quote:

---

Thirteen Canadian soldiers suffered minor injuries when three armoured vehicles smashed into each other on the pre-dawn streets of Kandahar on Sunday, a military official said.

The accident happened when a convoy of recently arrived combat troops, riding in LAV III vehicles, was moving between bases, said Maj. Dale MacEachern, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces.

"I don't think anything can fully prepare anybody for the nature of the roads that are here in Kandahar," he said.

"As you know, they are not up to the same standard that we're used to in North America. So there's always a bit of a learning process that our troops have to go through."

---

Now I understand better what Dawn Black meant when she reported:

quote:

---

I still feel that this trip has given me an even greater understanding of our mission and reaffirmed my profound pride in the men and women in the Canadian Forces who are sacrificing so much.

---

They do such an incredible job in Afghanistan, with limited funds, supplies and equipment. Their mission is BRUTAL and their expertise is TOP-NOTCH.

As for the Afghani killed in the convoy:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/17/afghan-shooting.html

"Upon closer investigation, no explosives were found but the man did have an unusual mix of wire, straps, tubes and other materials fastened to his torso," Phillips said.

"We don't really know much about him. His behaviour is perplexing to say the least. We're not sure why he was in the middle of the road. We're not sure why he was approaching one of our convoys. We're not sure why he was behaving the way he was.

"So there are some questions that need to be answered."

Canadian military officials and Afghan police are investigating the incident.

The poor soldiers in the LAVIII accident were n00bs, apparently - and no one was seriously injured...

It is getting harder and harder to support the Government who changed their mission, however...

[ 19 February 2007: Message edited by: Village Idiot ]

Maybe they will release photos of these protruding wires.

quote:

---

So far, it sounds to me that he may have been mentally unbalanced. That can be a death sentence in occupied Afghanistan

---

quote:

---

The Afghan resistance has every right and reason to try and attack and repel these murderers from their country.

---

quote:

---

gave up any pretense of supporting our troops when they murdered a 10 year old boy who was merely riding his bicycle this summer.

---

I am guessing you did not make too much of a pretense for supporting the troops before the incident either.

As for the incident, there where mitigating factors that you decided not to mention. Your make it sound like the soldier decided to pump a couple rounds into a ten year on a bike for fun. The child was a passenger on a motorcycle, not a bicycle for starters. The bike sped through a ANP check point and towards Canadian troops on the scene of a earlier suicide attack which killed a Afghan child and a Canadian soldier. Are you just as incensed about the child killed in the suicide bombing, I doubt you have ever given a second thought about her because you can't use her as a bully bat for your opinions. I know people involved in the incident and they have given both those children alot of thought.

I don't care if you or others on this board support or don't support the troops/mission/whatever; however you should have the intellectual integrity to fairly represent the situation. That death was a mistake not a murder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nanuq:

Do you really think the killing would stop if foreign troops left? Just the opposite, really.

---

.....don't bother, you are using facts against beliefs. It will never work.

Or another way of looking at it, and borrowing a quote....

"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"

[ 19 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]

quote:

---

Canadian soldiers mistakenly killed an Afghan civilian and a member of the Afghan national police Sunday following an attack on a Canadian convoy.

No Canadians were injured in the attacks, which took place on a road through Kandahar City and involved soldiers from CFB Gagetown, located outside of Fredericton.

---

When you kill someone - even "accidentally" - in the course of committing a crime, it is generally considered as murder.

The Canadian occupation of Afghanistan is a criminal and barbaric act of colonial white supremacy. Canada must be and will be held responsible for every Afghan they kill or maim.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oreobw:
To Rand McNally:

.....don't bother, you are using facts against beliefs. It will never work.

Or another way of looking at it, and borrowing a quote....

"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"

---

For the record, I am not right wing, I am a lefty.

Canadian general calls for less gunfire on Kandahar streets

quote:

---

The military has acknowledged that shooting Afghan civilians, police officers and soldiers makes it a lot harder for Canadian troops to build good relations with the local population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

They now have ordered that civilians be shot "only when absolutely necessary."

