Scoop Election 08: edited by Gordon Campbell

On the SAS defence of Afghanistan’s drug barons

July 19th, 2011

tim denee image - nz, afghanistan, opium
Illustration by Tim Denee –

A typical day at the office for the New Zealand forces in Afghanistan. On one hand, we passed the command of the Bamiyan provincial reconstruction team project over to our Afghan allies, while – on the other – our SAS forces “helped” Afghan forces to deal with a Taliban attack in Kabul that had just killed a top government aide, Jan Mohammed Khan.

What sort of chap was the late, unlamented Khan? Here’s the Google translation of a Dutch newspaper article from last year that criticizes Khan, a former governor of Orugzan province where the Dutch forces had been based. In 2006, the Dutch refused to work with him, because of his track record for bloodshed and corruption. Only after the recent withdrawal of the Dutch forces had Khan returned publicly to prominence. Forgive the stilted Google machine translation, but you’ll get the picture:

It must have been a painful moment for the last remaining Dutch advisors in Tarin Kowt [to see] the triumphant return of former governor Jan Mohammed Khan on December 13. The former warlord who was expelled by the Netherlands in 2006 because he would have blood on his hands – and [where] for four years the Dutch mission [in] Kabul [had] worked – first stepped off the plane and had his hand kissed by a respectful crowd. At a reception for two hundred men and a woman in the governor’s building was “JMK,” including a standing ovation from the top police boss…

Here’s the wider context on Khan:

Khan became governor of the Orugzan province in 2002. He was replaced by Maulavi Abdul Hakim Munib on March 18, 2006, at the request of the Dutch government, who led NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Oruzgan. The Dutch didn’t want to cooperate with a man who had a reputation of long-standing corruption, involvement with drugs and incompetence. He then moved to Kabul, where he tried to counteract the NATO forces. Just before he left Khan sold all the Orugzan government material, including police cars, weapons and ammunition. When the Dutch left Oruzgan in end of 2010, Khan returned to Orugzan, where he was welcomed at the airport by hundreds of supporters…

Two points: we don’t seem to have the same qualms as the Dutch in putting the lives of our troops at stake in helping to defend warlords and former warlords, some of them reputed to have been leading figures in the Afghan and global opium and heroin trade. Secondly, the killing of Khan comes one week after the similar killing of Hamid Karzai’s powerful and unsavoury half brother, in Kandahar.

This strongly suggests that someone – and the Taliban are only one of the suspects – is acting to remove by force the leading figures in Afghanistan’s drug trafficking business. Should we be trying to stop them – and is it worth risking the lives of our troops to do so? Evidently, the Dutch didn’t think so. Why do we? Do we even have a policy on whether its worth risking Kiwi lives to defend opium trafficking warlords ?


Content Sourced from
Original url

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Scoopit
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
  • Print this post Print this post
    1. 23 Responses to “On the SAS defence of Afghanistan’s drug barons”

    2. By Joe Blow on Jul 19, 2011 | Reply

      Yeah, it would be much better to get Mullah Omar back in power and have him cut off the hand of anyone cultivating opium. It was one of the world’s most successful anti-drug campaigns… paradise on earth…

      Anyone who’s anyone in power in Afghanistan is going to have their fingers in the cookie jar in some way. I guess what you’re asking is whether it is worth trying to keep the current regime in power when it’s so “corrupt”. Corrupt compared to what – the Taliban, the US, New Zealand? Your judgment of the current regime is just another form of nation-building. What are you measuring it against? Now it wouldn’t be those lofty Western ideals called human rights now would it? You’re surely not saying that the Karzai government should be more like the Taliban was? Aren’t you criticising the Karzai government for being much like the Taliban were? Either way you’re telling the Afghan nation-state to be a particular way. You’re building!

      The global consensus at present is for the current regime to eventually stand on its own two feet, so eventually the SAS along with everyone else will be withdrawn. I guess you’d like to see us out as soon as possible? Whip the rug out from Karzai’s feet as soon as possible? I wonder what the consequences of that would be? The fast track to human rights I guess or the lesser of two evils (i.e. relative peace with the Taliban back in power)?

