I just found something that proves that what we see in the Jackson photo of Oswald slapping his chest with his left hand and arm is fake. Start with the Beers photo, which was taken a fraction of a second before the shot. Look where Oswald's left hand is, covering his right hand, which was his habit. He was doing it in the doorway.  

But now, let's look at Jackson, supposedly taken .6 second later.

So now, supposedly, Oswald has got his left arm across his chest, and he's got his right hand thrust forward with the palm side up and dorsal side down. That's a lot of change in .6 second.

But then, look at this, and it's still within the first second. 

That is Oswald's left hand and forearm in the very center of the picture. His left hand is presumably resting on his right hand. Let's go in closer. 

So, the hand and arm in the center are that of Graves who is finally reaching for the Shooter. But, below that, is Oswald's left hand resting on his right. This is after the Jackson photo. Graves was not yet reaching for the shooter in the Jackson photo. 

So, we are expected to believe that in a tiny fraction of a second after being catastrophically shot, Oswald slapped his arm to his chest and  then put it back where it was, and all in a small fraction of a second.  

But think about the physics involved. To do it that fast would have taken tremendous speed, and he would have hit himself at full velocity. So, he would have had to slam himself in the chest, and then instantly come off and restore his hand to where it was. 

But, how could he do that, and why would he do it? It's not a reflex. It's not something that abdominal gunshot victims do, slap their chests. Has anyone else ever done it in the history of trauma? I doubt it. And how could a guy WHOSE MAJOR BLOOD VESSELS WERE BLOWN OUT do anything? Remember: all this movement supposedly happened after the shot, so after the internal catastrophe.  

The truth is that what we see in the Jackson photo is fake. Oswald never slapped his chest . We don't see it in any film. Nobody reported that he did it. Nobody reported the sound of him doing it, and it would have made a thump. It's fake. 

 They put it in to cover up the area of bullet entrance because there was no bullet entrance. There was no trauma to him or his clothing. So, they had to cover up that whole area with hands and arms, and that's his and Leavelle's. What we see of Leavelle's left hand and arm coming over and dipping into Oswald's pants is fake too. 

Mr. Trump, since you can't prevent homegrown terror in the United States, how can you expect the Taliban to give assurances about it in Afghanistan? Even if the U.S. Military stayed there forever to do it, it couldn't be done. This is whole, "we need assurances; we need guarantees" mantra is horse shit. So, just stop it. The best thing you ccan do is to just leave Afghanistan. Our being there is the lightening rod that is causing Afghans to kill other Afghans. What they are fighting over mostly is us. The Russians have offered to mediate intra-Afghan talks, so let them do it. You just concentrate on getting our people out as quickly as possible. 

The whole 9/11 story, on which the invasion of Afghanistan was based, is a crock, Mr. President. Right now, Professor Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, is releasing his 3 year study which proves that Building 7 did not collapse due to fires, but rather, due to a controlled demolition. So, the whole basis for attacking Afghanistan was a demonic lie, and you inherited it. 

Get out, Mr. President. Do it now. Do it before another American dies. And don't plan a 10th round of negotiations. The whole world is sick of it. Let the Russians try it. Maybe they can jump-start Intra-Afghan talks. You can't. You can only make things worse. Just get out. 

  

Highlighted comment

Kevin Kaatz8 hours ago

You're on to something. I also heard that you don't believe Ruby shot Oswald? I agree with you, because there's no clear picture of him shooting Oswald - as somebody threw a jacket over the guy's head

REPLY

Ralph Cinque1 second ago

Yes, one of the officers put something over the shooter's head. But think about this: That is the ONLY time in police history that police took a violent criminal somewhere without cuffing him first. It's never happened before, and it's never happened since- anywhere in the world. Police always start by putting a violent offender in cuffs before taking him anywhere- except that day.

 Open Letter to Mark Shaw on Dorothy Kilgallen

Mark,

I realize this must  come as a shock to you, but Jack Ruby did not shoot Oswald. Please hear me out.