---

The Canadians put out a version of events, but "the account differs from statements by local residents."

According to the Chief of Police of Kandahar, one dead man, Gulab Shah, "was hit while standing in a concrete watch post on the governor's palace."

The other deceased? "An unidentified homelss man who often begged near the palace was shot as he approached the Canadian position."

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
[/URL]really? who would've thunk it? the fact is that the Taleban are Afghani. Pashtuns who have never been defeated since back to the time of Peter the Great. They live there. They aren't leaving. .

---

The Afghani's (Pashtun's mainly) were in need of revolution as much as the Russians, French, Americans ever were. Karzai is an imperialist and once worked to put king Zahir Shah back in power. Karzai's a worm and power monger himself, dealing with the Taliban and now Yanqui imperialists. The Taliban were spawned by the CIA-Saudis during the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980's. The Talibanization of this region of the world was not natural in any way. It was done by the will of the CIA, Saudi princes, British and Pakistani ISI in relatively recent times. The multi-billion dollar proxy war resulting in the spread of militant Islam in that region of the world is one of the most regressive and undemocratic western policies ever conceived next to policies for dirty war against leftist peasant movements in Latin America and Africa to overthrow repressive regimes.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Kevin:
I gave up any pretense of supporting our troops....

---

Our troops are also victims. Turning them into scapegoats for bad (even criminal) foreign policy is shortsighted at best, if not totally ignorant or intentionally malicious.

There is a considerable difference between supporting the mission and supporting the welfare of the troops. In this case real support for the troops means pressuring the government to abort the mission and bring them home.

As for troopers killing civilians, that is a very complex issue in modern warfare where there is little distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Each incident has to be evaluated on its own merits and it is unreasonable to expect a trooper to not take whatever necessary action he or she may feel required to protect their own life. Maybe it is hard to fully appreciate this unless one has been in this kind of a situation.

The real blame lies with the people who make the decisions to place our troops in harm's way to begin with.

quote:

---

Fidel:
I think Karzai's people are on the take from drug mafia and war lords.

---

No kidding?

You want to bet that there are Canadians on the take too, and that Canadian businesses and banks are profiting from the war and from the drug business?

There is lots of money to be made here, and what are a few thousand or more Afghan lives and the lives of Canadian troopers if there is a profit to be had?

quote:

---

M. Spector
And the men doing the oppressing were of course not the Taliban, but the warlords and other men running the society that our troops are fighting to preserve in the name of freedom.

---

A cultural quirk. Hard line Multi-culturalists should have no problem with this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
The real blame lies with the people who make the decisions to place our troops in harm's way to begin with.

---

If our troops are "victims" they are willing victims.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
If our troops are "victims" they are willing victims.

---

True but not black and white. In a way it is like saying that people who return to abusive relationships or those that refuse to give up their drug habits are willing victims. They are, but....

quote:

---

And calling them victims should not erase their individual moral responsibility,....

---

You are right, it should not. However, again it is not a simple matter as to where duty ends and moral responsibility begins, or even how one might perceive either.

Bottom line is that they should not be placed in these ambiguous situations to begin with, and when they are it is those doing the placing that bear the major portion of the responsibility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
If we had universal conscription and mandatory service the chances are that we would not be nearly as likely to get involved in these kinds of unjustifiable wars to begin with.

---

quote:

---

M. Spector:
Would the politicians and generals not get us into imperialist wars of conquest and regime change if we had a conscript army?

---

If conscription were universal it would be a citizen's army touching every city, town and village and every segment of society. The political decision to go to war would be a lot more complicated and the army would be a lot more unreliable if forced into an unpopular war.

The moral stance that some here expect of soldiers would be much stronger in the forces because for one thing because without careers to protect the conscripts would have less conflict in sorting out the issues.