      I guess you don’t care just as long as we aren’t responsible for those consequences? But no matter what we do now we’re responsible for the consequences because we’ve already intervened. The nation-state is a relatively new phenomenon. When history is taken into account, non-interventionism is an oxymoron. Hell, the West was involved in the building of the Afghan nation-state long before this latest war. Trying to shrug off our responsibility now would be like trying to pretend we had nothing to do with drawing the Durand line… Too late mate!

      But you’re not an interventionist, are you? You support intervention in Lybia! At least you do until the rebels turn out to be much like Gaddafi was. Then we whip out the guns and let them massacre each other? Fair punishment for not being perfect.

    3. By David the Kiwi on Jul 20, 2011 | Reply

      The NZL government has placed men on the ground in two of the most softest parts in afg. Bamiyan province an Kabul.
      Get outta the kabul DEFAC hall (ISAF dining facility) an go give the Aussies/Canadians a hand in the field.

      There bubble they created is pretty soft. Train up 3rd country national then poke the wasps nest an have a play with toys if it gets outta control.
      Fat boys network in the political scene playing chess. The Taliban is of little threat. it’s more media military upping the threat.
      Karzai brother in law in k/har was the biggest threat back in 2005
      The afghans r 600 plus years behind on alot of issues. This country n it’s fine people should be left alone.
      UN EU an the USA placed karzai n his family in power since then drugs an money laundering is rife.
      Good work with the political strings at the cost of men’s lives
      Spent few years in afg

    4. By Leon Henderson on Jul 20, 2011 | Reply

      You are wrong Joe Blow. For a start, the United States has no intention of leaving Afghanistan:

      They have got at least one-hundred-thousand mercenaries in Afghanistan (in addition to the 220,000 – plus US/NATO and myriad other foreign crony-client military forces that are fighting there) and, as in Iraq, they are practically certain to use mercenary forces operating from huge permanant military bases, to prop up and keep control of the puppet dictatorship, while also guarding the massive oil and gas pipeline complex that is being built through there, and which is going to be under the absolute control of the Rothschilds and their “Eight Families” oligarchy.

    5. By Elyse on Jul 21, 2011 | Reply

      New Zealand, out of Afghanistan NOW!

    6. By Joe Blow on Jul 21, 2011 | Reply

      @ Leon

      Withdrawal from Afghanistan

      Gee I hope you’re right Leon. In my opinion the current withdrawal plan is not feasible. The Afghan government will need ISAF troops to stay in Afghanistan much longer if it is going to realistically be able to stand on its own two feet. Iraq has a much stronger military which has allowed a much quicker withdrawal (I know they haven’t all left Iraq yet). I hope they do withdrawal slower than planned as that would prevent the likelihood of another bloody civil war like when the US last turned its back on Afghanistan… You’re sooooo right!

      Oil Pipeline

      Not another Zeitgeist clone beating the same boring drum! Think for yourself man! Look beyond what you’re told on youtube!

      For a start, even if they got the pipeline up and running it would take a hundred years to pay back the money already sunk in this war. The article by Pepe Escobar you cite above says that the war has cost a “staggering $5.4 trillion”. Yezz what a rip! That’s one expensive pipeline that’s never been built! The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline only cost $US3.9 billion to build! Do the math.

      Secondly, the West has largely not taken the building of a pipeline in Afghanistan seriously as Afghanistan has not been stable enough to even contemplate successfully building one.

      Thirdly, the West do not need the pipeline through Afghanistan as they have already built one major new route from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea (they started building it long before the war on terror in Afghanistan started):

      Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline

      Finally, even if Afghanistan got peaceful enough to build one, the principal beneficiaries would undoubtedly be the Afghans, as well as Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the other Central Asians, namely India (where they planned to build the pipeline to).

