en sauvage en tuant des afghans, on devrait donc s’attendre à voir le président Hamid Karzai accourir lui aussi pour demander pardon à genou devant Obama, car après tout si ce soldat a perdu la tête c’était probablement pour se venger l’affront subi suite aux meurtres de ses compatriotes…

M’enfin, quelque chose me dit que dans cette région du monde les excuses se font à sens unique i.e. c’est toujours la personne civilisée qui doit s’excuser aux barbares et jamais l’inverse…


27 octobre 2010

Saint Omar Khadr… Afghanistan Canada En Vidéos États-Unis Terrorisme

Le Vatican a canonisé le frère André, les médias sont en train de canoniser Omar Khadr…

En rappel, un extrait de l’émission 60 minutes, consacrée à Omar Khadr, qui a, ne l’oublions pas, tué un médecin américain…

Mes pensées accompagnent Tabitha Speer, son mari a été tué par Omar Khadr, de même que le sergent Layne Morris, qui a perdu un oeil dans la même attaque.

A lire aussi, la chronique d’Ezra Levan: Murderer Omar Khadr will be on the streets of Toronto by next Christmas

Vous serez sans doute choqué d’apprendre que la CBC (Radio-Can anglais) a publié 1 700 articles sur Khadr contre 1 550 sur le Dalaï-Lama et 1 070 sur Nelson Mandela…


1 novembre 2009

Unilatéralisme Afghanistan États-Unis Europe Hétu Watch

Foreign Policy

-

Europe’s Obama Fatigue
Foreign Policy

Bush was better for Europe. No, seriously.

Despite George W. Bush’s defiant « you’re with us or you’re against us » public stance, he actively solicited advice and input from his NATO partners. Obama, by contrast, is saying all the right things in public about transatlantic relations and NATO but adopting a high-handed policy and paying little attention to Europe. And Europe is taking a hint.

The Europeans are particularly irritated that the luncheon [U.S.-EU summit] will be hosted by Vice President Joseph Biden rather than the U.S. president himself. Under the previous administration, Bush regularly presided.

On Afghanistan, which all agree is the alliance’s most critical mission, the Europeans are also feeling a bit lorded over. As Jackson Diehl put it, the region’s leaders are « frustrated that they must watch and wait — and wait and wait — for the [U.S.] president to make up his mind. »

It would be ironic, indeed, if the Europeans started longing for the good old days of the Bush administration. But that nostalgia is closer than you might think.


27 octobre 2009

Le choc des civilisations Afghanistan Gauchistan Québec Terrorisme

Optimus Primus

-

À Montréal, les gens ont manifesté la semaine dernière en brûlant une effigie de George Bush.

À Kaboul, les gens ont manifesté la semaine dernière en brûlant une effigie de Barack Obama.


16 août 2009

Les hypocrites Afghanistan Coup de gueule États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Revue de presse Terrorisme

Washington Examiner

-

The netroots agenda: War? What war?
Washington Examiner

It’s not getting much attention, but the Netroots Nation conference (formerly known as YearlyKos, a spinoff from the left-wing website DailyKos) is going on in Pittsburgh this weekend.

I attended the first YearlyKos convention, in 2006, and have kept up with later ones, and it’s safe to say that while people who attended those gatherings couldn’t stand George W. Bush in general, their feelings were particularly intense when it came to opposing the war in Iraq. It animated their activism; they hated the war, and they hated Bush for starting it. They weren’t that fond of the fighting in Afghanistan, either.

Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed. Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees listed « working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan » as their most important personal priority. Not too long ago, with a different president in the White House, the left was obsessed with America’s wars. Now, they’re not even watching.


14 mai 2009

Le général de Barack Obama Afghanistan États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Revue de presse Terrorisme

Esquire

-

Acts of Conscience
Esquire

As President Obama taps Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to run the Afghan war, do these revelations, divulged to Esquire at great personal risk by an elite Army interrogator two and a half years ago, imply the new commander’s aiding and abetting of torture?

Sometime in February or March, then, Jeff reported for duty at an unmarked compound. This was Camp Nama, the home of Task Force 121. From its size to its mission, everything about it was and remains an official secret.

It was a point of pride that the Red Cross would never be allowed in the door, Jeff says. This is important because it defied the Geneva Conventions, which require that the Red Cross have access to military prisons. « Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. ‘Will they ever be allowed in here?’ And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there’s no way that the Red Cross could get in — they won’t have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators. »

During his first six or seven weeks at the camp, Jeff conducted or participated in about fifteen harsh interrogations, most involving the use of ice water to induce hypothermia. By his reckoning, at least half of the prisoners were innocent, just random Iraqis who got picked up for one reason or another. Sometimes the evidence against them was so slight, Jeff would go into the interrogation without even knowing their names.