There is a good reason that the US dumped conscription after the Vietnam debacle. By 1970 they had an army that was totally unreliable as resistance within the military was threatening not only operations in Vietnam but US military effectiveness world wide.

The Vietnam war ended when it became evident that the military was collapsing from within. An event, I might add, at which I had a front row seat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Our troops are also victims. Turning them into scapegoats for bad (even criminal) foreign policy is shortsighted at best, if not totally ignorant or intentionally malicious.

---

quote:

---

If conscription were universal it would be a citizen's army touching every city, town and village and every segment of society. The political decision to go to war would be a lot more complicated and the army would be a lot more unreliable if forced into an unpopular war.

---

It is very difficult to support conscription even if I agree your arguments are valid. I just can't agree anyone should be forced to wear a uniform, carry a gun, and be trained to kill.

On the other hand, I can't be so cavalier about the Canadians who are over there. They have families who suffer, worry, and sometimes grieve, too. I can condemn the bastards who sent them there and would never, ever trade places with them.

Harper and Hillier should be dropped off in Khandahar with nothing more than an extra pair of underwear.

[ 20 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Granted, there are those who look forward to going to war and killing, but I suspect they are few. Soldiers go where they are ordered. I don't know wat "supporting our troops" is supposed to mean. To me, it is an empty phrase thrown about by those who sent them there.

quote:

---

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Most US military recruits are poor. They didn't join to kill Arabs but to possibly learn a trade and earn a living. It is the US equivalent of a poor man's degree. I suspect many Canadians are in the same boat.

---

quote:

---

M. Spector:
I'm not blaming the troops for the wars, but at some point they make a moral choice - those who refuse to participate in war deserve our support and our sympathy.

---

I agree completely.

quote:

---

The rest are part of the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
. Anybody who joined the armed forces of Canada or the USA in the last 5 years must have known there was a good chance of being sent to war somewhere. I'm not blaming the troops for the wars, but at some point they make a moral choice.

---

It's more than that. They are young, and this country is becoming like that one to certain degrees. American Egalitaire said it once, it's a crime to be poor in the U.S. And I think the same thing is happening here. I think there's a lot of pressure on kids, hormonal and otherwise, to get out there, start a family and get on with their lives. And this economy just isn't creating the full-time payroll jobs it used to do before free trade.

quote:

---

The rest are part of the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Except in this instance it's the Afghan civilians who live there who are being placed in harm's way.

If our troops are "victims" they are willing victims.

And calling them victims should not erase their individual moral responsibility, regardless of how blameworthy the generals and politicians are for sending them off to war.

---

No offense - I can appreciate your point of view while diagreeing with it.

I am an ex - Canadian Forces soldier - when you join, you take an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. I have never (thank God!) met another soldier that did not take this oath and aforementioned individual moral responsibility seriously. You go where you are sent and accomplish the mission assigned, in a professional manner.

I have served in joint exercises with other NATO troops. I have spoken to many commanders from many different countries - after seeing all that Canadian Forces can accomplish in the field, they are ALL incredibly impressed with our soldiers' ability and especially our professionalism.

Canadian troops do what troops are supposed to do. I do not want to applaud or rationalize the victimization of civilians in any way, but our soldiers have ALWAYS BEEN the victims of our morally bankrupt politicians, as well.

"Forward! He cried - from the rear,
And the front rank DIED." -- Pink Floyd, "Us and Them"

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Village Idiot ]

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Village Idiot ]

....He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by oreobw:
Didn't Buffy do that song?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Donovan, actually.

---

I'd like to echo village idiot as he says it perfectly:

quote:

---

I find it easier to support the troops every day...
They do such an incredible job in Afghanistan, with limited funds, supplies and equipment. Their mission is BRUTAL and their expertise is TOP-NOTCH.

...

It is getting harder and harder to support the Government who changed their mission, however...

---

I too am finding it easier and easier to support our troops... They are doing extremely well with the task at hand with the resources available.