    7. By Leon Henderson on Jul 22, 2011 | Reply

      Joe Blow – have got LOTS of reading material for you. Just because the massive military forces of the Jewish-American-Empire have been hammered to a humiliating stalemate in Afghanistan (the Russians never had more than one-hundred-thousand troops there, and that was only right at the end when they tried a big “Surge” in a futile attempt to block-off the Afghan/Pakistan Border. All the way up until then they never had more than thirty-thousand troops there at any given time; also Pakistan was and is a NATO puppet-state under the absolute control of USA, and this enabled the CIA to orchestrate from Pakistan in the 1970’s-1980’s a massive Terrorist onslaught into Afghanistan, and, together with the Saudi’s, fund the Terrorists to the tune of at least seven-Billion dollars of weaponry. The USA called the Terrorists “Freedom-Fighters” in those times, but nowadays they call them Terrorists!!!) in no way means that the ambitions of their masters in this Region are in any way quelled or diverted:

    8. By Leon Henderson on Jul 23, 2011 | Reply

      Joe Blow; here is some reading material so you can learn the facts about the so-called “American Withdrawal” from Iraq:

      There are at least fifty-thousand USA army troops (distributed throughout more than fifty permanant USA military bases in Iraq) plus a conservatively estimated seventy-five-thousand mercenaries – who are officially called “Civilian Contractors”.

      You said I should stop watching YouTube,but being on Dial-Up, I could’nt watch it even if I wanted to. Maybe it would be better if you stopped watching Fox News and the BBC!

      What you say about the TAP(I) Pipeline project (it originally was going to go down through Afghanistan to Karachi) being “uneconomic” for the Rothschilds is totally missing the point; surely you ought to know these words of the Rothschilds’ Governor of the United States: (Quote): “When you control the energy supplies of a country, you control it’s government. When you control the food supplies of a country, you control the population”.

    9. By Matt on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      So if the SAS are there training the local security forces, they’re meant to exercise a moral judgement on who they assist? That’s like expecting the NZ Police to turn a blind eye to the murder of a Hells Angel, or drag their heels on the kidnapping of a Mongrel Mob associate.

      I don’t want our troops making moralistic decisions about the victims before they assist the Afghan security forces in responding to a violent attack. But maybe that’s just me.

    10. By Joe Blow on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      @ Matt

      Good point Matt. I like it. However, I think that Gordon and the others just want the SAS out no matter what. They don’t see them doing any good there full stop. The war’s never been trendy to them because the Bush administration thought it up and so they’re going to stick to their guns no matter what the consequences are for the country as a whole in terms of the bigger picture.

    11. By Andrew Jackson on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      It is sad that you find invasions and continuous wars to be “trendy”, but the fact is that the people of the middle east and africa sure as hell don’t.
      As the flower of conflict’s fruit harmony is not budding , the conditions are becoming more unstable, people can see no purpose of an constant occupation of Afganisitan.
      Nice to see that you’ve now thought about the huge financial costs of unfashionable wars. (Why someone making the loans for these wars must be making out like…. heroin dealer’s banks).

    12. By Joe Blow on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      @ Andrew

      I agree that a “constant” or indefinite occupation of Afghanistan is not desirable. I never supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan at its outset. Well at least the invasion deployed under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom by the Bush administration. But at that time the invasion was awfully “trendy” in the West with no consideration of the long term consequences. However, now after our intervention I am concerned about the consequences of our withdrawal. Now the occupation is not fashionable (and unaffordable) few people in the West seem to give a damn about the long term repercussions for Afghanistan as a result of an immediate withdrawal. We need to withdraw but that should be done in a way that is least damaging to the people of Afghanistan and the country as a whole. I do not view an immediate withdrawal as being in Afghanistan’s best interests. One only has to look at the history of Afghanistan to see the likely repercussions. The Afghanis I know (mainly Hazara refugees) have helped me form this view.

      What really throws a spanner in the works is the illegitimate nature of the current government, but how would immediate withdrawal help that situation? The sooner we withdraw, the greater likelihood of us leaving an illegitimate government in power! The Taliban were no more legitimate than the current regime.

      To be transparent, I wish to make it clear that I am a believer in lesser evils and on the whole I see the Karzai regime as the lesser of two evils no matter how much of its legitimacy is dependant on the drug trade. The people of Afghanistan have to make a buck some how. At least there’s some hope of eventual democracy in Afghanistan even if it is likely to be an Islamic democracy like Pakistan. The Afghanis have a Parliament with a mandatory 25% women! Sounds like hope to me. It’s not the spitting image of ourselves (New Zealand) but why should it be? Afghanis on the whole are devout muslims and the Karzai regime would have no legitimacy if it did not espouse to uphold that religious fundamentalism in one way or another. The problem is how to deal with the sectarian divide and that is not going to be healed in any thing resembling years. We’re talking decades at best.

