The importance of history

Read Article

Comments (44)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (44)

kodjo 10 years ago

Nonsense,you are sounding like a juvenile delinquent just misbehaving for the sake of it.You are making no sense at all.

Nonsense,you are sounding like a juvenile delinquent just misbehaving for the sake of it.You are making no sense at all.
@OO@ 10 years ago

A Whole lot of bull shit.

A Whole lot of bull shit.
Mahmoud 10 years ago

If J.B Danquah hadn't been born at all patriotic Ghanaians would've still overthrow Nkrumah with or without the help of CIA because, his leftist tendencies had reached a point of no return. The guy was a cold-blooded red sick ...
read full comment

If J.B Danquah hadn't been born at all patriotic Ghanaians would've still overthrow Nkrumah with or without the help of CIA because, his leftist tendencies had reached a point of no return. The guy was a cold-blooded red sickle communist of the Starling, Pol pot and Idi Amin type of wicked human-being.

Every Ghanaian cursed the day that this cunning and dishonest man was invited to join the UGCC as its secretary, and he was, and still is, the mother of all traitors in Ghana. It was, therefore, legitimate and even desirable to overthrow that callous, one party state and president for life communist dictator. In fact, I congratulate Kotoka and his friends once again for securing our second independence and delivering us from Kwame Nkrumah; one of the most dangerous human beings that ever lived on the African continent.
Mahmoud 10 years ago

The sycophant KB Ashanti is a disgrace. How can any reasonable human being in his right mind justify communist dictatorship and tyranny? Nkrumah did not have any excuse for doing what he did, except that he was preparing the ...
read full comment

The sycophant KB Ashanti is a disgrace. How can any reasonable human being in his right mind justify communist dictatorship and tyranny? Nkrumah did not have any excuse for doing what he did, except that he was preparing the ground with series of unprovoked actions to create one party state and declare himself president for life.

Communist ideology doesn't have a place for opposition in the system. Have you ever heard of a communist democratic country with an opposition to check excesses of the government? Nkrumah chose communism as a means of keeping himself in power forever. He therefore imposed the Detention without Trial Act only to gag everybody in Ghana, create a communist dictatorship and turn himself into president for life. This is because, communists don't share power.
Victor A. Young 10 years ago

It's surprising to note how the CPP group won't accept the fact that Nkrumah caused more harm than good to Ghana's development. After building state-owned institutions, he soon realized that the economic situation and people' ...
read full comment

It's surprising to note how the CPP group won't accept the fact that Nkrumah caused more harm than good to Ghana's development. After building state-owned institutions, he soon realized that the economic situation and people's enthusiasm was dwindling, fading or declining.

Nkrumah had preached democracy to Ghanaians and the whole world during independence campaign etc., only to turn Ghana around toward Soviet Union's communist style of government.
He didn't end there; he started meddling in international and world politics; declared Ghana a non-aligned country which seemed good in ideology, except that Nkrumah was seen leaning more towards the communist. So when he started detaining his political opponents like J.B. Danquah, it was obvious his days as a dictator and tyrant was numbered! He and his CPP cannot blame Dr. J.B. Danquah for his failures. These are some of the facts that Sister Samia Nkrumah and Prof. Akosah should take notice of.

Dr. Danquah wasn't a criminal; he was a peace-loving fellow and citizen of Ghana, who believed in true democracy and the rule of law among others. He had no prepared speech to be read to anyone; all those bogus allegation won't help the CPP group of follers.
KING LOMOTEY 10 years ago

"Nkrumah caused more harm than than good to Ghana's development" Are you serious? Without him Victor A. Young, there is no way I could have graduated from Achimota School and gone on to graduate from Legon.

You are maki ...
read full comment

"Nkrumah caused more harm than than good to Ghana's development" Are you serious? Without him Victor A. Young, there is no way I could have graduated from Achimota School and gone on to graduate from Legon.

You are making it appear as if Dr. Kwame NKRUMAH caused what Wole Soyinka referred to as "wasted generation".

He goes on to say that "you don't compare Nkrumah with somebody like Idi Amin. No way". You cannot compare what J.B. Danquah was able to achieve with all the achievements of Nkrumah. Let's be truthful for a change, my friend.
BOY KOFI 10 years ago

The United Party in the 50s killed lot of people who did not support them in Kumasi and other places.It was like eliminating all the CPP suporters in Kumasi completely,exactly like what Kenneth Agyapong instigated before the ...
read full comment

The United Party in the 50s killed lot of people who did not support them in Kumasi and other places.It was like eliminating all the CPP suporters in Kumasi completely,exactly like what Kenneth Agyapong instigated before the 2012 General elections.Find out more historical events of Danquah and the UP,you will be surprised to know their savagery and barbaric records.Do your own research.Thank you.
Chabba 10 years ago

Yes, it is true that Dr Danquah was not a saint, neither was Dr Nkrumah a saint. I fact nobody is a saint on this earth. But of what benefit does it make for Nkrumah to champion the dignity of a black man, build infrastructur ...
read full comment

Yes, it is true that Dr Danquah was not a saint, neither was Dr Nkrumah a saint. I fact nobody is a saint on this earth. But of what benefit does it make for Nkrumah to champion the dignity of a black man, build infrastructure, improve education etc., then at the same time destroying the fundamental human rights of the very people he claimed to fight for? The detention without trial of Dr. J. B. Danquah and others by Nkrumah cannot be justified in any other way, it is wrong, inhuman and unjust.
@OO@ 10 years ago

It is a shame that UP/NLM did not succeed in their first attempt to assassinate Nkrumah in a very humane and democratic way.

It is a shame that UP/NLM did not succeed in their first attempt to assassinate Nkrumah in a very humane and democratic way.
BOY KOFI 10 years ago

Please kindly tell us some of the bad things that Danquah also did as a matter of history.When I was a little boy,I heard that the Danquah/Busia/Dombo or the UP killed lot of CPP followers and those not supporting them in Kum ...
read full comment

Please kindly tell us some of the bad things that Danquah also did as a matter of history.When I was a little boy,I heard that the Danquah/Busia/Dombo or the UP killed lot of CPP followers and those not supporting them in Kumasi and other places.I will not like to go into their atrocities but why has the NPP always kept these political events under the carpet?Thank you.

KKO 10 years ago

Poppycock!
Did whoever told you that bother to tell you who started the killing and if others were killed on the other side? How about the over 3000 others who were detained around the country without trial under PDA?

So ...
read full comment

Poppycock!
Did whoever told you that bother to tell you who started the killing and if others were killed on the other side? How about the over 3000 others who were detained around the country without trial under PDA?