1 If you study the images of the Garage Shooter carefully and compare them to images of Jack Ruby, you can see that they don't conform. The shooter was too short to be Ruby. Ruby was Oswald's height, 5'9", and it's clear that the shooter was shorter than Oswald. The shooter's hair was different from Ruby's. The shooter's hair was rather long in back, even curling up at the bottom in the Jackson photo. And below where the hair ended, his neck was clean, meaning clean of hair, like he was freshly razored. Ruby, at the time, was scruffy in back. He must have been longer between haircuts. The shooter was a very thick guy, particularly with thick thighs, which were in contrast to Ruby's thin ones.  And, the shooter had a very short neck in contrast to Ruby's longer neck. 

2. Despite the numerous photographers and filmers in the garage, no one caught the shooter's face, and I assert that that was no accident. They couldn't show his face because he wasn't Jack Ruby. You are a criminal defense lawyer, and hence,  you must know that police never move a violent offender anywhere without first getting him in restraints. Why did Dallas Police attempt to move the shooter into the jail office instead of cuffing him right there in the garage? It's because if they had done that, then everyone would have moved aside, and we'd have seen the shooter's face, which wasn't the face of Jack Ruby. IT WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME, IN THE HISTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT A VIOLENT CRIMINAL WAS TAKEN SOMEWHERE WITHOUT FIRST BEING PUT IN RESTRAINTS. 

3  It is a falsehood that Ruby admitted shooting Oswald. He accepted that he shot Oswald, since the Dallas Police told him that he did. But, he had no awareness of doing it and no memory of doing it. Why do you think Melvin Belli used the "psychomotor epilepsy" defense? It's because Ruby told him that he didn't remember anything, that he had no consciousness or mindset about shooting Oswald, and the first he knew of it was when police dragged him up to the 5th floor and told him that he did it. 

4 And Ruby couldn't possibly have had any mindset of shooting Oswald because if he did, he would have showed up on time. The only guidance the police ever gave was 10 AM. So, obviously, if he planned to shoot Oswald, he would not have shown up at 11:17.

5  But, Ruby did NOT show up at 11:17. He showed up much earlier than that. Perhaps an hour earlier, and at least 45 minutes earlier. We know that the conditions at the top of the ramp were different when Ruby was there than what Pierce and Vaughan described. Ruby said that he saw an officer on foot on his side of Main Street, the Hardin Street side, with his back to him leaning into the squad car and talking to Pierce. But Roy Vaughan said that as Pierce came out, he moved to the other side of Main Street, the  Pearl Street side. And it makes sense that he would because he knew that Pierce, the driver, was on that side, and so if he wanted to have words with him, he'd have moved to the driver's side, which was the Pearl Street side. So, Ruby must have gotten there earlier, a lot earlier; gone down the ramp; got jumped by cops (and reflect on Ruby having said during the melee, "What are you doing? You know me. I'm Jack Ruby. I'm not some criminal." Why would he say that if he knew he had just shot a man? He really didn't know why police were jumping him because he hadn't done anything. And then they dragged him upstairs and told him that he did it. 

6. So, why did Ruby believe them when Dallas Police told him that he shot Ruby? Why didn't he fiercely deny it if he didn't do it, as most people would? It's because Ruby wasn't right in his head. He was out of it mentally. He was heavily drugged- on amphetamines and probably other drugs, and I am talking about mind control drugs. Remember, this was during the height of the MK-ULTRA era. And who did they get to treat Ruby in prison? The Maestro of Mind Control, the CIA's own Dr. Louis Joylan West of UCLA. They flew him out. What? There were no psychiatrists in Dallas? And why did Melvin Belli let the State treat and drug his client? That was the same State that was seeking to put him to death. 