      Who knows maybe one day after a Western backed strongman like Karzai has pretended to rule democratically in Afghanistan for some time we’ll see protestors in the streets like we’re seeing in Egypt and Syria today. It’s not perfect but it sure beats the Taliban. And who knows it may happen sooner in Afghanistan without a recent history of Cold War politics?

      It’s kind of like deciding whether you want the Mubarak regime or Gaddafi ruling Afghanistan… I know who I’d choose… Hell it may not have to be that terrible. If we withdraw in the right way, we may see legitimate elections in Afghanistan before our SAS returns to our shores… How likely is that of happening with an immediate withdrawal?

    13. By Andrew Jackson on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      @ J low
      You just described after putting a krim Karzai in power the hope for the future you have for the people is for a civil war at a later date following decades of occupation.
      Legitimate elections do not happen while one is on your knees and staring down the barrel of a gun.
      Then if the PTB(Powers That bomb) don’t like the same person the afghan public choose , they will be subjected to some old fashioned “humanitarian bombing” to teach them all about democracy.
      You are wrong, the cold war memory is alive, and you will not get the stability you need in the area.

    14. By Joe Blow on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      @ Andrew

      So Omar wasn’t a crim? Oh he’s okay because he put himself in power. Right…

      Fair point on likely eventual civil war no matter what we do. Syria is developing into a terrible civil war but the strongman there is not a US backed one. On the other hand Mubarak was and thanks to a strong military in Egypt, there has been a relatively peaceful transition of power so far (fingers crossed)… while Lybia is in the midst of a full blown civil war… Admittedly, there’s no easy model there for what will happen in Afghanistan. I concede the point.

      Still what’s happened in Syria so far makes the civil war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban between 1996 and 2001 look like Christmas, not to mention what went before…

      As for the 2009 Afghani election, not only Karzai’s men were holding the guns, the Taliban were also pointing their guns at voters. There won’t even be elections if the Taliban gets back in power… whoopee!

      The Cold War had an enormous affect on policy in the Middle East and was the main reason why certain strongmen were backed in the name of Western interests. The Cold War being over is probably largely the main reason why the US is able to feel like it can back the Arab Spring protestors in the Middle East at present. If the Cold War was still going on they would have been labelled communists.

      As for being wrong or right what makes you so sure things will be so hunky dory if the PTB pull out of Afghanistan quick smart? What do you think will happen if the PTB put down their guns and leave immediately? Come on, convince me you’re right.

    15. By Elsyse on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      “For a start, even if they got the pipeline up and running it would take a hundred years to pay back the money already sunk in this war”.

      Those who will make money from the pipeline and are making money from the occupation are not those who are paying for the war. The American taxpayer is footing the bill. Halliburton, Bechtel, Xe Services etc are getting rich off taxpayer dollars.

      We should not be in Afghanistan just as we should not have been in Vietnam. Its the same old racism, slightly different shade of coloured people. Nothing at all to do with trying to save them from themselves, build roads, or train soldiers.

    16. By Joe Blow on Jul 24, 2011 | Reply

      Correction: What happened in the civil war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban between 1996 and 2001, not to mention what went before, makes what’s happening in Syria look like Christmas.