Some went in merely because they were members of the TUC who had protected Nkrumah's arse earlier on. Ask anyone who grew up in Sekondi-Takoradi about Esi Elluah and Ambrose Yankey. Some of us still carry scars; don't come and open them!
BOY KOFI 10 years ago

You agree with me that the UP or mate mehu killed many innocent citizens in the first place.Danquah/Busia/Dombo were the leaders and cannot be spared for the purpose of history.I am not here to defend Nkrumah or CPP but histo ...
read full comment

You agree with me that the UP or mate mehu killed many innocent citizens in the first place.Danquah/Busia/Dombo were the leaders and cannot be spared for the purpose of history.I am not here to defend Nkrumah or CPP but history must be adequate.What I am trying to convey is that Danquah himself has his hands tainted with blood of innocent souls.Iam not here to justify how many millions of people Nkrumah detained but expose the evil deeds of Danquah as well.Thank you.
PRINCEWILLY@YMAIL.COM 10 years ago

A guys walking down the street and sees a yard full of naked old women just laying in the grass. So the guy walks up to the door and knocks and says "I'd like to know whats going on here" Guy replies "There a bunch of retired ...
read full comment

A guys walking down the street and sees a yard full of naked old women just laying in the grass. So the guy walks up to the door and knocks and says "I'd like to know whats going on here" Guy replies "There a bunch of retired prostitutes having a yard sale"
Kwabena Akurang-Parry 10 years ago

Greeting fellow Vandal! I have followed your write-ups and utterances. They are not historicized. They are just simple ideas of a distraught politician at a junction of non-seasoned political market of ideas. Yes, history is ...
read full comment

Greeting fellow Vandal! I have followed your write-ups and utterances. They are not historicized. They are just simple ideas of a distraught politician at a junction of non-seasoned political market of ideas. Yes, history is life and life is history. But your brand of history obfuscates rather than illuminates. Your recent knee-jerk perspectives on Danquah are meant to cobble home to the NPP echelons that you are with them. You didn’t get history right and you alienated them and still doing so! We call it bad history.
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Dr. Kwabena Akurang-Parry,

I decided not to comment on this piece until I saw your comment. Very pointedly insightful!

In fact, if Dr. Kennedy had perused Fukuyama's work with even a passing acquaintance of the world, a ...
read full comment

Dr. Kwabena Akurang-Parry,

I decided not to comment on this piece until I saw your comment. Very pointedly insightful!

In fact, if Dr. Kennedy had perused Fukuyama's work with even a passing acquaintance of the world, and taken it upon himself to explore the underlying assumptions of the wide spread of Fukuyama's core ideas, he would probably have taught twice depending on the book's purposed universalization of liberal concepts to make his case.

The liberal democracy Fukuyama touts as the best model for today's civilization is also, ironically if shockingly, behind the creation of groups like Al Queda, the Taliban, dictatorships (Mobuto, Apartheid, Jonas Savimbi, Augusto Pinochet, etc), targeted drone assassinations and their collateral damages, "illegal" renditions, Racial Profiling, police brutality (in America), etc.

In fact, "liberal" democracy has been the source of abuse (corruption, poverty, income inequality, minority underrepresentation across politico-economic spheres, environmental destruction, multinational or corporate exploitation of depletable resources, etc)in many societies around the globe. There are too many examples from the 20th century to elaborate here. The abuse has not ceased in the 21st!

I do not think Dr. Kennedy looked closely at the world before, during and after reading the book. Fukuyama may have taken a simplistic look at today's complex civilization.

I hope Dr. Kennedy is aware that America's "liberal" democracy offered a "good" reason for some American states, mostly southern one, to threaten the Union with secession when President Obama won the election (I believe his second term). That is not to imply that there is a perfect democracy or political system anywhere, far from it.

But Dr. Kennedy's historical dislocation in many an example sorely undermines his focal valuation of ordinary questions. Anyway I have my own shortcomings to deal with!

Please have a great weekend, Prof. Akurang-Parry.

Thanks.
mojingles 10 years ago

Kwarteng, liberal democracy, like any other political ideology obviously has its pitfalls. For much of its existence, socialism/communism stifled individual growth and by extension, national development. Evidence abounds, Kw ...
read full comment

Kwarteng, liberal democracy, like any other political ideology obviously has its pitfalls. For much of its existence, socialism/communism stifled individual growth and by extension, national development. Evidence abounds, Kwarteng.....

but to assert with a straight face that it somehow birthed Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Mobutu, Apartheid, Savimbi is grossly misleading.

What you failed to mention while gleefully excoriating Fukuyama is the salient fact that the terror groups--Al-Quaeda and the Taliban were cut from the strictly conservative strain of Islam.

Similarly, the notoriously corrupt Mobutu and the deviant Savimbi were largely supported and funded by conservatives in the United States primarily. And the much despised apartheid boondoggle survived as long as it did primarily because of its conservative tilt. This infamous group was less inclined to embrace liberal ideals..in fact, liberalism was anathema to them.

At least, Kwarteng, we have lived with the ramifications of liberal democracy and the world is yet to implode....
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Dear Mojingles,

Your statment on socialism/communism is very naive and devoid of factual foundation, Mojingles. Yes, for much of its existence, capitalism too stifled individual growth and by extension, national developmen ...
read full comment

Dear Mojingles,

Your statment on socialism/communism is very naive and devoid of factual foundation, Mojingles. Yes, for much of its existence, capitalism too stifled individual growth and by extension, national development.

Have you explored the relationship between capitalism and slavery?

Have you explored the connections between Apartheid (and the later relationship) capitalism and the destruction of Native Americans and Australian Aborigines and the seizure of their lands?

Please take your time and do a little research into the trade-offs that transpired between the capitalist West and Apartheid (I can't continue because it will take an entire book from me to address this question).

Have you any idea how these activities helped lay the foundation of Western capitalism?

Well, you should start with Walter Rodney's brilliant expose on how capitalism underdeveloped Africa ("How Europe Underdeveloped Africa").

You should also read Edward E. Baptist's "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism" and the other references I gave in my piece "RE: Nkrumah's Socialism, Full of Ideas, But It Doesn't Work." It had to take destruction of states, societies, annihilation of human beings, individual rights, cultures, languages, human dignity, etc., to make capitalism possible (among other reasons).

America's (the West) central role in the creation of Al-Qaeda (Mujahedeen; and hence the Taliban) with other players like Saudi Arabia is well documented. Please go here (Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw) and watch/listen to a piece titled “Hillary Clinton: We Created Al-Qaeda.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security advisor, has shed light on this connection.

Ex-Director of the CIA Robert Gates also sheds light on this matter in his autobiography (“From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War”). There are pictures of Ronald Reagan’s meeting with the leadership of what later became the Mujahedeen (See Reagan Archives). In fact, the American CIA/military had been training these fighters six months before the Soviet overran Afghanistan.

I am surprised you are saying this because this is no news. It is public knowledge, and well documented as well. And no matter how you look at the American conservative is part and parcel of American liberal democracy. This fact is irrefutable. Let us not play a game of political semantics here. Let us also remember that the story of covertly building and supporting a force to resist the Soviets goes all the back to Jimmy Carter, a liberal. Both liberals and conservatives are the face and soul of America’s liberal democracy.

As for American creating the likes of Mobuto and Savimbi (not only funding and supporting them), the records are there. I can only tell you to perform a little bit of research into how Bush’s father (George W.H. Bush) went about to create a station for the CIA in Central Africa to monitor activities in Central-East Africa by seeking out Mobuto, among other things. Declassified information sheds light on this as well. The CIA literally “made” Mobuto. Furthermore, Ludo De Witte’s book “The Assassination of Lumumba” provides primary (as well as secondary and tertiary) sources from the West (America particularly) and Belgium (the colonial master of what later became the Congo) on this very important matter.