Keeping in mind that the task in hand includes a corrupt distribution system that sees a large amount of munitions destined for the Karzai milita we are supporting end up in the hands of the various warlords we collectively refer to as 'Taliban'. Their mission includes near absolute dependence on Pakistan supressing it's tribal regions (something Pakistan never has nor intends to do). While we're at it, the lack of reflection upon the leader and gov't we are attempting to install is dismal at best. Sadly, I think the American people know more about the Al-maliki they are trying to install in Iraq than Canadians know about the Karzai we are trying to install in Afghanistan. How many Canadians are aware that all opposition to Karzai in the previous election are currently... well... Dead? Happened well before we were there, but the war supporters will be quick to point our magical canadian presence will correct all 'evil'... We can never to wrong afterall.

Apparently the question I'm asking above means I don't support the troops (in America, I'd apparently be considered treasonous).

Oreo:

quote:

---

To Rand McNally:
.....don't bother, you are using facts against beliefs. It will never work.

---

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

How many Canadians are aware that all opposition to Karzai in the previous election are currently... well... Dead?

---

Neocons support our troops with bumper-magnet slogans here and Timbits in bloody battle zones far from home.

I linked this article a bit ago. I will admit I haven't fact checked the greater portion of the article as of yet, so I would do the research behind it still. The Karzai history comments are correct and can be found in several sources without much difficulties.
Karzai blab:

quote:

---

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

---

The bold part is me... Might be important to note that his ethnic background puts him to the same group as the Taliban and even AQ. He quite likely received CIA training in the same fashion Bin Laden did to fight off soviets during cold war times.

further into the article:

quote:

---

Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.

When Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan last October, his position was immediately known to Taliban forces, which subsequently pinned him and his small party down, captured, and executed them. Former Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who worked with Haq, vainly attempted to get the CIA to help rescue Haq. The agency claimed it sent a remotely-piloted armed drone to attack the Taliban but its actions were too little and too late. Some observers in Pakistan claim the CIA tipped off the ISI about Haq's journey and the Pakistanis, in turn, informed the Taliban. McFarlane, who runs a K Street oil consulting firm, did not comment on further questions about the circumstances leading to the death of Haq.

While Haq was not part of the Bush administration's GOP (Grand Oil Plan) for South Asia, Karzai was a key player on the Bush Oil team. During the late 1990s, Karzai worked with an Afghani-American, Zalmay Khalilzad, on the CentGas project. Khalilzad is President Bush's Special National Security Assistant and recently named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Interestingly, in the White House press release naming Khalilzad special envoy, no mention was made of his past work for UNOCAL. Khalilzad has worked on Afghan issues under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron, itself no innocent bystander in the future CentGas deal. Rice made an impression on her old colleagues at Chevron. The company has named one of their supertankers the SS Condoleezza Rice.

---

We've collectively ignored who we are installing in Afghanistan... Very much to my dismay. And the only reason that I can think of for this is we refuse to think we can do anything but 'good'

even wiki speculates the causes of Haq's demise:

quote:

---

The Guardian speculates that his capture was due to a betrayal by double agents.[7] Some reports soon after his death blamed the CIA for siding too closely with Pakistan's ISI, (who did not care for his ability to join Afghans across ethnic lines), and not supporting Haq in Afghanistan

---

In the end it's quite simple... We are supporting one group of fuedal warlords over another, claiming that our moral superiority will be somehow transferred to the ones we support. Funny how we can raise such a debate over something like the duel citizenship of a potential Canadian leader like Dion, but questioning the Afghan leader that we are blindly supporting is has been equivlent to 'not supporting troops'.

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Village Idiot:
I am an ex - Canadian Forces soldier - when you join, you take an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. I have never (thank God!) met another soldier that did not take this oath and aforementioned individual moral responsibility seriously. You go where you are sent and accomplish the mission assigned, in a professional manner.

---

quote:

---

Well, that's just one. I mean what about since the occupation took force, and moreover recently.

---

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

whom might be of the same camp

---

You said:

quote:

---

How many Canadians are aware that all opposition to Karzai in the previous election are currently... well... Dead?

