Saturday 23rd of October 2021

global warming in a bucket...

droughtdrought

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a "new" global warming kid* on the block. Not that new, but recently promoted again by media heavies...

 

And this global warming kid* has credentials. Heavy in sciences and graphs — all peer reviewed. This global warming kid* explains that most of the present global warming (now undeniable and noticed by scientists, denialists and luddite alike) is due to the sun. Hoorah! Horror! We’re going to fry if the sun says so!

 

So has the IPCC been wrong all these years in the assessment that the global warming (now undeniable and noticed by scientists, denialists and luddite alike) is due to human activities releasing CO2, methane and NOx gases? It’s a fair question… And my answer a priori is no. The IPCC has got it right and the new kid* on the block is wrong. But how come?

 

How could this be?... One has to dig deep, source information and one has also got to use some common sense. Questions: what made the sun change so much as to induce a recent climate change on the surface of planet earth? Has the brilliance and intensity of the sun changed? Could this increase go beyond our survival ability? Are we in trouble? Is burning more fossil fuels to power fridges and air conditioning our only solution?

 

Answer: No, the sun has not changed beyond its usual eleven year cycles of “high activity and quiet times”:

 

The 11-year sunspot cycle that just ended, Cycle 24, was a noticeably weak one. Around the peak of the cycle in April 2014, there were substantially fewer sunspots – and fewer accompanying solar flares and coronal mass ejections – than at other recent solar cycles. Experts have predicted that Cycle 25, which was announced to have begun in September of this year, will be a weak sunspot cycle as well. But scientists* led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) disagree. They announced on December 7, 2020, their prediction that Solar Cycle 25 will be one of the strongest on record. The article below, by Laura Snider, was originally published in NCAR & UCAR News. Reprinted here with permission. [Note:  Gus does not have any permission whatsoever to analyse this rubbish in good faith and demonstrate it is rubbish coated with scientific tentacular vernacular rubbish].

 

In direct contradiction to the official forecast [from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, the U.S. government’s official source for space weather forecasts, watches, warnings, and alerts], a team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado is predicting that the sunspot cycle that started this fall could be one of the strongest since record-keeping began [in 1755].

 

Holala… We’re stuffed!

 

When did "we" start to calculate “global warming”? The first major calculation was made in the late 1800s, 1896-7 precisely by Svante Arrhenius (...in developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect). That's about 12 sun cycles away. 

 

Was there any changes in the sun cycles since then? Sure there were, but nothing out of the ordinary sun cycle that my granny used to go shopping under. 

 

We’re invited to see the split image that shows the difference between an active sun during solar maximum (on the left, captured in April 2014) and a quiet sun during solar minimum (on the right, captured in December 2019). Yes we’ve seen this one before. Nothing unusual.  So, December 2019 marked the beginning of Solar Cycle 25, and the sun’s activity will once again ramp up until solar maximum, predicted for 2025. Image via NASA/ Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). 

 

Yes, this cyclical sun power would have happened since Jesus Christ was pinned to a cross and way before this, probably since the dinosaurs got a message from the gods 65 million years ago… 

 

What has mostly affected the cycles of warm and cool period on planet earth for the last few million years have been the Milankovitch cycles, mostly wobbles of the planet on its axis… These  Milankovitch cycles plus the sun cycles being of different frequencies can work in step or in opposition (resonance sine), creating some different values for the intensity of warm and cool periods but not enough to change the general climatic cycles variations as observed in the records for the last few million years — or at least the last 500,000 years.

 

So basically, if one does extrapolate, the recent sun cycle has been quite “feeble” for the last few years and yet it seems we’ve been hit for six with present global warming (now undeniable and noticed by scientists, denialists and luddite alike). Common sense should tells us that global warming (now undeniable and noticed by scientists, denialists and luddite alike) isn’t coming from the sun exclusively, nor principally. 

 

 

Well, yes… Let me correct myself. THE PRESENT GLOBAL WARMING (now undeniable and noticed by scientists, denialists and luddite alike) IS DUE TO THE SUN… Yes, without the sun rays (energised frequencies) hitting all the warming gases in the atmosphere, the present global warming (now undeniable and noticed by scientists, denialists and luddite alike) would not be happening… 

 

It’s a bit like your microwave oven. The water won’t boil unless YOU press the button. Pressing the button of a microwave is like turning on the sun rays to the atmosphere. The SUN acting on the warming gases in the atmosphere is what induce the natural warmth of the climate. And yes, if you do not place water in the microwave oven, it isn’t going to warm up (just a little due to the humidity in the air). A microwave oven needs water in it — to warm up. Note: a bit of chicken is made of at least 60 per cent water and will warm up accordingly. 