There is also extensive information on Jonas Savimbi as America’s creation (as well as South Africa, [and surprisingly the Chinese also occasionally supported the anti-communist Savimbi; America made clandestine arrangements with the Chinese in this regard—you can read the recently released book “The Hundred Year Marathon” (by Michael Pillsbury)---there is some useful declassified info on this arrangements. Please read more about the disgraced American lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Jonas Savimbi. Are Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X the creation of America’s liberal democracy? Again, it does not matter whether it is the conservative Reagan or the liberal Carter, both of those decisions led to the creation of Al-Qaeda and hence the Taliban. Conservatism and liberalism are both expressions of America’s liberal democracy.

In fact, there are tons of well-researched historical works on these questions. For instance, the Americans (via the CIA) helped the Saudis create a special bank account in Switzerland where they (the Saudis) channeled about US$20 million to support the overthrow of the Soviet in Afghanistan. These controversies are also indirectly (or directly) connected to the Iran-Contra Affairs. Another Webster G. Tarpley notes (See hi piece “Filibuster Al Qaeda Founder Robert Gates”):

“Most damning of all is the fact that Gates was one of the founders of al Qaeda, the CIA's Arab Legion which was assembled to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan. Gates is thus part of the infrastructure that produced the patsies of 9/11:

According to former CIA Director Robert Gates's memoir From the Shadows, the big expansion of the US covert operation in Afghanistan began in 1984. During this year, "the size of the CIA's covert program to help the Mujaheddin increased several times over," reaching a level of about $500 million in US and Saudi payments funneled through the Zia regime in Pakistan.”

Please go to the website of the "New American" and read Alex Newman's piece "Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations." Alex writes:

“Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, writing in the U.K. Guardian, had some interesting observations. Noting that “throughout the 80s [bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan,” Cook called bin Laden “a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.” And while not everybody agrees that it was an accidental miscalculation, the fact that he worked with the U.S. government and other Western powers is beyond dispute.”

Anyway this Alex’s full article:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The popular narrative surrounding the life of Osama bin Laden is filled with questions, intrigue, and misinformation. Though he ultimately became one of the most loathed figures in the American psyche, it’s important to remember that bin Laden was once a good friend of the U.S. government. In many ways, he can even be considered a creation of American officials and their allies. His Mujahedeen, or Islamic warriors, were even armed, trained, supplied and financed by America and some of its allies.
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, writing in the U.K. Guardian, had some interesting observations. Noting that “throughout the 80s [bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan,” Cook called bin Laden “a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.” And while not everybody agrees that it was an accidental miscalculation, the fact that he worked with the U.S. government and other Western powers is beyond dispute.

But how and why did bin Laden and the loose confederation of Muslim extremists known as the Mujahideen — supported by the U.S. government and its allies at various other times in recent decades, too — ultimately become so rabidly anti-American? The answers, as with everything about bin Laden, are complicated and debatable.

Bin Laden was born into a life of privilege in Saudi Arabia, the son of a supremely wealthy businessman with a construction empire. After developing a passion for Islam, likely during his college years, he became outraged by the Soviet infidel invasion of Afghanistan. Like other men of faith, he saw the communist menace as a threat to his religion. So bin Laden traveled to the region, recruited soldiers, and played an important role in defeating the barbaric communist occupation and its puppet regime.

In a 1995 interview, bin Laden boasted that his Islamic fighters in Afghanistan were trained by U.S. forces. "I created my first [military] camps, where these volunteers underwent training led by Pakistani and American officers," he told a French newspaper. "The arms were supplied by the Americans.... Our objective was the Islamic Revolution." Ironically, the CIA lessons in terror, combat and sabotage provided to the Jihadists were laced with fanatical Islamic teachings.

And there was probably a reason for it. "These [establishment-backed] regimes [like the Taliban] and organizations [such as bin Laden’s] are serving a hidden — though increasingly visible — purpose ... built into menacing perils to, among other things, justify the transformation of the UN's blue helmets into global gendarmes capable of enforcing UN dictates on all peoples and nations," William Jasper wrote in a 1998 cover story about bin Laden and "American-made terrorists" for The New American magazine.

As it turns out, the U.S. government was deliberately sending the most aid to elements of the Mujahideen that were especially rabid in their anti-American and anti-Western sentiments. One of the largest Mujahideen recipients of U.S. support — the Hekmatyar — was actually collaborating with the communist invaders the CIA was supposedly trying to expel. The U.S. government sent stinger missiles, heavy weaponry, money, and trainers to the Muslim fanatics in massive convoys. And the biggest beneficiaries of the assistance were probably the worst suited to receive it.

After the Soviet Union was expelled from Afghanistan, bin Laden and his men would eventually turn on their former allies — using their U.S.-provided weapons, ideology, and training on new targets. It appears that the problems may have started when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the early '90s and the Saudi dictatorship became concerned that its own kingdom might be next.

Bin Laden offered to do everything in his power to repel a feared Iraqi assault on Saudi Arabia. But, he was adamantly opposed to inviting foreign troops onto what Muslims believe is holy soil. The Saudi royal family, however, allowed U.S. and allied forces into the country anyway for what then-President George H.W. Bush called an effort to forge a “New World Order” by repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Bin Laden was enraged, or so the story goes. And finally, after government pressure failed to silence him, he was exiled from Saudi Arabia, taking refuge under the hard-line Islamic dictatorship ruling the Sudan. It was there bin Laden reportedly decided that eliminating corrupt Arab dictatorships and replacing them with true Islamic governments free of Western influence would require attacks on the source of their power: the Western regimes — and the U.S. government in particular — that were propping them up.

In the mid '90s, bin Laden moved back to Afghanistan and reportedly announced “Jihad,” or Holy War, against the U.S. government. His primary goal, he said, was to drive American troops from Islamic lands and eliminate U.S. and Western support for the corrupt regimes terrorizing much of the Muslim world.

The name al-Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the base,” was originally applied to the CIA’s database of thousands of friendly Muslim extremists who were recruited, armed, and trained by the U.S. government. But under the al-Qaeda banner, bin Laden would inspire legions of Muslims angry at American meddling in the Middle East to unleash a reign of terror upon his new-found enemies.

As part of the loose alliance of Islamic fundamentalists labeled al-Qaeda — though without any true global organizational structure such as the one mythologized in the press — bin Laden and his men reportedly struck at America 1998. According to a federal indictment, they were involved in the bombings of two American embassies in Africa. After that, bin Laden’s men reportedly drove C4 explosives into a U.S. Navy ship. They were also suspected in other bombings.

But incredibly, the U.S. government and various Western intelligence agencies were once again helping bin Laden’s Islamic warriors in the late '90s, even as then-President Clinton was pretending to show concern about bin Laden by bombing a pharmaceutical plant in the capital of Sudan. This time around, the American assistance to the Islamic extremists was provided in the former Yugoslavia via the al-Qaeda-linked Kosovo Liberation Army.

"Many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army were sent for training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan," former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia James Bissett told the Canadian National Post. "There is no question of their participation in conflicts in the Balkans. It is very well documented." Afterward, many Islamic extremists and Mujahedeen stayed in the region, even receiving passports from the U.S.-backed Muslim government in Sarajevo.

After 2001, the story of bin Laden’s becomes particularly murky. Credible sources have been reporting his death since late 2001. At the same time, however, other sources — including U.S. officials — have claimed that bin Laden was deliberately being allowed to escape by high-level authorities in America, Pakistan, and other nations on more than a few occasions.