7 .Regarding the JFK assassination, you're right that the Mafia had a role, but it was ancillary. The killing of Kennedy was a CIA operation where Oswald was the patsy. And it was an urgent matter for them to get Oswald killed. They certainly couldn't let Oswald go to trial, and worse than that, they couldn't let Oswald talk to an attorney, not even once. It would have blown the case wide open. Oswald would have told the attorney that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and we have a picture of him there, in the Altgens photo, where you can recognize him and his clothing. And there has been a mountain of fraud and lies about that in the decades that followed. And, Oswald would have told his lawyer that he never ordered any rifle from Chicago. And keep in mind that when first asked if Oswald owned a rifle, Marina said that back in Russia he owned one to go hunting with (it was a shotgun, which was all they allowed in Russia) but he sold it. Why would she mention that if she knew that he currently owned a rifle? You need to read the work of John Armstrong, Gil Jesus, and others to get clear on why Oswald never mail-ordered a rifle.  And it means that what the FBI came up with was an elaborate fraud. One meeting with a lawyer, and that lawyer would have known two things: that Oswald was innocent, and that law enforcement, particularly the FBI, was framing him with phony evidence. Oswald pled for a lawyer and complained about not having one 13X that we can hear with our own ears. His brief statement at the Midnight Press Conference mostly concerned his desire for a lawyer and his being denied one. 

8  But, they couldn't keep denying him one much longer before it was patently obvious. So, they needed him dead. And they didn't just get lucky with Jack Ruby. Ruby was a patsy, and the difference between him and Oswald was that Oswald was of right mind while Ruby was heavily drugged and out of his mind. Are you aware that there was one local Dallas tv report that he was "muttering incoherently" after his arrest? But, that was never repeated. 

9. Now, brace  yourself: The Dallas Police and FBI killed Oswald. They didn't do it in the garage. That was just a theatrical spectacle for television. They did it afterwards. The guy playing Jack Ruby was FBI Agent James Bookhout. And you'll notice that there are no images of him from the JFK assassination, even though he attended every Oswald interrogation. But, the Garage Shooter was him, James Bookhout shot a blank at Oswald, who apparently was recruited to go along with it. They must have told him, "We believe you, Lee, that you didn't do it, but we can't just release you. In order to protect you from vigilantes, we have to fake your death first." And Lee trusted them. 

10  I can provide proof that the Dallas detectives escorting Oswald, including the recently departed James Leavelle, lied. He lied, and so did Graves, Combest, and Fritz. They were all in on it. The Dallas Police and FBI killed Oswald. And the order had to come from the top, meaning LBJ and J.Edgar Hoover. "The country needs closure. The Kennedy and Tippit families need justice. We're only doing what a jury would certainly decree. We need to spare the Kennedy family and the American people the burden of a trial."  Etc. Etc. 

And there is plenty more I could tell you. I have been studying this for years. But, Dorothy Kilgalen interviewed Jack Ruby twice. What do you think she learned from him? About his Mafia ties? He didn't have any, to speak of. He knew a few, like the guy who owned the Elephant Room. But, it's nothing. He must have told her what he told authorities, that he wasn't Mafia, and the Mafia didn't put him up to anything. What sense would it have made for him to lie to the Warren Commissioners and then tell the truth to her? What sense would it have made for him to lie during his polygraph test and then tell the truth to her? So, what Dorothy must have figured out about him was not that he had Mafia ties but that he was mentally incompetent, and too incompetent to lie. I don't know how close she got to figuring out that he didn't do it, but I can guarantee you that she was killed because they were afraid that she was going to figure it out, if she hadn't already. 

The whole "Mafia did it" story was government story #2. It's what the HSCA arrived at in the 1970s. So, they wouldn't have killed her for barking up that tree. They knew that doubters had to look somewhere, and that's exactly where they wanted them to look. That was the sandbox that they wanted them to play in. She must have figured out that Jack Ruby was gone, mentally gone, that he was totally and hopelessly incompetent and a completely manipulated patsy. That was the scoop.   