 

No warming gases (water vapour, CO2, methane, NOx) in the atmosphere, and the temperature of the planet will plummet. The planet NEEDS the warming gases. Well when I say need, the planet does not need anything. It’s only us, living organisms who need a bit of warmth. Add too much warming gases and we’ll start to boil. Not quite, but...

 

MICROWAVE (specific energised PRECISE frequency) + WATER + ON SWITCH = boiling water. Simple! Note that the process has to happen in a cage (a limited space, like the atmosphere of the planet) because the specific MICROWAVES could also boil our blood should they escape outside the cage. Note the manufacture of microwave ovens is highly REGULATED to make sure no microwave escapes from the cage. The holes in the cage are SPECIFIC to make sure the frequencies of the microwave do not escape while allowing for viewing inside.

 

 

NOTE: some imbeciles on Mythbusters tried to cook a turkey by placing it close to a high intensity radar. AND NOTHING HAPPENED! This was to show that radars won’t cook your dick. YES, radars use microwaves… So how come? There are radars and radars. There are microwaves and microwaves. I’m not sure but my guess is that should you place a flock of turkey in front of one of the new “full-array” Russian radars designed to spot a US stealth-plane 100 kilometres away, your flock of geese will be cooked in a jiffy. Turkey, geese, you know what I mean. The process is due to the PRECISE wavelength of the microwaves that will cook the birds — or catch a stealth plane. And the Full-Array Radars use MANY microwave FREQUENCIES at the same time.

 

The warming gases in the atmosphere warm up to precise wavelength of the sun rays. For CO2 it’s infrared (more energy in infrared than in “microwaves”) at VERY precise values. Not all infrared wavelength will warm up CO2. But the wavelength that does, does it with vigour. 

 

So, the new kid* on the block tells us with a straight face:

 

In direct contradiction to the official forecast [from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, the U.S. government’s official source for space weather forecasts, watches, warnings, and alerts], a team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado is predicting that the sunspot cycle that started this fall could be one of the strongest since record-keeping began [in 1755].

 

In a new article published November 24, 2020, in the peer-reviewed journal Solar Physics, the research team predicts that Sunspot Cycle 25 will peak with a maximum sunspot number somewhere between approximately 210 and 260, which would put the new cycle in the company of the top few ever observed.

 

But/and/so:

 

The cycle that just ended, Sunspot Cycle 24, peaked with a sunspot number of 116, and the consensus forecast from a panel of experts convened by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting that Sunspot Cycle 25 will be similarly weak. The panel predicts a peak sunspot number of 115.

 

 

Now we know that the last maximum sun cycle maximum was pissy in comparison to previous ones. But the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, has “predicted” (let’s place this into quote marks) that there will be more sun spots than what NASA has itself predicted… 

 

NCAR* [National Center for Atmospheric Research* in Boulder, Colorado,] Deputy Director Scott McIntosh is a solar physicist who led the study. He said:

 

"Scientists have struggled to predict both the length and the strength of sunspot cycles because we lack a fundamental understanding of the mechanism that drives the cycle. If our forecast proves correct, we will have evidence that our framework for understanding the sun’s internal magnetic machine is on the right path."

 

 

Now, this “new scientific sun culprit" information from the National Center for Atmospheric Research* in Boulder, Colorado, has been taken up by the Epoch Times. Alarm bells. I mean ALARM BELLS!

 

 

The Epoch Times….

 

The Epoch Times is a far-right[12] international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.[17] The newspaper, based in New York City, is part of the Epoch Media Group, which also operates New Tang Dynasty (NTD) Television.[18] The Epoch Times has websites in 35 countries but is blocked in mainland China.[19]

 

The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party,[20] promotes far-right politicians in Europe,[3][5] and has backed President Donald Trump in the U.S.;[21] a 2019 report by NBC News showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign.[18][22][23] The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation.[18][24][25] In 2020, the New York Times called it a "global-scale misinformation machine".[21] The Epoch Times frequently promotes other Falun Gong affiliated groups, such as the performing arts company Shen Yun.[14][26][21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

 

TENTACULAR? SPECTACULAR? LOONY LIAR?

 

Okay, I am with you: not that all mass media are not telling fibs or do not massage the truth for propaganda, but we’ve got to draw a line in the sands of informational porkies… One has to be judicious in choosing our channels of information. Should we only watch Channel XXXXX (name suppressed) we could end up believing that the Kardashians are the most evolved humans on planet earth, for example. They are okay, but no Einstein there.

 

On top of this we have to follow a cascade of links in order to find the source of the rubbish published yesterday. In this case, we follow an advertisement on RT, and then fall slowly into the lap of the National Center for Atmospheric Research* in Boulder, Colorado, exposing their underpants (their sun-spot prediction) in October last year

 

EarthSky is also a pseudo-publisher of the rubbish from the NCAR* while appearing knowledgeable about other celestial stuff. 