---

So, the issue is the deaths of previous election opposition, apparently, not Abdul Haq's somewhat suspect capture and execution.

[ 21 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

So, the issue is the deaths of previous election opposition, apparently, not Abdul Haq's somewhat suspect capture and execution.

---

Hmmm, now you have me curious... I'll have to find a date on Haq's death, before or after Karzai was 'elected'

From WIki:

quote:

---

He was executed by the Taliban in October 2001 while trying to create a popular uprising in Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

---

Karzai's entry in wiki:

quote:

---

He became the first post-Taliban head figure. From December 2001, Hamid Karzai had been the Chairman of the Transitional Administration and then the Interim President from 2002 until he won the 2004 Presidential election.

---

at no time in the history of bourgieos Canada has the bourgieos canadian armed forces been anything other then the strong arm of protecting the Canadian bourgieosie capitalist state...

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is any distinction made in the Oath (or in the forces generally) between "allegiance" and "blind obedience"?

Is allegiance to Canada, or the Queen, or whoever, equated with doing whatever you are told to do, no matter how morally repugnant it may be? If so, why would any moral person swear such an oath?

---

It is allegiance to the Queen.

Morals are relative to the individual, we do have freedom of conscience you know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Really. Well there is that then. I prefered Phil Ochs to both of them really, of any of the well known figures of the "great folk music scare
" of the 1960's

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And what a choice for a nation of desperately poor people it is: theocratic feudalism or western-backed feudalism. It's all about choices.

---

OK, that's a good starting point. Let's look at it a litte more closely. Option one: renewed Taliban rule, government-sanctioned executions of gays, disobedient women, etc., projected into the indefinite future. Option 2: "western-backed feudalism". Actually, United Nations-backed. A long project which begins with the relative freedom and security most Afghans are now enjoying, and progressing towards a law-based system where Afghans increasingly have the opportunity to chose and affect their government. And towards the establishment of a government which eventually will be free of foreign domination, as it becomes capable of providing for its own security. Would anyone argue that Afghans would be better off under the Taliban? Of course not. Hence the inescapable immorality and hypocrisy of calling for an ISAF withdrawal. The "inconvenient truth" for the opponents of the Afghanistan mission is this - the only thing preventing a return to medieval slavery for Afghans is the ISAF mission. Afghans are well aware of this, and the majority are willing to tolerate ISAF troops (as long as they do not return to US- style indiscriminate killing.)

So, all youse guys better smarten up so the Liberal Party can be proud to be our site sponsors, okay?

I love this job.

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Hey, I had a complaint about this thread this morning by someone who thinks it's full of "lies", that it's "unacceptable" and "offensive"

---

While I on the other hand did not. As Master Yoda would say, "is it chopped liver that I am"?

Anyway, as Sen. Michael Kirby said when he hand delivered my moderators pay last week, the underwriting of rabble by the Liberal Party remains secure.

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
The bold part is me... Might be important to note that his ethnic background puts him to the same group as the Taliban and even AQ. He quite likely received CIA training in the same fashion Bin Laden did to fight off soviets during cold war times.

---

quote:

---

The "inconvenient truth" for the opponents of the Afghanistan mission is this - the only thing preventing a return to medieval slavery for Afghans is the ISAF mission. Afghans are well aware of this, and the majority are willing to tolerate ISAF troops (as long as they do not return to US- style indiscriminate killing.

---

quote:

---

Talk about unbelievable western arrogance - the left in Canada is willing to sacrifice the people of Afghanistan in the name of their own twisted ideological "purity."

---

Wow Brett, your spin and twisting is impressive to watch. The Western arrogance at work here is the belief that we can enforce our values and morales over top of their (obviously inferior) lives. I find it quite humourous that you can take a stance based in the arrogance that we know what is best for them (and will implement at any cost, money or life), and then attack other idiological stances on the war as arrogant ^^

quote:

---

progressing towards a law-based system

---

quote:

---

Afghans increasingly have the opportunity to chose and affect their government.