Ralph Cinque 

A young American serviceman got killed in Afghanistan yesterday. He had a pregnant wife and daughter back in Idaho. And apparently, Trump responded to it by saying that we are never getting out of there. And as expected, the Taliban responded by saying that either it's a complete withdrawal of all American and foreign troops, or it's war. 

So now, look at the corner that the Idiot Trump has painted himself into. Either he's got to hold his ground and let the negotiations collapse- after all that fanfare and popping of champagne corks OR he has to reverse course, agree to leave completely, renouncing what he just said, and appearing to submit to the Taliban like an mma fighter tapping out due to a rear naked choke. 

And you know, he's never going to do the latter, and therefore, the negotiations are done. And I hope to God they don't plan a 10th one because the rhetoric from the lapdog media is really getting nauseating. Repeating the same things, over and over and over again, interminably. It's disgusting.  

Dear Dr. Cinque,

The below picture was taken off a youtube video. I noticed the eyes of the shooter are artificially darkened. Have you noticed this before? I haven’t seen anywhere any comments about the eyes being artificially darkened- which seems to serve the purpose of hiding the identity of the shooter.

Thank you.

Lawrence Schulman 

Lawrence, I have written about this extensively.  You are right that his eyes were blackened out. I think that at the time, they were trying to imply that he was wearing sunglasses, but then, when they realized that Ruby had no sunglasses on him, they changed it to "shadow." But, that is ridiculous because every shadow is cast by an object, and there is no object that could cast such a shadow. 

That is definitely not Jack Ruby, nor is it the Garage Shooter, who was James Bookhout. That is a guy that they transformed into "Jack Ruby" by doing a massive amount of alteration to his face, ears, nose, and everything. It really is a photographic monstrosity. You can see that that man was quite tall. He was almost as tall as Blackie Harrison who was standing slightly in front of him and was very tall. The Garage Shooter was very short- the shortest man in the room. And we know that James Bookhout was a short man. 

This is an example of a very sad and pathetic lie that they tried to tell, and which they still own today, unfortunately for them. Thank you.

Ralph Cinque 

There is an excellent article by a retired brigadier general on why we should get the hell out of Afghanistan. It's published in TIME magazine. 

https://time.com/5664533/afghanistan-troops-leave/

All the hoopla about finalizing a peace deal with the Taliban has died. Considering what they WERE saying, that a signed contract was expected with a day, within hours, etc. at this point,  it's like the groom not  showing up for the wedding. Something is obviously wrong. 

And the Americans must know that something's wrong because why else would they be saying that the U.S. is never leaving Afghanistan completely, that we will always maintain a presence there? Surely, they must know that that is non-negotiable for the Taliban that the U.S. has to get out completely and by a firm, stated date. So, are they trying to antagonize them and sabotage the process? 

And the fierce fighting and dying is continuing unabated. I discovered a website that provide up to the minute reporting on the situation in Afghanistan including the fighting. It's British.

https://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/World+News/Asia/Afghanistan 

I'm very glad I found it because it is starkly opposite to what the Taliban is reporting. The Taliban website reports the battles, and it always sound like they win, and it lists the number of people they killed. But, they rarely mention their own casualties. They talk  a lot about civilian casualties- at the hands of the Afghan government and the U.S.- but they only occasionally say something like "and 2 Mujahideen were martyred." 

http://alemarahenglish.com/

But, that other site spins it exactly opposite, making it sound like the government and coalition forces are kicking ass on the Taliban and killing them in droves. From reading both, you would think that they are talking about two different wars.  

And doesn't it also seem that if the signing of the peace deal was imminent, that both sides would lighten up on their attacks? 

But, I'll leave you with this: the silence about the state of the negotiations is deafening. Obviously, there is a snag somewhere, and I don't see how Trump's recent remarks isn't extinguishing all hope because if he's adamant that we're staying there forever, then the Taliban will never accept it. 