 

RT will from time to time have a dig at young Greta for not predicting weather changes on Mars, while also publishing serious info about global warming. 

 

OffGuardian is a bastard case dealing in exposing the failings of sciences as if they were conspiracies, especially on Covid-19. As we all know (we should) sciences are never perfect and this incertitude specially in statistics is used by politics to create global trends such as vaccination and lockdowns. Why? Imagine for a second that your granny died “because the government did not act” (in response to a DECLARED PANDEMIC). You can sue the government for millions (unless you live in Brazil). The insurance and the law industries are hot on the heals of politicians. So far more than 4 million people have died from Covid-19. Do the sum. at $10 million per deaths in compensation and bingo… Even at one million each. So the governments have to appear "doing stuff to prevent Covid-19”...

 

 

On global warming, OffGuadian is appalling and deliberately ignorant… On politics, they often lose the plot… But like most decent information channels, including the rotten mass media, they try hard to bring the truth AS THEY SEE IT. They hit the jackpot from time to time. 

 

 

Here on YD, our tiny puny site, we’ve followed the sun spots since Methuselah (Gus-the-Old-Kook) was a young kid. And we understand global warming in our own way. We’ve done the hard sums and the research in all the nooks and crannies. We evaluate what other people say including the Heartland Institute and the National Center for Atmospheric Research* in Boulder, Colorado, including the outfit in pommyland where Lord Monckton is marinating in, all in order to see how these guys can claim what they sprout, with “peer reviewing”, because until a while ago, peer reviewing was a necessity to prove your bone fide… So now everyone is claiming to have been peer reviewed (the cleaning lady read the manuscript). Yep, and to add injury, EINSTEIN’S WORK WAS NEVER PEER REVIEWED.

 

More can be said here — and will be added on. 

 

GL.

Rabid global warmist…

 

 

Picture at top from Inside Tasmania

 

Note: whether there are more sun spots in 2025 than what NASA has predicted won't affect the climate as much as a couple of flying potatoes on their way to Mars.

 

*Major bullshit "scientific" outfit: National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado...

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

taliban climate change...

CBS has been accused of spinning fanciful, Greta Thunberg-inspired yarns about the disastrous outcome of the nearly 20-year war in Afghanistan, after claiming that the Taliban received outside support from climate change.

The American news outlet published an exclusive report on Friday that endeavored to shine a light on what may have caused the trillion-dollar debacle in Afghanistan, ending with the complete collapse of the Afghan National Army on August 15 just weeks after US-led coalition forces accelerated their exit from the country.

Authoritatively titled, ‘How climate change helped strengthen the Taliban,’ the CBS investigation discovered that the Taliban benefited immensely from the covert support of a formidable global power: Earth’s climate.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/532698-taliban-climate-change-afghanistan/

 

--------------

 

Rural Afghanistan has been rocked by climate change. The past three decades have brought floods and drought that have destroyed crops and left people hungry. And the Taliban — likely without knowing climate change was the cause — has taken advantage of that pain. 

 

While agriculture is a source of income for more than 60% of Afghans, more than 80% of conflicts in the country are linked to natural resources, according to a joint study by the World Food Programme, the United Nations Environment Program and Afghanistan's National Environmental Protection Agency. In 2019, Afghanistan ranked sixth in the world for countries most impacted by climate change, according to the Germanwatch Global Climate Risk Index. 

Over the last 20 years, agriculture has ranged from 20 to 40% of Afghanistan's GDP, according to the World Bank. The country is famous for its pomegranates, pine nuts, raisins and more. However, climate change has made farming increasingly difficult

 

Read more:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-taliban-strengthen/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=128397717

 

--------------

 

Yes and...? 

 

That was the question Dr David Mansfield asked himself when he first watched that opening salvo in the campaign.

"It was bizarre," he says. "I was sitting in the UK, more than three and a half thousand miles from Afghanistan, watching these incredible attacks unfold. The technology the Americans were using was stunning. These bombs seemed to be going in with pin-point accuracy but I was just thinking 'what is the target here?'" 

Dr Mansfield has studied the Afghan opium industry for more than two decades. He says heroin production leaves certain tell-tale signs and he wasn't seeing any of them. 

 

Yet American Forces were claiming the attacks were a success. 

It would take months of careful detective work using the kind of expertise usually employed by the military - advanced mapping technologies, geospatial analysis of satellite images, as well as dogged investigation on the ground - before Dr Mansfield felt he understood what was happening.

His conclusion is surprising. Despite the incredible resources the American military were pouring in, Dr Mansfield and his team are now convinced that the US Air Force was using 21st century fighter jets to bomb little more than mud huts.