    17. By Leon Henderson on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

      You might be interested, Joe Blow, to know that the Americans have got more than fifty-thousand federal troops in Iraq and at least seventy-five-thousand mercenaries permanently stationed there as well, and distributed throughout more than fifty USA military bases strategically located all over the country. These are very large military bases which are designed to be able to be rapidly reinforced, via their large airports, at short notice.The colossal US embassy fortress in the Baghdad “Green Zone” (which is actually the worlds biggest [USA] military base)is going to be “staffed” with sixteen-thousand CIA/Mossad spies, double the present eight-thousand spies (do not forget that when the 1979 Iranian Revolution erupted more than seventy-thousand panic-stricken CIA, M16, and Jewish Mossad spies fled from Iran). Those forces aint going anywhere Joe Blow, so what was that you were saying about the Americans having “withdrawn (from Iraq)with only a few left”)??? As for your expense of the Afghanistan War viz the TAP(I) Pipelines, well the Rothschilds/Eight Families/Seven Horsemen oligarchy have been making an astronomical fortune out of all of America’s myriad wars (they are conducting six wars presently, all of them USA/NATO invasions of weak Third World countries – or, to be more precise, countries that the United States of America perceived to be too weak to be able to resist invasion) and not least in Afghanistan: the (Jewish) Eight Families oligarchy own every giant so-called “western” corporation (such as Halliburtons, De Beers, Exon-Mobil, Texaco, Federal Reserve Banks (yes, BANKS: the “Federal Reserve” is a conglomerate of Eight-Families-owned banks) Goldman Sachs, etc etc etc) either directly or indirectly, and war is an incredibly profitable operation for them… not only in the massive profits they rake in from it, but also because every war waged by the USA and it’s crony-client satellite states, is ALWAYS in the strategic interests of Zionism and Zionist expansionism. The Afghanistan War (together with all the others) has not, and will not, cost the Rothschilds a single cent and instead they have made astronomical mountains of loot from them (Halliburtons for example is the “Caterers” to the USA armed forces (whose personnel in true Jewish capitalist spirit all have to pay for their food out of their wages!!!) and Halliburtons are also the worlds biggest construction conglomerate, and were given seventeen-billion-dollars worth of contracts in Iraq. Are you starting to see more to the picture now, Joe Blow?

      Oh, by the way Joe Blow, on July 1st an estimated one-million Libyans (all civilians) rallied in Tripoli to fanatically show their support for Gaddafi, and vowing to fight to the death against the Zionist lackey forces for him.

    18. By Joe Blow on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

      @ Elyse

      Not another Vietnam peace protestor wannabe that thinks this is all like the Vietnam War. You’ve watched too many movies.
      Maybe you should do some research on what is different about this war from the Vietnam war, but I guess you haven’t noticed those differences…

      The point about the pipeline I made is that it is not the objective of the war in Afghanistan at all. American taxpayers aren’t paying for the war. Americans hate paying tax. It’s all on credit and it’s no mistake that the withdrawal is timed to coincide with the debt ceiling being breached.

    19. By Leon Henderson on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

      In my last post it should have said: “these words of the Rothschild’s Governor of the USA, Henry Kissinger…”

      Also,cannot believe the garbage that Joe Blow is spouting, attempting to make it seem as though “it’s okay” for the USA and it’s crony-client satellite vassals to occupy Iraq, Afghanistan, etc because the occupation forces are providing so-called “stability”!!! As for such things as the unelected puppet-dictator (and former Unocal representative: Karzai was a Unocal negotiator with the Taleban!!!) Hamid Karzai being okay even though he is unelected and up to his eyeballs in drug-running and God knows what other criminal activities! But an attitude like that is in no way surprising from National/Act/Business Roundtable types like Joe Blow. Never mind the millions of Russian heroin addicts eh Joe Blow (you and your ilk would probably be quite gleeful about oceans of heroin swamping Russia from American-occupied Afghanistan).

      You are absolutely right Elsyse, about the astronomical expense of the war and it’s relationship to TAP(I): it is NOT the Rothschild’s and their (Jewish) “Eight Families” Cartel that is paying for anything, and instead it is indeed the taxpayers of the Jewish-American Empire who are paying for it all (and no Joe Blow, don’t try telling us that “The Giant Corporations Pay The Most Taxes” because in the United States and most of the Empire they pay none at all. They also recently went on a massive looting and pillaging spree in case you had’nt noticed, Joe Blow, to the tune globally of forty-seven-trillion-dollars and in the United States itself it is known that the Kissinger/Obama regime has poured at least seventeen-trillion-dollars down Wall Street’s throat in “bailouts” (many experts are saying the actual figure is around twenty-six-trillion, but Governor Kissinger et al made sure that the only “supervision” of the “bail-outs” was undertaken by the likes of Henry Paulson, a Wall-Street, and previously Goldman Sachs Jew, who was the CEO of Lehman Brothers when it “collapsed” after being stuffed full of worthless debt-bundles purchased from…Goldman Sachs!!! Obama put this Goldman Sachs Jew in charge of the bail-outs!!! The “money-trail” is blanketed in dense fog, and there is extreme official “vagueness” about the actual amount involved, surprise surprise) and will continue to pay relentlessly for these Colonial Wars: that is what they are – it like the old East India Company has been resurrected again but on a far bigger scale: a tiny staggeringly wealthy Ruling Class of the Empire uses workers tax money to finance a huge military to attack countries with valuable resources (or else which are strategic “stepping-stones” to get access to countries with valuable resources)that are perceived to be militarily weak. Like Afghanistan (which the Americans thought would be a walkover as they had Afghanistan almost totally surrounded, and the Iranians detest the Afghans: the Russians were confronted with a string of huge USA-CIA constructed and operated Terrorist training and supply camps all along the Pakistan/Afghan border and to get at them, the Russians would have had to attack Pakistan, and Pakistan was and is a NATO country!!!) Iraq, like Libya, like Somalia, etc, etc.