And note that neither has conceded anything really because the Taliban has no interest in or desire to harbor terrorists. So, when they guarantee that they won't do it, it's not a concession. That's a freebie for them.  And when Trump says that he's willing to reduce down to 8600 troops, that is something that he wants to do.  It's not like he's offering it reluctantly as a concession to the Taliban.  And franly, I think he should do it anyway, with or without a peace deal.  

But, the point is that after 9 rounds of negotiations, neither side has given an inch. So, I am wondering now: if they announce a 10th round, is the lapdog media going to report on it with all the hope and promise as before?  Or are they going to be honest this time, and say , "if you guys couldn't resolve it in 9 rounds, adding a 10th won't help, especially since Trump  can't stop saying things that are absolute dealbreakers to the Taliban "   

I received a very nice note tonight from the rising journalist Murtaza Hussain, who writes for The Intercept, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, as well as The New York Times. 

He often writes about human rights issue, and you can find a collection of his articles here:

https://theintercept.com/staff/murtaza-hussain/

Murtaza said that he watched My Stretch of Texas Ground, that he enjoyed it, and he thinks it is a great film. And I very much appreciate that, coming from him. 

I am well aware that the film is very polarizing. It has a strong message, which includes accusing the U.S. of war crimes and atrocities in its post-9/11 wars, but it's not just that. It's not just that they repeatedly killed innocents, including women and children, in situations in which they knew very well beforehand that women and children would be there. Women and children eat in restaurants, right? Women and children attend wedding parties, don't they? But beyond that, it says that the very launching of the wars was criminal and atrocious. And the plain and simple truth is: nobody has a right to start a war. Period. If there is no war, and you start one, then you are a monster. And I don't give a frying fruck what reasons you have to cross the ocean and attack some country. Whatever reasons you have, they aren't valid because they are never valid. War is the worst thing there is, and no one should ever start one. 

Now, not everybody likes that message, and the people who don't, will watch my film, not to enjoy it or even to experience it, but rather, to attack it.  But remember what V told us, that ideas are bulletproof. And the idea behind my film makes it bulletproof. It stands alone. There is nothing else like it. It's in its own individual genre. And everything it says about the wars is true and beyond dispute. Nobody can touch it that way. And there are people watching it now for the sheer novelty of it, because it is so unusual, so unexpected, and so lacking in peers or comps. It is truly one of a kind.                    

Today,  Thursday, Trump said we are going down to 8600 troops in Afghanistan- if a deal is reached with the Taliban. If? For days now, they have been saying they have. He added that if another attack on America originates from Afghanistan (it didn't; it originated from America) he said we will come back in force and like never before, which I take as code for killing 10 million Afghans. Trump said he will only reduce the troops when the Taliban gives a guarantee that Afghanistan won't be used by terrorists, but how can they? "Yes, we guarantee it. We really, really, really guarantee it. We really really do; Cross our  hearts; hope to die; stick a needle in our eyes." Now, is that good enough? And how are they supposed to guarantee it there when Trump can't stop homegrown terrorist acts here?  


Trump said there will be no complete withdrawal- ever. "You have to keep a presence," he said. Hmmm. But, even the Afghan government says it wants the Americans out eventually. So, the President of the United States can just decide to permanently occupy another country against their will? 

And once again, doesn't he realize that everything he says publicly reaches the Taliban? So, when they hear that the U.S. is never getting out, completely, how are they supposed to react? 8600 is about the number of troops that were there when Obama left office. Was the Taliban happy then? So, why should they be happy now that he's willing to go back to that? 

This whole thing is getting weirder by the hour. For days, they've been popping the corks on the champagne bottles, but we are hearing nothing from the Taliban, and it sounds like we are not offering them anything close to what they want. 

I know the solution! A 10th round of negotiations! 

Our Bizarro World continues to bizarate. The Western media is all in a frenzy about the imminent peace deal between the US and the Taliban, and it has all the exuberance of that famous kiss in Times Square.