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47861444

 

During the 1980s, the CIA’s secret war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan helped transform the Afghani-Pakistani borderlands into a launchpad for the global heroin trade. “In the tribal area,” the US state department reported in 1986, “there is no police force. There are no courts. There is no taxation. No weapon is illegal … Hashish and opium are often on display.” By then, the process of guerrilla mobilisation to fight the Soviet occupation was long under way. Instead of forming its own coalition of resistance leaders, the CIA had relied on Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and its Afghan clients, who soon became key players in the burgeoning cross-border opium traffic.

The CIA looked the other way while Afghanistan’s opium production grew from about 100 tonnes annually in the 1970s to 2,000 tonnes by 1991. In 1979 and 1980, just as the CIA effort was beginning to ramp up, a network of heroin laboratories opened along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. That region soon became the world’s largest heroin producer. By 1984, it supplied a staggering 60% of the US market and 80% of the European. Inside Pakistan, the number of heroin addicts surged from near zero (yes, zero) in 1979 to 5,000 in 1980, and 1.3 million by 1985 – a rate of addiction so high the UN termed it “particularly shocking”.

 

----------------

2018...

After fighting the longest war in its history, the US stands at the brink of defeat in Afghanistan. How could this be possible? How could the world’s sole superpower have battled continuously for more than 16 years – deploying more than 100,000 troops at the conflict’s peak, sacrificing the lives of nearly 2,300 soldiers, spending more than $1tn (£740bn) on its military operations, lavishing a record $100bn more on “nation-building”, helping fund and train an army of 350,000 Afghan allies – and still not be able to pacify one of the world’s most impoverished nations? So dismal is the prospect of stability in Afghanistan that, in 2016, the Obama White House cancelled a planned withdrawal of its forces, ordering more than 8,000 troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

In the American failure lies a paradox: Washington’s massive military juggernaut has been stopped in its steel tracks by a small pink flower – the opium poppy. Throughout its three decades in Afghanistan, Washington’s military operations have succeeded only when they fit reasonably comfortably into central Asia’s illicit traffic in opium – and suffered when they failed to complement it.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan

 

Yes, other crops FAILED or were so small, they didn't match the poppies... AND GUESS WHAT THE WEATHER IS IMPORTANT. The average (and increasing) dryness experienced in Afghanistan due to global warming is harming most crops except POPPIES:

 

The opium poppy plant can be grown in a variety of soils-clay, sandy loam, sandy, and sandy clay — but it grows best in a sandy loam soil. This type of soil has good moisture-retentive and nutrient-retentive properties, is easily cultivated and has a favorable structure for root development. Clay soil types are hard and difficult to pulverize into a good soil texture. The roots of a young poppy plant cannot readily penetrate clay soils, and growth is inhibited. Sandy soil, by contrast, does not retain sufficient water or nutrients for proper growth of the plant.

 

 

Excessive moisture or extremely arid conditions will adversely affect the poppy plant's growth, thus reducing the alkaloid content. Poppy plants can become waterlogged and die after a heavy rainfall in poorly drained soil. Heavy rainfall in tlle second and third months of growth can leach alkaloids from the plant and spoil the harvest. Dull, rainy, or cloudy weather during this growth stage may reduce both the quantity and the quality of the alkaloid content

 

Source: US Gvt. 1992... Now the Taliban might stop the poppy industry again... though the Taliban has been accused of profiting from the heroin trade, like they did in 2000.

 

pppppppiespppppppies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The Taliban might help reduce the heroin trade (addicts will have to pay more), though the former "Golden Triangle" countries might pick up the slack...

triangletriangle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus the Taliban might help towards reducing global warming by allowing lithium mining by whoever. It is likely though that on human rights (especially women), the Taliban is lying...

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

questions and analysis...

 

PERSONAL VIEWS (Gus's):

 

The fiasco of US army at Kabul airport is the result of misunderstood “intelligence” and propaganda. One needs to understand that the US army “intelligence” is not the same as the CIA which is a civil “intelligence” outfit. As well, there is media “intelligence” where reporters and journalists collect information that is disseminated by their sources for propaganda — from friends and enemies alike.

 

A journalist from Der Spiegel asks a question from a Taliban big oil. How come? The Taliban needs to be seen and uses journalists eager to get information, to promote the Taliban propaganda and determination. Now is it information or propaganda?

 

Question, IN JUNE 2021, by the Der Spiegel journalist, in regard to when the Taliban would reach Kabul… Answer: We’re already there! Not only the Taliban is on the other side of the lake (Hashmat Khan?) in JUNE, it is also implanted within the Ghani government, in which the Taliban operatives await for the signal to take over.

 

Question: do the US intelligence outfits know this or not? My guess: YES.