15 avril 2009

Gaspillage onusien Afghanistan Économie États-Unis Revue de presse

USA Today

U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects
USA Today

Two United Nations agencies spent millions in U.S. money on substandard Afghanistan construction projects, including a central bank without electricity and a bridge at risk of « life threatening » collapse, according to an investigation by U.S. federal agents.

The U.N. ran a « quick impact » infrastructure program from 2003 to 2006 under a $25 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The U.N. delivered shoddy work, diverted money to other countries and then stonewalled U.S. efforts to figure out what happened, according to a report by USAID’s inspector general obtained by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act.

One U.N. employee told investigators that « about $10 million of USAID grant money went to projects in other countries, to include Sudan, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Dubai. » That witness said the Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about $200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse. Witness names were withheld by USAID. The development program hired UNOPS to do the work and kept a 7% management fee, the report says.

Investigators found that projects reported as « complete » were actually so shoddily built that they were unusable, the report said. For example, a $375,000 headquarters for Afghanistan’s central bank lacked electricity or plumbing, and basement flooding destroyed stacks of local currency.


5 avril 2009

On t’aime mais… Afghanistan États-Unis Europe Revue de presse Terrorisme

Times of London

Barack Obama fails to win Nato troops he wants for Afghanistan
The Times of London

Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities.

But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent’s leaders turned their backs on the US President.

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.

The derisory response threatened to tarnish Mr Obama’s European tour, which yesterday included a spellbinding performance in Strasbourg in which he offered the world a vision of a future free of nuclear weapons.


2 avril 2009

La doctrine Obama Afghanistan Canada États-Unis Hétu Watch Terrorisme

Obama DoctrineJe ne comprends pas pourquoi la nouvelle loi afghane, permettant aux hommes de violer leur épouse, soulève une si grande controverse.  Après tout, le président Hamid Karzaï a simplement appliqué la doctrine du bien-aimé Barack Obama: il a mis en place un dialogue et une négociation avec les islamistes modérés.  Au lieu de négocier avec les extrémistes réclamant le droit de lapider les femmes, Hamid Karzaï a plutôt négocié avec les éléments modérés qui réclament seulement le droit de violer leur tendre moitié.

Trêve de sarcasme…

Ils étaient drôles à voir les politiciens canadiens dénonçant à l'unisson le gouvernement afghan.  Quand ils sont tous tombés d'accord le mois dernier pour dire que la guerre en Afghanistan était impossible à gagner, n'avaient-ils pas réalisé qu'en agissant de la sorte ils condamnaient les femmes à vivre sous le joug des islamistes ?


24 mars 2009

Hypocrite Afghanistan Canada Coup de gueule États-Unis

Armée CanadienneHier, tout Ottawa était en émois parce qu'un animateur de Fox News a osé se moquer des moyens limités de l'armée canadienne.  Il n'en fallait pas plus pour que les politiciens sonnent la charge et déclament toute leur admiration pour les soldats canadiens. Peter MacKay, le ministre de la Défense, a même fait preuve d'une bravoure extraordinaire en qualifiant les propos diffusés sur le réseau américain "d'ignobles, méprisants et dégoûtants".

Qu'on les trouve drôles ou pas, les railleries de Fox News n'ont tué personne.  Par contre, quand le Canada a déployé son armée en Afghanistan, malgré l'absence d'hélicoptères pour assurer le déplacement des troupes, des soldats sont morts parce qu'ils ont été obligés de se déplacer sur des routes minées par les talibans.

Nos politiciens aiment bien dire qu'ils supportent les troupes.  Pas contre, jamais ils ne s'excuseront d'avoir sacrifié inutilement des soldats en leur demandant de remplir une mission sans leur donner l'équipement nécessaire.

Ce qui est vraiment  "ignoble, méprisant et dégoûtant" dans toute cette histoire c'est de voir nos politiciens tenter de se faire du capital politique en défendant nos soldats alors que depuis 6 ans ces mêmes politiciens ont laissé mourir des soldats sans lever le petit doigt.


5 mars 2009

Des lions menés par des ânes… Afghanistan Canada Coup de gueule Terrorisme

Support the troopPatrick Lagacé pensait probablement poser la question piège du siècle quand il a demandé si les déclarations de Stephen Harper sur CNN signifiaient que le premier ministre ne supportait pas les troupes.

On peut répondre très facilement à cette question: Harper ne supporte pas les troupes.