But, the weird thing is, there is not a word about it on the Taliban website. They just keep reporting on all the government people they are killing.

The Western articles have been saying that America is holding out for partial withdrawal, but with the expectation of keeping a counter-terrorism force there indefinitely, the start of intra-Afghan talks between the Taliban and the government, and a complete ceasefire. 

I don't know how they can expect that when the Taliban has been saying, for years, and adamantly, that they will never work with the current government whom they call "puppets" and "quislings"; that all foreign troops must get out of Afghanistan, and that they won't cease firing so long as the current government exists. 

And then as for guaranteeing that Afghanistan won't be used by terrorist groups to stage their attacks, how can the Trump administration or anyone else think that the Taliban is capable of guaranteeing that? And that's why Trump says we need the residual force there, but they couldn't guarantee it either. The U.S. can't control terrorism among its own citizens at home. So, how are a few thousands U.S. soldiers going to know what is going on in every nook, cranny, and cave in Afghanistan? 

And they definitely are not abandoning the Afghan government because NATO announced today that regardless of what the United States does and promises the Taliban, that they, NATO, will continue supporting, training, and financing the Afghan government for as long as necessary. And the U.S. pays most of the bills of NATO, so it's just going to be a hand-off. It will be British and Dutch soldiers doing it instead of Americans. 

The idea that the Taliban is going to accept all of this is beyond unbelievable. And if the Taliban does accept it all, it will mean  that identity does not exist. A is not A. It will be the most spectacular flip-flop I have ever seen in my life, and that is said as someone who reads the Taliban website every day. 

As I see it, the most they could accept is us leaving Afghanistan over a fixed time frame with no residual force left behind. We don't get to back the Afghan government any more militarily. So, no more smart bombs, drones, MOABS, etc.  The Taliban gets to keep fighting the Afghan government with no cease-fire and no discussion of working together. 

I see that as the most that they can do and still be consistent with what they have been saying for years. Even at this late date and amid all the hoopla, I can't see them doing one bit more than that. 

And it's not that I hope that they don't. I sincerely hope that they do because the more peace and the less war there is, the better.  But, I am speaking cognitively, trying to make sense of  what the Western reports are saying, and I just can't do it. I just can't imagine that the Taliban would reverse themselves and capitulate to the U.S. after all this time. And if they gave us all that, that's what it would be: capitulation.  

Another interesting wrinkle is that both Russia and China have offered to step in as a "guaranteeor"  of the agreement, "to make sure both sides fulfill their commitments." But, how could they do that? If Trump so easily broke the agreement with Iran, (and I realize it was made by another President, not him, but it was made by the United States) then why assume that after the "14 to 24 months" that the deal would stipulate as the final departure date for the last U.S. trrops to leave, that he wouldn't change his mind again and say that "facts on the ground" make it necessary to stay? 

Well, it's all very intriguing. I am waiting for this the way some people wait for the lottery numbers to be announced. 

And if it contains much less, such as, just an agreement to end hostilities between the US and the Taliban, and for the US to withdraw some troops right away and the rest within a relatively short time frame, and probably a commitment to intra-Afghan dialogue but not with government officials in their official capacity and not with Ghani at all, then it will not only seem like a capitulation by the United States, but it will make the prior reporting seem like outright lies. 

So, what the hell is going to happen???? 

This is from a fight scene in My Stretch of Texas Ground, where Sheriff Joe is taking on two terrorists at once. Fight scenes usually take a lot of time in Hollywood movies, where the actors undergo a lot of training and rehearsing. But, in our case, this being a low budget movie, there was just one practice session with Christian Stokes, our stunt coordinator, and then it was time to roll the cameras. And considering that, I think the actors did very well.  So here are Jeff Weber, Tarek Zohdy, and Siya Ameen dooking it out. 