    20. By Leon Henderson on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

    21. By Joe Blow on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

      @ Leon

      It always amazes me how these Zeitgeist clones resemble religious zealouts or born again Christians. Oh well I’ll try and rationalise with you anyway…

      The reason the the Afghanistan War is the longest US war in history is because it was hijacked for the express purpose of invading Iraq. It was always underfunded under the Bush administration. All of the real money and funding went into the Iraq War. There were only 33,700 American troops in Afghanistan when Obama took office compared to nearly 200,000 in Iraq:

      Your misconception that Pakistan is NATO’s little buddy really shows your ignorance on this topic. Do you have any idea about the role that the Pakistani ISI played and continues to play in the Taliban’s existence? Do some wider reading!

      You seem to know something about the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. I suggest you look into what happened after the Russians left and ask yourself why the US turned its back on Afghanistan and left it to fester. Why didn’t the US take Afghanistan when it had the chance in 1989 so it could build its pipeline instead of waiting until 9/11 gave them an excuse? Check out the Afghanistan civil wars of 1989-1992, 1992-1996 and 1996-2001 for a taste of what might happen if we turn our backs on Afghanistan again now that we can’t afford it.

      One last thing, where’s your proof of all of these mercenaries in Afghanistan? There are contractors but any army needs a lot of contractors to support it, namely cooking meals and doing laundry. Security contractors only account for 18% totallying 10,500 personnel. Check out pages 15 and 16 of the Congressional Research Service report:

    22. By Joe Blow on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

      @ Leon

      Counterpunch article by Tom Turnipseed.

      (I’ve actually answered your previous post but it hasn’t come up on the site yet).

      I know all this Leon, but why isn’t Turnipseed writing articles about the negotiations between the Georgians and Azerbijians and the big Western oil companies who have poured billions into the deal on the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline? It’s a selective picture of what’s actually going on.

      So what if UNOCAL thought it could make some money out of a pipeline with a deal with the Taliban and Cheney was getting a hard on over the billions that could be made in 1997. 9/11 changed all that. It looks like the Taliban were keen on a deal as they also saw the dollar signs. Why would the US want to screw that arrangement up by going to war? They had their pipeline deal sealed but since 9/11 the building of the gas pipeline has stalled due to instability and is still yet to be built, while the more lucrative oil pipeline has not even resulted in a deal being signed since the US invasion at the end of 2001.

    23. By Leon Henderson on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

      Scoop, gotta submit this: it’s author emphatically believes that Wall-Street/USA economic policy IS WAR (he is extremely convincing, but heck, is he ever in for an horrendous shock when he finds out that the US federal government is way more than thirteen-trillion-dollars in debt!!!):

    24. By Leon Henderson on Jul 25, 2011 | Reply

      Final post today, Scoop, honest! In an earlier post was trying to remember the name and precise quote of a revered (by the Eight Families) Rothschild ancestor, but could not remember the name. Got the quote reasonably accurate though: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws” (is the actual statement of Amshall/Mayer).

      Amshall/”Mayer” Moses Bower,is the “official Patriarch” of the Rothschilds Dynasty (his diabolical sons, changed the family name to “Rothschild” upon Amshall/Mayers death where they inherited the massive financial racket that he and they had built up. the original “Counting House” in Prussia that Amshall had gotten started with, had a red shield with a Roman Eagle insignia on it that hung outside it, and the [English] words “red shield” in Prussian/German are “rothschild”).

    Post a Comment