 

In some cases, the Afghan army troopers join the Taliban. Others don’t fight. 

 

Question: do the US intelligence outfits know that this would happen or don’t they know? My guess: the "intelligence" outfits know.

 

The probability is that both Army and Civil US “intelligence agencies” would have to know the extend of the Taliban reach, even to the heart of the troops “the US teach"… They would have to know that once the Taliban is on the move, the US only have a few days to leave Kabul. Is the president advised? No?

 

Why not? Is this deliberate sabotage, a forgetfulness or a lack of urgency? 

 

Are the president’s close advisers so dumb? What is the chain of command? Who gives the order to decamp? Were the US embassy staff blindsided? By whom? The army? Why?

 

The drama is not what we imagine, but in the far reality that we don’t feel.

 

See Ray McGovern’s interview again. Now this from OffGuadian:   This article was originally published on One World Press in response to this piece by one of our editors. But in the interests of promoting honest debate and diverse views on current affairs, we thought it would be a great addition to OffG. Feel free to compare and contrast the pieces in the comments below, or add your own interpretation.

 

By Andrew Korybko

 

OffGuardian’s Kit Knightly published a thought-provoking piece titled “6 Questions We NEED To Ask About Afghanistan”. He raises some very relevant questions that should be of interest to all observers.

 

In the order that they were presented, these are:

  1. Did the Taliban really just win?
  2. Is the chaos real?
  3. What about the heroin?
  4. Will there be any political fallout?
  5. Is there another “refugee crisis” on the way?
  6. Will we see a major terrorist attack?

As someone who’s covered Afghanistan very closely since the Taliban was first hosted in Moscow back in February 2019, I’d like to share my answers to these questions. Before doing so, however, readers should review the following analyses where I elaborate on my views.

As I wrote in “Why America Couldn’t Win Its War In Afghanistan”, the US’ grand strategic goal of exporting regime changes throughout the broader region through a combination of Color Revolutions and terrorism (Hybrid War) failed due to the targeted states’ resilience, which actually worked to bring them closer together and thus made it impossible for the US’ true goal there to ever succeed.

The US might have intended to sow the seeds of chaos throughout the course of its hasty withdrawal by deliberately leaving a security vacuum for ISIS-K to exploit in the event that its Afghan allies couldn’t hold the Taliban at bay.

The Taliban of today is remarkably different from the one that everyone remembers since it promised to cut ties with international terrorists, is much more inclusive of minority groups, promised to respect minorities’ and women’s rights, and aspires to pragmatically cooperate with the region for mutually beneficial economic ends.

The Afghan Civil will not turn into a regional proxy war. The Taliban’s capture of many Afghan border crossings at the time preempted the scenario of some regional countries arming anti-Taliban proxies, the possibility of which was further reduced by the group’s pragmatic political ties with Russia in recent years, which used to be one of the former “Northern Alliance’s” top sponsors.

Upon realizing that it’ll never succeed with its initial grand strategic goal in Afghanistan, the US finally commenced its withdrawal from the country but intends to subsequently expand its influence throughout the region via economic means through PAKAFUZ and the “New Quad” (both of which are explained in the article).

The US, China, India, Pakistan, and Russia will reshape South Asia. All of these countries except for India have common interests in promoting Central Asian-South Asian connectivity in the aftermath of America’s Afghan withdrawal, but New Delhi might act as a spoiler if it continues to formulate its relevant policies under the influence of geopolitics instead of geo-economics.

The US might attempt to exploit the Afghan refugee crisis provoked by its hasty withdrawal from the country in order to pressure Pakistan and Turkey as punishment for their increasingly independent foreign policies in recent years, including Islamabad’s refusal to allow Washington to set up military bases in the country.

The Taliban’s lightning-fast offensive across Afghanistan took Western governments by surprise (despite the CIA reportedly predicting that the country’s rapid collapse was one of several scenarios), which is why they still had so many of their citizens there and were therefore in such a panic to get them out as soon as possible.

The US withdrawal was a spectacular failure. The US could have “saved face” to an extent had it established military tripwires for deterring Taliban attacks until after its withdrawal was completed in parallel with forcing former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to compromise on a political solution aimed at smoothly facilitating the creation of a transitional government.

Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s former leader was too egotistical to step down per the Taliban’s demand for him to do so as their only condition for participating in an interim government, which also showed that he was willing to defy his American patrons until the very end in this respect and there wasn’t anything they could do to change his mind.

Russia’s Pragmatic Stance Towards The Taliban Debunks Western Fearmongering. In complete contradiction to the Western Mainstream Media narrative, Russian officials claimed that the situation in Afghanistan was almost entirely under control after the Taliban’s takeover, an interpretation of events that they subsequently built upon herehereherehere, and here.