According to the official assassination narrative, which has continued to change dramatically since May 1, bin Laden managed to elude capture for more than a decade. President Obama said he was shot in the head after finally being tracked down to a compound outside the capital of Pakistan.

Where bin Laden may have been during that decade — assuming he was actually alive — is currently unclear. Obama’s terror czar suggested he was in the Pakistani compound for the last five or six years. But even if he had been alive and hiding there, he almost certainly was not any sort of leader any longer, according to analysts.

But Islamic fundamentalists affiliated with what has come to be known as al-Qaeda are still around. And almost incredibly, they’re still receiving support from the American government in Libya and elsewhere.

The reality is that bin Laden and his fellow Muslim extremists enjoyed — and in many respects Muslim extremists continue to enjoy — a sort of love-hate relationship with the American government. The militants are often useful to Washington, pursuing the same goals as the U.S. foreign policy establishment from time to time. Even today, the American government is arming, funding, training, and supporting Islamic extremists in the joint effort to oust former U.S. ally Muammar Ghaddafi in Libya.

As The New American reported, senior al-Qaeda leaders were among the first to openly back the rebellion in Libya. The U.S. government, NATO, and the United Nations came in later, providing air support and weapons to the militants. Some of the leaders of the uprising are in fact associated with al-Qaeda by their own admission. The U.S. government admits it, too.

In fact, a former “high risk” Guantanamo Bay detainee assessed as a “probable” member of al-Qaeda and affiliated terror groups is now a U.S. ally and a leader in the Libyan rebellion. Another al-Qaeda fighter from Guantanamo was actually working for British and Canadian intelligence while blowing up churches in Pakistan. And the leader of another al-Qaeda-linked organization that was sending fighters to battle U.S. and international forces in Iraq is also leading the Libyan uprising.

Critics of America’s foreign policy have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of supporting terrorists, extremists, and dictators for as long as the U.S. government has been doing it. But under Republican and Democratic control alike, the unconstitutional U.S. government meddling around the world has only been accelerating. Today, America is involved in three openly announced wars in foreign countries and many more covert ones. And unfortunately for the American people, the consequences can be deadly.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Read this (Eric Alterman, The Nation):

The story of what historians call the second cold war often begins with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, which shocked Americans into their own overreaction in Central America and Africa, as well as into arming the mujahedeen resistance. Today, it is a truth universally acknowledged in the punditocracy that while the United States may have played an indirect role in the creation of the Taliban and perhaps even the bin Laden terrorist network through our support for the radical Islamic guerrillas in Afghanistan, we did so only in response to that act of Soviet aggression. As Tim Russert explained on Meet the Press, "We had little choice." Speaking on CNN, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan Peter Tomsen speaks of our "successful policy with the ordnance we sent to the mujahedeen to defeat the Soviets." Writing on "The 'Blowback' Myth" in The Weekly Standard, one Thomas Henriksen of the Hoover Institution rehearses the Soviet invasion and then notes, "First President Carter, then, more decisively, Ronald Reagan moved to support the Afghan resistance."
The truth is that the United States began a program of covert aid to the Afghan guerrillas six months before the Soviets invaded.
First revealed by former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates in his 1996 memoir From the Shadows, the $500 million in nonlethal aid was designed to counter the billions the Soviets were pouring into the puppet regime they had installed in Kabul. Some on the American side were willing--perhaps even eager--to lure the Soviets into a Vietnam-like entanglement. Others viewed the program as a way of destabilizing the puppet government and countering the Soviets, whose undeniable aggression in the area was helping to reheat the cold war to a dangerous boil.
According to Gates's recounting, a key meeting took place on March 30, 1979. Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wondered aloud whether "there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, 'sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.'" Arnold Horelick, CIA Soviet expert, warned that this was just what we could expect. In a 1998 conversation with Le Nouvel Observateur, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted, "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would."
Yet Carter, who signed the finding authorizing the covert program on July 3, 1979, today explains that it was definitely "not my intention" to inspire a Soviet invasion. Cyrus Vance, who was then Secretary of State, is not well enough to be interviewed, but his close aide Marshall Shulman insists that the State Department worked hard to dissuade the Soviets from invading and would never have undertaken a program to encourage it, though he says he was unaware of the covert program at the time. Indeed, Vance hardly seems to be represented at all in Gates's recounting, although Brzezinski doubts that Carter would have approved the aid unless Vance "approved, however unenthusiastically."
No one I interviewed--those who did not mind the idea of a Soviet invasion, and those who sought to avoid it--argues that Carter himself wished to provoke one. Gates, who was then an aide to Brzezinski, says the President did not think "strategically" in that fashion. "He was simply reacting to everything the Soviets were doing in that part of the world and felt it required some kind of response. This was it." Brzezinski, similarly, says he did not sell the plan to Carter on these terms. The President understood, he explained on the phone, that "the Soviets had engineered a Communist coup and they were providing direct assistance in Kabul. We were facing a serious crisis in Iran, and the entire Persian Gulf was at stake. In that context, giving some money to the mujahedeen seemed justified." Why Carter actually approved the aid remains unclear, however. Carter, it should be added, does not seem to remember much about the initial finding. Otherwise, he would not have asked his aide to fax me the pages from his memoir Keeping Faith, which ignores it entirely, and like the rest of the pre-Gates memoirs of the period, professes great shock and horror regarding the onset of the Soviet tanks.
The news of the covert program has provoked considerable confusion among those who seek to blame the United States for the September 11 massacre. Proponents of an overly schematic "blowback" scenario, including at least one vocal supporter of the Soviet "rape" of Afghanistan, have seized Brzezinski's comments to claim that Osama bin Laden is merely one of America's "chickens coming home to roost." This is both simplistic and obscene. Blowback exists in absolutely every aspect of life, because nothing comes without unintended consequences. Does it make sense to blame the destruction of the World Trade Center on a $500 million nonlethal aid program that took place more than twenty years ago? We cannot even know for certain why the Soviets decided on their invasion.
Nor can we ever know for certain whether the US officials wished to inspire one. Memories deceive, records get destroyed and even original documents can be written to be deliberately misleading, as were the period's official memoirs--save, ironically, that of Gates, the former spymaster. The covert action was undoubtedly approved by those involved for a host of reasons, some of which may be contradictory. Helping the Afghans resist Soviet domination was not exactly a controversial policy in 1979, though no one at the time could even dream that it might lead to the evil empire's eventual disintegration.
Brzezinski argues that even given the 20/20 hindsight after September 11, the covert aid remains justified. He shares the common view that America's most significant mistake was to abandon the nation to its unhappy fate following the Soviet withdrawal. Our terrorist problem, he insists, would be much worse with the Soviets still around to support their terrorist minions among the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Libyans, the Iraqis, etc.
Certainly this is much too kind to the Reagan-era military aid to Taliban-like elements. But a more accurate historical record can only lead to more intelligent debate about the future.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Read this (Webster G. Tarpley):
The nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense must be rejected. Gates is deeply implicated in three decades of crimes by the intelligence community. There is no reason to think he intends to begin the necessary rapid departure of US forces from Iraq. His nomination by Bush can only be read as a deliberate provocation directed against the new Democratic Congress. Will the Democrats fight back, or will they capitulate? The American people are watching the Democratic Senators carefully, and they are appalled by the self-congratulatory and clubby narcissism of the Senate at a time when US forces are facing encirclement and decimation in Iraq and Afghanistan. . Senators must not only vote against Gates; they must stop the confirmation process with a filibuster. A look at Gates' sordid record shows why.