I thought of another American absurdity. We keep insisting that the Taliban give assurances that Afghanistan won't be used as a terrorist staging area. Of course, as far as we are concerned, the Taliban is practicing terrorism right now, since they are killing American soldiers and a great many more Afghan soldiers and other government personnel. However, they don't consider it terrorism. They consider it waging a war against intruders and infidels. But, what about us? We are in Afghanistan, currently about 14,000 strong. Then there are about as many troops from other countries who are working with us. Then there is the whole Afghan Army  which is about a quarter million soldiers. Despite all that military muscle, there was a terrorist act in Kabul the other day at a wedding which killed about 70 people. Why didn't we prevent that? Why didn't the Afghan government prevent it? Why didn't the Afghan Military prevent it? If we and they can't stop terrorist acts from occurring in Afghanistan, how can we demand that Taliban give assurances that they can and will? 

And of course, we can't stop the terrorist acts (read: mass shootings) which occur here in the U.S. on a frequent and regular basis. So, if we can't do it, how can we expect the Taliban to do it? 

And there is yet another thing: We have said all along, and we are still saying that following the peace deal between us and the Taliban, that there have to be intra-Afghan talks, presumably about reorganizing the government to include the Taliban. Well, if that happens, then whatever government emerges from it, won't it be their responsibility to control what happens in Afghanistan? We've said all along that we are not going to order the current government to dissolve and hand everything over to the Taliban. Yet, when we talk like it will be the Taliban's responsibility to police all terrorist activity in Afghanistan, it sounds like we don't believe ourselves. It sounds like we know that, in reality, the Taliban is going to be in  charge  and run everything, and therefore, we are just paying lip service to the idea of a coalition government. Otherwise, why don't we wait until the new government is in place?

But, they don't even think about the  contradictions and absurdities in their spewings.  They just spew.  

A bizarre thing is going on right now. The corporate media is doing a drum roll about the pending peace deal with the Taliban, saying that it's imminent, perhaps a day or two away. And Trump is talking about publicly: that we are going to reduce our troop strength to 8600, but we'll have to leave a residual force there because, after all, it is a laboratory for terror. And then, the next thing is that the Taliban and the Afghan government will begin talks. 

Well, if it that happens, it will be on par with the Pope announcing that he is converting to Islam. That's how out of character it would be for the Taliban if they actually agreed to that. They have said all along that they will not talk to the puppet government, that they do not recognize their authority, and that they will fight them until they're all either dead or switched sides. 

On the Taliban website there isn't a word about the negotiations. These are the headlines they are reporting: 

So, next it's going to be the Taliban announcing: "The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan announces that it has accepted the American offer to reduce their troop level to 8600 soldiers. They won't commit to being completely out of Afghanistan by any specific date, even though we have said all along that the removal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan is a core position for us. And even though we have always said that we will never talk with the current government because we consider them puppets of the U.S., we have changed our mind about that and will now conduct talks with them. Praise be to Allah." 

Right now, the President of the United States and the mainstream media is implying that that is on the verge of happening. Well, it will be freaky if it does. It will be like they morphed into something else.  It will be like they were MK-ULTRAed. It will be like they were all doped up on scopolamine.  I am waiting with bated breath to see what happens. 

It is very clear that the Taliban does not admit to having attacked the United States or any other country. They said it over and over, and they said it again last tonight.

"We have not attacked America or Europe, but it is west that has invaded our country and set it on fire."

So, when the  U.S. demands that the Taliban give assurances they will not let Afghanistan be used as a staging ground by terror groups to attack the West, the implication is that they used to do that. 

So, the idea is that they used to do it,  but now they are not going to do it, and therefore 18 years of war were justified. It is such bull shit.  

The Taliban denies that it ever did it. And if Americans would just think about the real history of Afghanistan, they would realize that the Taliban is telling the truth. 