The confusion in many observers’ minds due to everything that’s recently happened provoked wild speculation among some such as popular conservative commentator Candace Owens who theorized that Biden merely did all of this at China’s behest, which I very strongly disagreed with and explained why.

Many were also confused by the chaos at the Kabul Airport, which I explained was due to a combination of American incompetence as earlier elaborated in my prior pieces above and the US’ subsequent efforts to weaponize the embarrassing optics in order to discredit the Taliban and thus distract from its own failures.

Some influential leftist activists in the Alt-Media Community came up with the theory that the Taliban are secretly American proxies since they have difficulty accepting that the US really lost its War on Afghanistan and struggle to understand its geo-economic backup plans that I earlier elaborated upon above.

Contrary to popular opinion nowadays, the US’ abandonment of its Afghan allies was actually predated by its partial abandonment of Poland and Ukraine with respect to their Nord Stream II interests, which shows that what recently happened in South Asia isn’t a fluke but part of a new strategic pattern.

Having summarized my views from over the past four months, it’s now time to answer Knightly’s thought-provoking questions and address some of the pertinent points that he raised in each one:

*

Q1. “Did the Taliban really just win?”A. Yes.

The US still has contractors in the country like Knightly pointed out, but they’re unable to influence the course of events. It’s true that the Taliban were largely unopposed, but this is because many members of the Afghan National Army (ANA) didn’t want to die for former President Ghani’s ego, knew that they couldn’t rely on US air support to back them up if they entered into battle, some of them secretly sympathized with the Taliban (which gradually transformed from a a terrorist group into a national liberation movement), and the Taliban offered many of them to surrender since it was easier than fighting them.

The US military equipment that fell into the Taliban’s hands was supposed to aid the ANA and their militia allies. America didn’t anticipate its proxies surrendering to the Taliban en masse. If anything, it might have had the backup plan of hoping that this equipment fell into ISIS-K’s hands with time instead of the Taliban’s, but the latter defied most expectations by taking over the country before that could happen.

It’s true that there was a deal, of sorts, with the Taliban, but not to hand control of the country and all that equipment over to it. There was supposed to be a transitional government, but former President Ghani refused to resign to facilitate it.

The US wasn’t going to pull the ANA’s American-supplied equipment upon realizing that its long-negotiated diplomatic plan (which was the result of the Extended Troika’s talks that also consisted of China, Pakistan, and Russia) failed. That would have triggered a so-called “crisis of confidence”, though in hindsight the consequent collapse of the ANA that would have followed happened anyhow.

The US also wasn’t going to publicly pressure former President Ghani since that also might have provoked the aforementioned crisis that accelerated the country’s feared collapse. In other words, the US was genuinely caught in a dilemma of its own making.

*

Q2. Is the chaos real?A. Yes and no.

The chaos at the Kabul Airport is real and the direct result of the US’ plans completely collapsing as was explained, but Russia already debunked the Western Mainstream Media’s misleading reports about nationwide chaos in the areas under the Taliban’s control. It was impossible for those same media forces to cover up the US’ disastrous withdrawal so they simply embraced it by reporting on how similar the optics are to Saigon.

Some might speculate, and not without reason, that part of the purpose is to discredit Biden ahead of what some have feared might be Harris’ planned power grab against him at the behest of her “deep state” allies.

The questionable footage from the Kabul Airport showing mostly male crowds (some of whom were behaving nonchalantly) instead of women and children is due to those being the ones who mostly collaborated with the occupying forces and went there in the hope of fleeing their homeland in order to escape the Taliban’s possible revenge (which they in any case promised not to do as part of their general amnesty). Afghans, and especially males, also don’t usually panic much either since it’s seen as a sign of weakness in their culture.

As for the amusing footage of Taliban fighters playing in amusement parks and even trolling Biden by eating ice cream (widely known to be one of his favorite foods), that’s just part of their new public relations strategy to show the world that they’ve changed.

They don’t want the international community to consider them a threat anymore since they hope to be cautiously welcomed by it in the coming future and recognized as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. Some Western Mainstream Media outlets might have ulterior perception management motives related to propagating those images, but the Taliban certainly didn’t stage them for that purpose.

*

Q3. What about the heroin?A. The Taliban banned it and Mexico might replace Afghanistan as the world’s supplier.

Knightly is right to wonder what will happen to the CIA’s illegal drug proceeds since Afghanistan currently supplies 90% of the world’s heroin, but his article came out the same day as the Taliban’s press conference where the group’s representative announced that drugs will now be banned and therefore wasn’t able to be incorporated into his piece.

The Taliban also requested that “The international community should help us so that we can have alternative crops. We can provide alternative crops. Then, of course, very soon, we can bring [the drug scourge] to an end.”