Robert Gates was an integral part of the gun-running, drug-running, and death squad murders lumped under the heading of the Iran-Contra scandal. Gates started in Iran-contra as a stooge of William Casey, and continued under Bush the elder.

When Gates was nominated by Reagan to be head of the CIA in 1987, his role in Iran-contra crimes was already so filthy and so blatant that he was forced to drop out of contention under questioning. In doing this, Gates was seeking to defend his new master, George H.W. Bush, who at that time was preparing a presidential bid for 1988. The elder Bush was the czar of all Reagan-Bush covert operations, including Iran-contra. Gates fell on his sword to avoid revelations which would have doomed the candidacy of Bush the elder. Payback for Gates came in June 1991, when he was nominated once again to be head of the CIA, this time by Bush the elder. Sam Nunn and some others posed embarrassing questions, but this time the cover-up of Gates' Iran-contra role was supervised by Sen. David Boren of the Bush Skull & Bones clique. The Democrats, intimated by the elder Bush's apparent victory in the first Gulf war, rolled over. If Gates was too dirty to even get to a vote in committee in 1987, how can he be acceptable today? If Democratic Senators like Levin and Biden opposed Gates in 1991, how can they find him acceptable for a much more important post at a time of far greater crisis?

Gates' resume is marked by a total absence of independent and competent judgment. His pedigree is rather that of a stooge who serves powerful masters. The first was Reagan's CIA Director William Casey, the kingpin of Iran-contra. The second was George H.W. Bush, who took over that role from Casey. Gates appears as a Bush family retainer, as when he was tapped by the family in 1999 to become Dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. Gates is a secret government toady, not the autonomous figure of integrity required to terminate US involvement in Bush's catstrophic Iraq adventure.

The Bush regime has become infamous for fixing the facts and the intelligence to suit the pre-determined policy of aggression and adventurism. As Pentagon chief, Gates would control the majority of the US intelligence budget. His track record promises nothing but more faked intelligence. In September 1991, Time Magazine cited widespread reports that Gates "cooked the books" while he was at the CIA to support the political demands of the Reagan and Bush regimes. A New York Times editorial of November 4, 1991 concluded that "charges that Mr. Gates slanted intelligence assessments, leaving Congress in the dark and more amenable to administration policy, stand unrefuted." George Shultz reports in his memoirs that he "felt that Gates was giving me an idealized picture of what was an altogether different reality," and complained to Gates on January 5, 1987, "I don't have any confidence in the intelligence community I feel you try to manipulate me. So you have a very dissatisfied customer. If this were a business, I'd find myself another supplier." The Senate would be well advised to find itself another supplier today. Will Gates resist the new attacks on Iran, Syria. North Korea, demanded by Cheney and the neocons? His assurances in this regard are worthless.

In the final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, Lawrence Walsh left little doubt that he believed Gates had given perjured testimony during that investigation. But Walsh concluded that the matters involved were so complicated that it would be very difficult to prove them before a jury. For this reason and for no other, Gates did not face criminal charges for perjury.

Most damning of all is the fact that Gates was one of the founders of al Qaeda, the CIA's Arab Legion which was assembled to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan. Gates is thus part of the infrastructure that produced the patsies of 9/11:

According to former CIA Director Robert Gates's memoir From the Shadows, the big expansion of the US covert operation in Afghanistan began in 1984. During this year, "the size of the CIA's covert program to help the Mujaheddin increased several times over," reaching a level of about $500 million in US and Saudi payments funneled through the Zia regime in Pakistan. As Gates recalled, "it was during this period [1985] that we began to learn of a significant increase in the number of Arab nationals from other countries who had traveled to Afghanistan to fight in the Holy War against the Soviets. They came from Syria, Iraq, Algeria, and elsewhere, and most fought with the Islamic fundamentalist Muj groups, particularly that headed by Abdul Resaul Sayyaf. We examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of 'international brigade,' but nothing came of it. Years later, these fundamentalist fighters trained by the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan would begin to show up around the world, from the Middle East to New York City, still fighting their Holy War ¬ only now including the United States among their enemies. Our mission was to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We expected a post-Soviet Afghanistan to be ugly, but never considered that it would become a haven for terrorists operating worldwide." (Gates 349) But the international brigade Gates talked about was in fact created ¬ as the group now known as al Qaeda. (Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, pp.139-140 )

This is the same al Qaeda which provided the troupe of patsies, psychotics, and double agents (bin Laden, Atta, Moussaoui, etc.) which were used to pin the 9/11 attacks on Arabs and Moslems ¬ instead of the US bankers' rogue network which actually carried out 9/11 for geopolitical reasons. Gates is up to his ears in the terror apparatus of this rogue network, the September criminals who created 9/11.

There can be no question of approving such a candidate. Even the Senate's willingness to hold hearings for so compromised a figure amounts to an obscene farce. In the recent election, Democrats campaigned against the rubber-stamp Republican Congress. These same Democrats dare not rubber stamp the Gates nomination now. In particular, Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate are reminded that if they fail to filibuster Gates, the aroused anti-war base of the Democratic Party will demand accountability on the campaign trail. We do not want bi-partisan sellouts, but rather a real opposition to the Bush regime and its crimes. Above all, we want 9/11 truth as the essential precondition for restoring lawful government.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Mojingles,

You might also want to read Andrew Rice's work "The Teeth May Smile But The Heart Does Not Forget: Murder and Memory in Uganda" to see how America, Britain, and Israel clandestinely helped Idi Amin to set up a m ...
read full comment

Mojingles,

You might also want to read Andrew Rice's work "The Teeth May Smile But The Heart Does Not Forget: Murder and Memory in Uganda" to see how America, Britain, and Israel clandestinely helped Idi Amin to set up a military unit within Uganda's national army, which they later (with Amin) relied on to overthrow Milton Obote.

This well-researched book gives you the reasons behind the intentions of these three liberal democracies, particularly Israel, with verifiable evidential citations. There is some information on how Richard Nixon 9and Henry Kissinger) viewed Kwame Nkrumah and his left-leaning politices.

Thanks.
mojingles 10 years ago

Kwarteng, you like to see Dr.Kennedy squirm. His take on the Nkrumah-Danquah feud like other observations here and in other fora, is subjective and uninformed.

Kennedy aside, I am scratching my head to understand why you ...
read full comment

Kwarteng, you like to see Dr.Kennedy squirm. His take on the Nkrumah-Danquah feud like other observations here and in other fora, is subjective and uninformed.

Kennedy aside, I am scratching my head to understand why you would assert so trenchantly that Taliba, Al Queda, Mobutu, Savimbi and Apartheid were birthed by liberal democracy.

While gleefully excoriating Fukuyama, you glossed over a salient fact...the two terrorist organizations Al Queda and the Taliban were cut from the strictly conservative strain of Islam...nothing liberal about them at all.