Osama bin laden went to Afghanistan in the early 1980s to join the fight against the Soviet Union. He brought men, equipment, and money, and he fought. And when the Soviets were driven out in 1989, he was there and considered a hero, and I mean by everybody, including us.. And so the Taliban let him stay there, but it was because of what he had contributed to the victory in their fight.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with attacking the United States or Europe. That wasn't even on the radar. 

Now, you know very well that I don't think Osama bin laden had anything to do with 9/11. He had no more to do with it than Jack Ruby had to do with killing Oswald, which is to say he had nothing to do with it. But, even if you believe that Osama bin laden planned 9/11, you can't assume that it had anything to do with the Taliban.  You can't assume that he informed them that that's his new mission in life, to kill innocents in the United States. Even if you are foolish enough to think that he thunk up 9/11, it wouldn't mean that the Taliban was "harboring" him. And again, considering all the homegrown terror attacks that happen in this country, including the ones very recently, are you going to accuse the U.S. government of harboring terrorists since they were unable to anticipate such heinous acts and prevent them? 

So, there was never a rational basis to accuse the Taliban of harboring Osama bin laden so that he could plan the 9/11 attacks, even thought it is a cock and bull story that he was responsible.  

Osama bin laden was treated like a guest in Afghanistan because of his contributions to defeating the Soviets, and that's it. There is no basis to assume anything else about it.

Now, there have been 9 rounds of negotiations with the Taliban. And after each round, the government and media said the exact same thing, that the U.S. agrees, in principle, to get out of Afghanistan if the Taliban will give assurances that they won't let Afghanistan be used as a staging ground by terrorists. And again, I point out that even if Taliban were capable of controlling and inspecting every square foot of Afghanistan and every gathering of two or more people, which obviously they can't do, it would only mean that terrorists would go somewhere else to plan their attacks. So, the very idea that that great safety will be afforded to the United States and all Americans if only we can be sure that every square foot of Afghanistan is terrorist-free-- it is just another idiotic spewing by spewing idiots. 

And, speaking of spewing idiots, the Idiot in Chief , just today at G7 conference, assured reporters that the U.S. is not going to withdraw completely from Afghanistan, and that there is "no timetable." That is in quotes because I am quoting the Idiot. So, we aren't making a commitment to leave? Then what the hell are we offering the Taliban besides money? And I'm sure we are offering them a ton of that, just as we offered and gave a ton of money to the Viet Cong in Paris in 1973. But, the Taliban is not going to settle for anything less than a firm timetable for complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from their country.   

And just for good measure, Trump repeated his boast that he could win the war easily if he was willing to kill 10 million Afghans. After all that damage control his people had to do after he said it the first time, he apparently didn't learn a thing. 

And then, his special envoy Khallilzad was asked to respond to a Taliban claim that the U.S. is going to get the hell out, and then they will have free reign to fight the Afghan government which will no longer have any U.S. support. Khalllzad's response was: don't believe the propaganda. The U.S. will never stop supporting (militarily, financially, and otherwise) the Afghan government. 

My prediction is that there will be no agreement reached. We are going to offer all kinds of money to them if they will only work with the current government, but the Taliban will not do it.  And, among other reasons, it's because they know very well that their mujahideen fighters won't like it. They are not going to risk a rebellion in their own rank and file.

And what happens afterwards? When the whole thing collapses, Trump may get mad. He may decide: no more Mr. Nice Guy. He may reverse everything and decide that good old American escalation is the way to go. Time for another surge.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do.  But, I predict that the signed deal that is supposed to be just days away does not happen.   

Steven B Serious question.
The photo on the right, assuming it's Ruby, do we know the date of that photo? Because what if Ruby got a haircut?

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · Message
•  · 4d

• 

  Oswald Innocence Campaign The picture on the right is Ruby at his trial months later. But, he NEVER wore his hair the way we see it on the left. And very few men did in those days.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1m
• 

  Oswald Innocence Campaign The reason why it's so thick and ends so sharply and abruptly is because it is a wig.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1m