Unbeknownst to many, Russia had the world’s largest number of heroin addicts (over two million) since the start of the last decade but might have been surpassed by the US only recently after America’s latest drug crisis.

Moscow might therefore contribute to the Taliban’s plans to provide alternative crops for cultivation in order to replace opium. Others like China might also chip in as well, not necessarily because their societies are severely affected by that drug, but even if only because their efforts help them portray themselves as responsible members of the international community. It’s therefore possible that opium might be eradicated there.

Regarding the CIA’s need to replace its lost drug proceeds in that scenario, it might very well just open up shop closer to its own borders. Although opium cultivation in northern Mexico recently dropped according to a UN report, potential production remains stable and yields per acre have improved.

Moreover, the Mexican President might be considering that plant’s legalization, which could easily be exploited by CIA-connected drug cartels there even if his intentions are pure.

This scenario is realistic since the US already has a sizeable heroin market so using Mexico as the CIA’s new base of operations can reduce costs, increase usage, and boost profits.

*

Q4. Will there be any political fallout?A. Perhaps.

Knightly astutely points out that the Western Mainstream Media’s surprising criticism of Biden might be meant to precondition the public into accepting Harris’ possible power play against him sometime in the future. This is possible and should be taken seriously.

Regarding their reporting about Russia and China, this is likely being hyped in order to beat up Biden in the press like Knightly notes and also fearmonger about the US’ two top Great Power competitors. It should be pointed out, however, that his claims about those two recognizing the Taliban are incorrect. Russia and China both denied it, but they do have pragmatic ties with the group.

Knightly is correct in observing that “They’ve (Russia, China, and the US in this context) shown us that, when they really need to, they work together to the same end” since this is convincingly proven by their governments’ support of the conventional COVID-19 narrative, but it’s questionable with respect to his innuendo that this might be the case with their geo-economic competition over Afghanistan’s estimated $3 trillion worth of rare earth minerals. He’s right that corporations sometimes exert disproportionate influence over nation-states, but these same corporations still intensely compete with one another for resources.

All three of their pertinent corporations aspire for a piece of Afghanistan’s $3 trillion rare earth mineral pie, but it’s more realistic to expect Russia’s and China’s to cooperate to this end than all three of theirs’ including the US’. It’s much more likely that the US’ corporations will continue intensifying their competition against China’s, including in Afghanistan.

In any case, Knightly is right in remarking that “the profits from the war, the lithium and the heroin will all end up going to the same few pockets”, but those same pockets will likely compete for their share and not all cooperate (except perhaps in the case of Russian and Chinese mining companies).

*

Q5. Is there another “refugee crisis” on the way?A. Yes and no.

It’ll be very difficult for any real refugee crisis to occur since all of Afghanistan’s neighbors are closely guarding their borders with that country and are afraid that terrorists might infiltrate into their territory under such a guise.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that many Afghans want to flee their homeland out of fear of what the Taliban’s return to power might mean for their previously Western-supported lifestyles and even their own lives if they earlier collaborated with the occupiers. Most of these people will probably remain in refugee camps along the borders and won’t make succeed in making it to Western countries.

Some will, though, but these will mostly be those Afghans who collaborated with the occupying forces. There’s genuine anger among some of the Western masses at their government’s failure to rescue their local allies due to how afraid everyone is of their fate under the Taliban in spite of the group’s promise not to exact retribution against them.

That said, Knightly is correct in pointing out how this could be exploited by corporations. He also makes some excellent points with respect to how their relocation to Western countries can contradict several of those governments’ prevailing narratives in certain cases, including the mainstream one about COVID-19.

Knightly’s warning about how Western countries could extricate some of their local assets under the cover of being refugees should be taken seriously, as should his associated one about how some of those fleeing individuals might be radicalized (whether before arriving in their new countries or afterwards).

It’s also possible that Western intelligence agencies might either purposely ignore signs of their radicalization or perhaps even directly get involved in that happening in order to facilitate forthcoming attacks (whether passively or actively) to serve as the pretext for promulgating the potentially preplanned policies that might follow.

*

Q6. Will we see a major terrorist attack?A. Perhaps, but it probably won’t have anything to do with Afghanistan.

Knightly did a journalistic service by compiling all the warnings from the Western Mainstream Media about how another terrorist attack might be expected in the aftermath of the latest Afghan developments.

This certainly makes it seem like the so-called “powers that be” are preconditioning the public to expect something of the sort sometime in the coming future, whether it be “naturally occurring” or the product of their intelligence agencies as was touched upon in the last sentence to the prior question.

In any case, it’s important to be aware of how actively this narrative is being propagated and to question why that is.

Some of the purposes behind this information campaign other than the possible one that was mentioned above might be connected to deleigtimizing the Taliban as revenge for it humiliating the West with its lightning-fast takeover of Afghanistan.