As for the notoriously corrupt Mobutu and the deviant Savimbi, both men were funded and supported by conservatives in the United States...THESE WERE NOT LIBERALS BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

And the apartheid boondoggle survived as long as it did primarily because of its conservative tilt. IT WAS LIBERALISM THAT ULTIMATELY BROUGHT THE SYSTEM TO ITS KNEES.

Fukuyama is a wonderful political scientist with a firm grasp of issues bedevilling the world.
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Mojingles,

Please go to TED.com and watch "Aaron Huey: America's Native Prisoners of War." Please go back again and watch Hillary Clinton's "Hillary Clinton: We Created Al-Qaeda" (Link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw). ...
read full comment

Mojingles,

Please go to TED.com and watch "Aaron Huey: America's Native Prisoners of War." Please go back again and watch Hillary Clinton's "Hillary Clinton: We Created Al-Qaeda" (Link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw). I have also given you enough info on what Americal National Security advisors and former CIA bosses have to say about these questions. The facts are there!

PLEASE GO AND READ THE SOURCES I HAVE GIVEN YOU ON MOBUTO AND SAVIMBI BEFORE SASING ANOTHER WORD ABOUT THEM. Are you aware you are not arguing based on provable facts?

I don'y like debating issues in this matters. I always want references (and I am not saying every reference is right, yet, at least I want one from you to make up my mind). And, are you saying that because slavery no longer formally exists in America the point of attaching America's liberal democracy to the widespread discrimination faced by African Americans (and other minorities), racial profiling, policice britality of American minorities, etc., should be moot?

What do you have to say about Southern states threatening to secede from the Union because of Obama's presidency (See Elizabeth Dias' "Obama's Re-election Inspires Southern Secessionists" and Kisten W. Savali's "Divided States of America: 19 States Petition to Secede")?

How often do you read declassified records (and reports on Congressional investigations)when they are made available to the public? There are still many (MANY) evils going on around the world that the creation of Western liberal democracy. These are on the news everyday, in ocassionally released declassified records, Congressional records, etc.

Did you watch/listen to Hillary Cliton? And did you read all the books and articles I sent you (together with their declassified sources, etc)? Have you read declassified records backing the claim that America gave intelligence to Saddam Hussein to gas Kurds and Iranians?

This I hope you should have done before responding to my commentary on the quesions I raise. I am still baffled at you for going around this issue when it is well documented, when it is public knowledge.

And please, don't tie the American creation of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to the conservatism of Islam. Both Christianity (Western) and Islam played their parts in enslaving Africa.

American slavery, Jim Crowism, etc., did not originate from the conservatism of Islam. See Douglas Blackmon's "Slavery By Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War 2," Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness," and "Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present."

Please you may want to know what Nelson Mandela himself had to was the most decisive factor that brought Apartheid on its knee.

See "CUBA AND ANGOLA: FIGHTING FOR AFRICA'S FREEDOM AND OUR OWN" and "HOW FAR WE SLAVES HAVE COME: SOUTH AFRICA AND CUBA IN TODAY'S WORLD."

And my critique of Dr. Kennedy and Fukuyama has nothing to do with his position on Nkrumah. It was why in my critique I never referred to his twisted commentary on Nkuuman.

Besides, I have given you enough evidence to support my contention that Americal liberal democracy created Al-Qaeda, yet you have not given me any counter-evidence to back your anecdotal claims. This is very unfortunate.

Finally, Fareed Zakaria has written a couple of profound articles that are deemed liberal democracies but, in actuality, are illiberal. He presents some hard facts about liberal democracy that would surprise you. Read (go to his website) his "THE RISE OF ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY."

Does it matter whether Western liberal democracy ended slavery, Apartheid, or what have you? NO. Noam Chomsky provides declassified/little-known congressional reports on the evils of liberal democracy still perpetrated around the world. You should see this in many of his more than 100 books.

MAKE SURE TO WATCH "DEMOCRACY NOW" EVERYDAY AND YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. PLEASE GOVE ME PROVABLE HARD FACTS TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS. THAT IS ALL THAT I WANT.

Have a great weekend!

LONTO-BOY 10 years ago

I think Dr Arthur Kennedy is trying a bit too hard to stay relevant with his perspectives on Dr J B Danquah after recent fall out with Nana Akufo-Addo's camp.

I think Dr Arthur Kennedy is trying a bit too hard to stay relevant with his perspectives on Dr J B Danquah after recent fall out with Nana Akufo-Addo's camp.
Paul 10 years ago

I am saddened by Kennedy's continued exposure of himself in this way. I would have hoped that after his earlier 'tribute to Danquah' a few days ago, he would just leave it at that but what do we have? In trying to respond to ...
read full comment

I am saddened by Kennedy's continued exposure of himself in this way. I would have hoped that after his earlier 'tribute to Danquah' a few days ago, he would just leave it at that but what do we have? In trying to respond to critical comment, he chooses to respond in such a poor way.

I always admired Arthur K in our days, but see him now as a complete shadow of himself, unless this is his true character that we all missed at the time.

Like Prof. Kwarteng, I chose not to comment at all on his postings but am forced to do so because like others, I too feel that Kennedy is trying too hard to please, be relevant and 'persuade' the NPP that he is 'part of the family'.

Trust me Dr Kennedy, NPP do not see you as 'one of them'and have given up on you long ago. I repeat here what I advised Kennedy way back in 2006 when i was in communication with him. I told him with what i knew of him, the NPP was perhaps not the best place for him. i also advised him to seek a constituency base and establish himself in parliament and let his voice and his work speak for itself, then hopefully work his way towards (believe it or not) 2016!!!!

He completely shut me off, pursued his 'dream', lost terribly, joined the party machine, had numerous 'mis-steps' and things have gone on from there.

Why does he feel the need to write or eulogise Danquah at all? Will Arthur Kennedy also eulogise about Nkrumah come 24th February when the 'Nkrumah lot' try to tip the balance back after what appears to have been a 'Danquah month'?

Arthur K, you are trying too hard and you don't need to do that. If you wish to be involved in politics and in particular frontline politics, please do your home work. Read, Read, Read!!! From all sides, and don't tell me you hate the Clintons so much you will not take a leaf in Bill's or (more recently if you like) Hillary's books!!! A politician who is selective in who he reads or what he chooses to know is not smart nor is he fit to even run for office (perhaps except in Ghana where these things do not seem to be taken seriously). Is it any wonder we have politicians who are made ministers and who cannot even follow their brief, have no clue what their ministry is about and cannot LEAD in formulating and driving policies and actions that will transform our society?

The difference is simply that sadly for those who do not want the truth, Nkrumah was all of what you expected in a politician - visionary, original, full of ideas, knew his brief and tried to get his points across and to LEAD. He READ a lot and was smart enough to read about both his side and the other side. He armed himself with facts, figures and the ability to argue soundly with whomsoever.

Kennedy has strengths, he has ideas, but he seems to me to lack proper advice and / or is simply refusing to take such advice and to LEARN.

I am not only disappointed in him, I feel constantly frustrated whenever he puts out any of his 'misguided' and not well thought out pieces, however well meaning.

It is such a pity and hurts me that such a national talent will make such 'apparent waste' of his numerous talents. Sometimes I have a feeling he is confused or between a "rock and a hard place".
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Bravo Prof. Paul,

Good day!