Envoyer des soldats dans une guerre, alors que le premier ministre considère que cette guerre est impossible à gagner, c'est être contre les soldats.

Depuis combien de temps Harper regarde-t-il des militaires mourir pour faire une guerre qu'il considère comme perdue ?  Ceux qui supportent les troupes aimeraient bien avoir une réponse à cette question.

Si Harper supporte nos troupes et qu'il ne croit plus en cette guerre, qu'il ramène nos soldats immédiatement ! On ne fait pas la guerre avec un dirigeant qui s'avoue vaincu.

Imaginez que vous jouez pour une équipe de hockey et que vous bataillez dur pour vous tailler une place en série.  Imaginez que votre entraîneur déclare à un journaliste que, selon lui, son équipe n'a pas la moindre chance de faire les séries.  Est-ce que vous voudriez vous sacrifier pour cet entraîneur ?

Harper désire que l'on entraîne une armée afghane qui pourra contenir l'insurrection talibane lors du départ des forces de l'OTAN.  Résumons: selon Harper, une armée entraînée et équipée à la fine pointe de la technologie ne peut venir à bout des talibans, mais des forces afghanes corrompues, sous-entraînées et sous-équipées pourraient réussir.


22 février 2009

Où est le changement ? Afghanistan États-Unis Hétu Watch Revue de presse Terrorisme

The Seattle Times

Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners
The Seattle Times

The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

« The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we’d hoped, » said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. « We all expected better. »

After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush’s legal argument.

« They’ve now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law, » said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.


24 janvier 2009

Pas si vite… Afghanistan États-Unis Hétu Watch Irak Moyen-Orient Terrorisme

"Don’t hold your breath waiting for Barack Obama to end the war on terror."

Foreign Policy
Think Again: Barack Obama and the War on Terror
By David M. Edelstein, Ronald R. Krebs 

"Obama Will End the War on Terror"

Barack ObamaDon't bet on it. A misconceived "war on terror" has stoked Americans' nightmares since Sept. 11, 2001, and that will in all likelihood continue. Despite having anointed himself the candidate of change, Barack Obama remained wedded to crucial elements of the war on terror throughout his campaign. Not only did he embrace the term, but, like the Bush administration, he portrayed the 9/11 attacks as a turning point in global politics, suggested that transnational terrorism threatened the United States' survival, depicted the tactic of terrorism as the enemy, and laid out an apocalyptic vision of "the next attack." The danger of terrorism was, he declared, "no less grave" than that posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

This portrayal was more than campaign rhetoric. The war on terror has been the country's defining national security narrative since 9/11, and politicians across the political spectrum have paid obeisance to it. Indeed, shortly after the election, Obama portrayed the attacks in Mumbai as evidence of "the grave and urgent threat of terrorism" that the United States faces, as if the perpetrators of that tragedy were necessarily members of a global terrorist brotherhood. Introducing his national security team a few days later, he highlighted the threat posed by a poorly specified "terror" that "cannot be contained by borders," rather than by specific U.S. adversaries who would use terrorist tactics.

As president, Obama will be hard-pressed to jettison the war on terror. His administration's foreign policy will look different from that of its predecessor in many respects, but not this one. With Obama in the Oval Office, the United States seems likely to remain in the war on terror's thrall — to the detriment of the country's priorities, its foreign policy, the tenor of its discourse, and perhaps its people's liberties. Obama promised to lead America on a new path, but deviating from the course set in the past seven years will not be easy.

"Obama Will Wage the ‘Battle of Ideas' Better Than George W. Bush"

Doubtful. Yes, Obama, by his presence and personality, has changed the atmospherics of U.S. foreign relations. America's reputation around the world has for some time been at a nadir, so there is nowhere to go but up. But the United States' poor image abroad has not been the result of a marketing failure, and, thus, better public diplomacy will not lead to victory in the "Battle of Ideas." Anti-Americanism thrives, not because others misunderstand the United States, but because they perceive its aims and tactics all too well. The Bush administration's greatest perceived foreign-policy failures — Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, unimpeded global warming — could not have been overcome with better public diplomacy, and recent improvements in trans-Atlantic relations cannot be credited to an improved sales pitch. The world is rightly waiting to see if Obama will match his words with actions. Public diplomacy can matter only at the margins.

As much as he might wish it, Obama does not enter the Oval Office with a clean slate. The sizable U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with the aggressive hunt for al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas, will continue to rankle in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Elsewhere, criticism of U.S. foreign policy predated Bush — the French expressed alarm at American "hyperpower" during the "good old days" of Clintonian multilateralism — and will persist after he leaves office. Notwithstanding the financial meltdown and U.S. travails in Iraq, the United States remains the world's largest economic and military power by far. Its penchant for pursuing its global interests unilaterally lies at the root of many others' suspicions, and there will be times that even an Obama administration will chafe at and throw off any self-imposed shackles. When that happens, those high-flying expectations will come crashing back to earth.