The US and its allies always seek to exploit the public’s fear of whatever it might be, whether it’s the threat of Taliban-inspired terrorism or COVID-19. In this case, fearmongering about forthcoming terrorist attacks could be intended to cast doubt on the Taliban’s promise to cut ties with international terrorist groups in order to perpetuate its international isolation as long as possible.

Another reason might be to establish the pretext for missile strikes against alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan following a future terrorist attack if the US claims that it was somehow or another connected to that country even if it doesn’t present any evidence of this (or its evidence is unconvincing).

That scenario could allow the US to save some face before the global public by showing that it’s still supposedly resolute about fighting terrorism in or associated with Afghanistan even after its withdrawal. It could also be exploited as a pretext for sanctioning its mining competitors there on the basis that their operations “fund terrorism”.

*

After having done my best to answer Knightly’s six thought-provoking questions about Afghanistan, I’d also like to address the bullet point summary of the official narrative about the withdrawal that he included at the end of his article. Here’s what he wrote, followed by my response to each point:

  • Trump signed a deal with the Taliban, over a year ago, to withdraw from the country and hand over 5000 prisoners.

That’s correct, I have nothing to add.

  • Despite having over a year to plan, the US “withdrawal” was chaotic and messy.

Yes, but that’s because the US didn’t establish military tripwires to deter Taliban attacks until after it withdrew and wasn’t successful in pressuring former Afghan President Ghani into compromising towards a transitional government, which would have required his resignation.

  • The US accidentally left behind weapons, helicopters, ammunition and armoured vehicles, which the Taliban took.

It wasn’t an accident, that equipment was supposed to be used by the ANA or possibly captured by ISIS-K as part of the US’ “scorched earth” Hybrid War retreat strategy that failed to materialize. Instead, demoralized and sympathetic members of the ANA handed them all over to the Taliban, which the US didn’t anticipate.

  • The US accidentally left behind 5000 prisoners, whom the Taliban freed.

Those prisoners were not accidentally left behind but were supposed to have released per the US’ prior deal with the group. Furthermore, if the US forces took those prisoners with them during their retreat, they’d either likely end up in Guantanamo Bay or in one of the CIA’s secret rendition facilities across the world.

  • Without US support, the Afghan army, which outnumbers and outguns the Taliban, folded without firing a shot and the Taliban took control of the entire country in less than week.

That’s mostly correct, but this didn’t happen as part of a secret deal between the US, former Afghan President Ghani, and the Taliban, but due to how demoralized many members of the ANA were and how much some of them sympathized with the Taliban. I already explained my interpretation of events earlier in this article.

  • Despite shutting down the heroin trade prior to the US invasion, the Taliban now intend to keep it going, and even increase production.

Knightly must have missed the Taliban’s press conference that day or published his piece before it happened since he’d otherwise have known that the group’s representative reimposed its ban on the drug trade. They don’t intend to keep it going and requested international support for farming alternative crops.

Drawing to a close, I’d now like to respond to Knightly’s final points:

“Do you believe the story? Is it at all believable?”

Yes, I do. The Western Mainstream Media didn’t go into details elaborating on each of its narratives since they never really do that anyhow. Their audience doesn’t usually ask for that and plus many of them might have difficulty understanding some of the finer points that I explained.

“It seems fairly obvious, to me anyway, that US gave weapons and vehicles to the Taliban in exchange for a promise to keep the heroin production going (and maybe access to mineral mines, no word on that yet).”

I see how he reached that conclusion but disagree with it for the reasons that I explained. The US wanted a transitional government partially comprised of the Taliban but hadn’t intended for the group to seize power so swiftly and take all control of military equipment. The Taliban also isn’t in cahoots with the CIA’s heroin trade.

“Meanwhile, the ‘fall out’ of the totally manufactured ‘chaos’ is being used to fan the flames of fear-porn. Promoting division over asylum seekers and spreading panic about terrorism.”

I agree that the optics are being exploited but regard some of the chaos as naturally occurring as I explained. The perception of chaos all across Afghanistan is certainly manufactured, but the chaos at the Kabul Airport genuinely exists and at least 7 people have already been killed there in unclear circumstances because of it.

“In short, the Afghanistan story, as related by the mainstream press, is a twisted illogical ball of confusion, intended to provide fuel for future narratives of control.…which is pretty much true of everything in the news, these days.”

I don’t think it’s a twisted logical ball of confusion, just that it’s not being fully explained to the public as is usual, though the story is still definitely being exploited for a plethora of ulterior reasons. 

Nevertheless, I respect Knightly’s right to see things differently and sincerely enjoyed reading his article and responding to it.

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/08/21/afghanistan-answering-kit-knightlys-6-questions/

 

Read from top.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!