In fact, most of Dr. Kennedy's citations that I have seen had been of the conservative strain (I stand to be corrected if I am wrong on this one), not that there is anything wrong with them a ...
read full comment

Bravo Prof. Paul,

Good day!

In fact, most of Dr. Kennedy's citations that I have seen had been of the conservative strain (I stand to be corrected if I am wrong on this one), not that there is anything wrong with them as far as they advance knowledge, social justice, development economics, and peaceful socialization, etc.

Like you said Paul, he needs to do a lot of thinking and serious reading in the liberal strain as well (like the Clintons; on the other hand I also know Dr. Kennedy has had some important associations with a couple of liberal thinkers like Ted Kennedy and the famous American political strategist, a Democrat, and lawyer Larry Gibson, the man who helped Liberia's Sirleaf Johnson, Obama and Clinton, and Madagascar's Marc Ravalomanana win elections; the latter is in prison for corruption, etc).

I think partisan politics is killing him, Dr. Kennedy, though there is no doubt in my mind that he is a brilliant man. I believe he should go it alone by joining another party (I know this proposition is controversial in the extreme), forming his own party, going independent, whatever.

He has many good ideas but he is allowing his partisan association with the NPP to undermine the quality of his thinking. He needs to take your advice and that of Kwabena Akurang-Parry. He fumbled with his a-historical comments about both Danquah and Nkrumah. This Dr. Kennedy guy should have known better than to allow partisan sympathies to erode his sense of intellectual "fairness."

You could not have read my mind better, Prof. Paul.

Have a good weekend, both of you.
Elisabeth Serwaa Ampem 10 years ago

That is what I need from a scholar of your calibre, when you defend the UP,PP,PFP,and NPP fraternity like this then it goes to prove you as true son of the land,Change Kennedy for you have lovers and reconcile with Nana Addo ...
read full comment

That is what I need from a scholar of your calibre, when you defend the UP,PP,PFP,and NPP fraternity like this then it goes to prove you as true son of the land,Change Kennedy for you have lovers and reconcile with Nana Addo and it shall be well with you. congrats Doc
Abeeku Mensah 10 years ago

Arthur Kennedy may be one of the best educated minds in the NPP and or one of those who continue to harbor historical lies that is at the root of those Busia-Danquah ideologues attempting to make saints or heroes out of simpl ...
read full comment

Arthur Kennedy may be one of the best educated minds in the NPP and or one of those who continue to harbor historical lies that is at the root of those Busia-Danquah ideologues attempting to make saints or heroes out of simple minded terrorists.
It does not surprise me one bit that an educated Arthur Kennedy would say it is possible to admire Nkrumah for his role in the development and founding of Ghana but made egregious errors while ignoring and minimizin acts of terrorism by UP/UGCC led by his hero J.B.Danquah. Can anyone of you educated but unwise and or under educated tribal zealots name a nation including Western civilized democratic nations you admire which tolerates act of terrorism for any cause? If not then all you cowardly hypocritical bunch along with your apologists should be on notice that Nkrumah was ahead of his time and peers. What Nkrumah did to curtail terrorism in Ghana then is a standard being used today by every civilized industrial democracy in the world dealing with their own acts of terrorism. You ought to be ashamed for being classroom educated but unwise and incapable of the truth if it smacked you in the mouth.
KKO 10 years ago

Bloody idiot! In those civilised countries they try them in proper courts, defended by qualified lawyers. How did PDA which jailed so many innocent Ghanaians, including people who wouldn't sit tamely for CPP nincompoops to ta ...
read full comment

Bloody idiot! In those civilised countries they try them in proper courts, defended by qualified lawyers. How did PDA which jailed so many innocent Ghanaians, including people who wouldn't sit tamely for CPP nincompoops to take their wives, were jailed under PDA curb terrorism?

The obnoxious law was rushed under a certificate of urgency in 1958, but up till 1964, six long years after its passage, CPP rouges were throwing bombs, so how did that curb terrorism in Ghana?

Thank the Lord that none of your low-life relations was jailed under PDA.
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

KKO,

What trial did those civilized countries give Amadou Diallo and several others? Was his skin-color not the basis for the prejudicial guilty verdict against his person, his death?

Too many many innocent people have ...
read full comment

KKO,

What trial did those civilized countries give Amadou Diallo and several others? Was his skin-color not the basis for the prejudicial guilty verdict against his person, his death?

Too many many innocent people have been killed in your civilized countries without trial!

Tell me the crimes of Amadou Diallo (Don't tell me he lied on his application for political asylum, don't tell me the city of New York awarded his mother $3 million dollars, and don't tell me Diallo pulled out a wallet that looked like a gun).

Diallo should have been tried for his crime of looking black, don't you think?

Do you want me to give you an exhaustive list of innocent individuals who have killed in your civilized countries without trial?

See declassified records on the Black Panther, the communist scare, JE Hoover, etc., and tell me how many innocent people were killed by the FBI, police, SWAT Team without trial? Some of these 1960s cases are still pending in American courts!

Please don't come talking about typos and other irrelevancies. Some of you open your mouths and say whatever that comes to them.

Have a great weekend!
KKO 10 years ago

At least the Americans accepted their mistakes and did something about them. That is why people like francis kwarteng are able to live there and talk form all kinds of places!

At least the Americans accepted their mistakes and did something about them. That is why people like francis kwarteng are able to live there and talk form all kinds of places!
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

KKO,

Another naive comment from you.

That is what you think.

How about the many who died senselessly at the hands of the FBI, etc., and never received any form of apology, compensation, etc?

I don't think you k ...
read full comment

KKO,

Another naive comment from you.

That is what you think.

How about the many who died senselessly at the hands of the FBI, etc., and never received any form of apology, compensation, etc?

I don't think you know much about America. There are so many places in America that Black People dare not enter.

An Italian-American professor of my friend advised him when he told him he wanted to further his education in Tennessee, to which the professor tried to talk him out of. His reason? My friend's African name alone, exclusive of his excellent academic credentials, would be enough to disqualify him.

The professor was right because he had friends who taught in a number of the universities. He told my friend there were so many white folks there who hated blacks. Go and find out how the KKK chased one of the world's most gifted mathematicians, Dr. Jonathan Farley, out of Tennessee!

This is homework for you.
BOY KOFI 10 years ago

Why did Danquah not win any of the elections he contested to lead Ghana?Did he fail because the electorates of his time did not trust him?Was he honest and pragmatic or not?Did Nkrumah steal the verdict of the people or rig t ...
read full comment

Why did Danquah not win any of the elections he contested to lead Ghana?Did he fail because the electorates of his time did not trust him?Was he honest and pragmatic or not?Did Nkrumah steal the verdict of the people or rig the elections?By the way,today we don't vote for NPP because of Danquah nor vote for NDC because of Nkrumah.There must be some reasons why Danquah did not win a single election in history.Please somebody tell me why.Thank you.