"Withdrawing from Iraq Will Bring Victory Closer in Afghanistan"

Wishful thinking. Sure, getting out of Iraq will in principle make available U.S. soldiers and materiel, but don't expect these additional resources to pay large dividends in Afghanistan.

First, insurgent fighters enjoy a safe haven in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, and it is not for lack of U.S. firepower or troops in Afghanistan that they operate freely. The Pakistani government's reluctance and inability to bring the region to heel is the chief problem, and a reduced U.S. commitment to Iraq will not make that political nut easier to crack. Second, even if the security situation were to improve thanks to more U.S. troops and money, the challenge of governing Afghanistan's ethnically diverse and geographically challenging landscape will remain. Third, all this presumes that the United States has the political will to undertake and sustain a much more substantial long-term military presence in Afghanistan, and such political will — if it ever existed — is now at best a wasting asset.

Americans were ready to bring the troops home from Iraq even before the recession intensified the usual guns-versus-butter debates. The budget crunch has prompted calls for slashing military spending, and many will see in the troop drawdown in Iraq an opportunity to free funds to aid Americans at home — not an opportunity to redouble U.S. commitment to Afghanistan.

"Ending the War in Iraq Will Help the Fight Against Terrorism"

Not really. A U.S. pullout from Iraq would, on its face, redress a grievance held not only by al Qaeda, but by many Muslims. Al Qaeda, however, found reason to target the United States and its interests before Iraq, and many of those reasons remain — from U.S. support for Arab regimes perceived as illegitimate, to the U.S. role in the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the grand religiopolitical vision of reestablishing the caliphate. Iraq was an unusual recruiting boon, but al Qaeda and its affiliates have no shortage of justifications for continued violence, and some of these reasons remain highly resonant in the Muslim world.

Liberals sometimes argue that because the war in Iraq became a rallying cry for Islamist terrorist groups, drawing thousands into the fold, its end will dry up the pool of recruits. But the ardor of those converted by Iraq will not quickly cool, and the war's memory will continue to inspire would-be terrorists for the foreseeable future. Conservatives sometimes argue that the country's terrorist enemies will take heart at even a gradual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and undertake a new wave of mass-casualty attacks. But it is hard to imagine that America's adversaries will be any more emboldened by the withdrawal from Iraq than they were by the United States' flailing and failures there.

Most fundamentally, the United States has found itself the victim of terrorism because it is so strong and its adversaries are so weak. That will not change soon, and terrorist tactics will continue to appeal to America's enemies — less because they are especially bloodthirsty or immoral (though they may be), than because, given the imbalance of power, more conventional tactics don't promise the same payoff.

"Capturing Osama bin Laden Should Be a Top Priority"

Not now. As a candidate, Obama pledged that he would capture or kill Osama bin Laden if he were elected president. This pledge was good politics, but it does not make for an effective counterterrorism strategy. Although the capture or death of bin Laden would be welcome, the U.S. military and intelligence community have better ways to spend their time and money.

Eliminating bin Laden would undoubtedly please Americans, boost Obama's ratings, and undermine morale within al Qaeda. But al Qaeda has recovered, perhaps substantially, from the beating it took immediately after 9/11, and the death of its leader is unlikely to be devastating. It is a resilient organization: Dozens of high-ranking al Qaeda officials have been killed or captured since 2001, but they were eventually, and often swiftly, replaced. And beware what one wishes for: A younger, more energetic, equally charismatic, and more organizationally skilled leader might take bin Laden's place.

The benefits of capturing or killing bin Laden are likely to be short-lived, and the intelligence and military assets diverted to the task could be better used elsewhere. Rather than devote resources to hunting bin Laden, the Obama administration should instead target both the instability off which violent Islamism feeds and the local organizations, usually affiliated only loosely with al Qaeda, that have more often been responsible than al Qaeda itself for the terrorist attacks carried out since 9/11.

Americans' ramped-up expectations about the war on terror are exceeded only by the challenges the Obama administration will face. The politics of the war on terror have the potential to upset the Obama administration's priorities, but the economic crisis offers an opportunity to right America's foreign policy and consign the war on terror to its proper place. In this sense, the economic crisis, as Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has suggested, would be a terrible thing to waste.

David M. Edelstein is assistant professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the department of government at Georgetown University, and a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Ronald R. Krebs is associate professor in the political science department at the University of Minnesota.