Kofi 10 years ago

He won one in 1951.He was arrogant,he felt only those who were educated should have the right to vote.Soon people realized he was not the best man for them.UP/NLM even bombed Krobo Adusei"s pregnant sister.stoned the British ...
read full comment

He won one in 1951.He was arrogant,he felt only those who were educated should have the right to vote.Soon people realized he was not the best man for them.UP/NLM even bombed Krobo Adusei"s pregnant sister.stoned the British Governor Lennox Boyd in Kumasi in 1954.They were called "Chicago Boys".They were no different from Boko Haram then.They believed cocoa,gold,diamond etc money should not be used to develop other parts of Ghana.Nkrumah felt we should have one united country instead of a federal one.Nkrumah felt everyone should have a vote and the wealth should be used in developing every region of Ghana. That annoyed their leaders.That is why Nkrumah brought in the Anti discrimination act.Meaning,nobody can form an Akan or Ewe party.That is why they joined the Northern people"s Party for a marriage of convenience.
Paul 10 years ago

Please note, Danquah NEVER won an election in the Gold coast of Ghana. Your opening statement that "He won one in 1951" is incorrect. He was selected to be a member of the "Legislative Council" which was not elected, and mere ...
read full comment

Please note, Danquah NEVER won an election in the Gold coast of Ghana. Your opening statement that "He won one in 1951" is incorrect. He was selected to be a member of the "Legislative Council" which was not elected, and merely played an advisory role to the colonial governor. The CPP won ALL the elections from 1950 onward.
Kofi 10 years ago

Error on my part.Thanks

Error on my part.Thanks
COSMOS 10 years ago

This so called medical doctor has now become a complete waste and a big nuisance. Nothing better comes from him. As to which part of the divides he belongs, only heaven knows. The more he tries to please his masters who made ...
read full comment

This so called medical doctor has now become a complete waste and a big nuisance. Nothing better comes from him. As to which part of the divides he belongs, only heaven knows. The more he tries to please his masters who made him what he is today, the faster he makes a monkey of himself. I wonder how this man can challenger professor Akosa who was there and saw everything first hand. Unless Kennedy Arthur wants us to belive that he was mature enough at the time and saw everything, and did not read it. You are just a waste to be thrown into the garbage like the same garbage you always churn out on this site. You are unrepentant shameless boot licker.
Nero 10 years ago

Isn't it ironic that President-to-be Kennedy spouts Ghanaian history from Irmo, South Carolina.
However, I must give it to him for attempting to be fair-minded, even though he pretends not to know that the UP folks constitut ...
read full comment

Isn't it ironic that President-to-be Kennedy spouts Ghanaian history from Irmo, South Carolina.
However, I must give it to him for attempting to be fair-minded, even though he pretends not to know that the UP folks constituted the panzer division that hurled all those bombs. Also, Dr Danquah's incarceration was not arbitrary; there was a Preventive Detention Act (PDA)on the books, and that law authorized his arrest. Kwame Nkrumah, as head of state, would have been derelict in the discharge of his duties if he hadn't upheld the laws of the land. The debate, as you began to formulate but didn't expand on, ought to be: was enactment of the PDA the right thing to do?
Hmm 10 years ago

We don't need any lies as History

We don't need any lies as History
YAW 10 years ago

Okay,clever as a bag of snakes Arthur Kennedy. We will accept your "ahistorical" version as authentic.Who are you kidding?

Okay,clever as a bag of snakes Arthur Kennedy. We will accept your "ahistorical" version as authentic.Who are you kidding?
kwasi kyei baffour 10 years ago

I am so glad that people like tawiah adamafio who helped nkrumah passed the pda were sent to nsawam.the originator of a bad medicine will always suffer the consequence.somebody like pkk quaidoo who was once a minister in the ...
read full comment

I am so glad that people like tawiah adamafio who helped nkrumah passed the pda were sent to nsawam.the originator of a bad medicine will always suffer the consequence.somebody like pkk quaidoo who was once a minister in the nkrumah regime opposed the pda when it was been passed in parliament because he knew it was not good for the country.we ghanaians are always mindful of our stomachs first.people who accuse danquah for being a cia spy should dig deep to find the real person who got money from the cia to found a political in the country.
francis kwarteng 10 years ago

Kwesi Kyei Baffour,

Your history on the PDA is totally wrong. No one helped Nkrumah pass the PDA. Neither did Nkrumah pass this law. How could Nkrumah have passed the PDA when the country had a parliament made up of the CP ...
read full comment

Kwesi Kyei Baffour,

Your history on the PDA is totally wrong. No one helped Nkrumah pass the PDA. Neither did Nkrumah pass this law. How could Nkrumah have passed the PDA when the country had a parliament made up of the CPP and the Opposition.

Remember the PDA was passed in 1958 when Nkrumah was still a ceremonial Prime Minister with no significant executive powers.

Moreover, the PDA was passed with Opposition members like Busia in parliament. And it was approved by the colonial government, courtesy of Sir Arku Korsah who represented the Queen (and the Governor at the time).

Nkrumah had no hand in the passage of this law. Stop peddling falsehoods.

Get you facts right.
Captein 10 years ago

Plan against me as president you pay for it.

Plan against me as president you pay for it.
NOBODY 10 years ago

Arthur Kennedy, you and your nemesis Okoampa-Ahoofe, along with other NPP peddlers of falsehoods, have tried to rewrite the history of Ghana. You all may be well-educated, but you certainly are devious and deceptive when it c ...
read full comment

Arthur Kennedy, you and your nemesis Okoampa-Ahoofe, along with other NPP peddlers of falsehoods, have tried to rewrite the history of Ghana. You all may be well-educated, but you certainly are devious and deceptive when it comes to the history of Ghana. If you understood the importance of history, you would not be out to twist historical facts for political reasons.
Kay Eghan 10 years ago

They started throwing the bombs before the Preventive Detention Act was pass.The understanding of the Preventive Detention law is that the authorities can detain you without trial as long as possible so those who are talking ...
read full comment

They started throwing the bombs before the Preventive Detention Act was pass.The understanding of the Preventive Detention law is that the authorities can detain you without trial as long as possible so those who are talking about a fair trial for J.B.Dan. should try to understand the law which arrested him first.
There was so many troubles in Ghana by that time so the law was passed to put fear in those who were engaging in the troubles.It was not only J.B.Dan. that got arrested,so many people were detained and the troubles were helded in check.The law was a bad law but good at that particular time because it was the only way the then government can use to be able
to hold on as as a government in power,unfortunately some people used it to punish their political opponents to make the law a bad one.By the way the law was passed through the nation's parliament as any law, it was not cooked from K.Nkrumah's mind and forced it on Ghanaians.
In today's world the law is called State of Emergency and it is been used everywhere.
perscoba 10 years ago

You know your history then you gave dose of self esteemm. Without knowing your history you become a :no.person to everybody,

You must know your history so as to learn from it.To correct your self,for self examinati ...
read full comment

You know your history then you gave dose of self esteemm. Without knowing your history you become a :no.person to everybody,

You must know your history so as to learn from it.To correct your self,for self examination.Why are history courses taught at Schools?
perscoba 10 years ago

That is why their sgeer envy arise when ever others talk about theirs.

FANTE CONDERACY!!! YAA ASANTEWAH WAR!!

THE GOLDEN STOOL....ETC ETC all pain the ndc which has no better history to brag about!!!

That is why their sgeer envy arise when ever others talk about theirs.

FANTE CONDERACY!!! YAA ASANTEWAH WAR!!

THE GOLDEN STOOL....ETC ETC all pain the ndc which has no better history to brag about!!!

44 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

The importance of history

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (44)

Read Comments Comments (44)