---

Heh true true... And the Afghani people rushed right out to vote in an advisor to American oil companies.

I really suggest you give a read and familuarize yourself with Afghan history Brett, your statements are ignorant of it. As the 'majority of Afghans emphatically do not want the Taliban back in power' is the same majority that also know that it was us that installed the Taliban in the first place.

As you seem to purposefully ignore it now, previously this thread has your wonderful quote:

quote:

---

Ordinary Afghans may have found the former Taliban regime excessive in the way it enforced its brutal moral rules. But at least it had moral rules. The word moral is probably the last word that comes to an ordinary Afghan's mind when describing the new (Karzai) government

---

Hey, maybe I can try some spin myself. Does Afghans beleiving gov't we're supporting has absolutely no morales qualify as an 'inconvinent truth'?

quote:

---

Al-Qaeda isn't Pashtun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

On bin Laden and the CIA - Steve Coll, in his book Ghost Wars (probably the best source of information on the relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan since 1979) states that there is absolutely no evidence that the CIA even met with him, let along trained him.

---

quote:

---

LONDON: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

---

The CIA's Multi-Billion Dollar Anti-Communist Jihad

It's not a secret anymore.

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
It's not a secret anymore.

---

The other (while more relevant, but from a biased source):

"[U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create . . ."

"with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created Al Qaeda . . ."

Kind of, sort of, knew about, was told by a guy who knew a guy, etc. etc. isn't exactly solid evidence.

Did you (or anyone) read the book mentioned?

It's actually very good - and thoroughly covers the Soviet War, U.S./Pakistani/Saudi aid, the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's role.

Should be required reading for debates on Afghanistan.

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

On bin Laden and the CIA - Steve Coll, in his book Ghost Wars (probably the best source of information on the relationship between the U.S. and Afghanistan since 1979) states that there is absolutely no evidence that the CIA even met with him, let along trained him. If I recall, the relationship only went as far as discussing Osama bin Laden with other Mujahadeen contacts.

---

I've seen other references to Ghost Wars... I should find a give a read sometime. Is the scope of the book purely on the Afghanistan setup, or does it go further into the larger picture? Just curious if it ties together the links between US interests in Saudi Arabia (oil oil and more oil).

Might also note, Bin Laden at the time in reference would have been much more rank and file... Does the CIA take down the name of every Mujahadeen soldier it trained within Afghanistan?

You are correct with that one point Free_radical... Basic background on Afghanistan does seem to be heavily neglected (and we're left with some silly morales without cost debate^^)

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

There was no evidence that the CIA ever hired Bin Laden DIRECTLY.

There WAS evidence that he was hired and paid by the Saudi secret police.

There WAS also evidence that the Saudi secret police work hand and glove with the CIA.

There WAS NO EVIDENCE that the CIA ever objected to the Saudi use of Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and the US's ties are exceedingly hard to give a 'no' to, but on the same note... A direct link isn't going to be found either.

quote:

---

There WAS also evidence that the Saudi secret police work hand and glove with the CIA.

---

If you read Bin Laden's work, that is the reason he used to justify the need for the 9/11 attacks (Deep US involvement within Saudi Arabia, particularily Mecca)

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
K... Is it still considered conspiracy theory that the CIA flew Bin Laden relations living in the US to Saudi Arabia, or does that have some proof behind it?

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
....and progressing towards a law-based system where Afghans increasingly have the opportunity to chose and affect their government.

---

The Taliban had a law based system, so what we now have is a regression if law based system is a bench mark. Of course a law based system is only as good as its laws. Note that we are not talking about the Republic of Afghanistan or the Kingdom of Afghanistan but the current government goes under the title of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Gee, maybe you are talking about progressing towards a system ruled by Sharia Law? Some progress.

One might have a small bit more of confidence in the future of an Afghanistan ruled by the current thugs and warlords if they at least called themselves the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Afghanistan and committed the nation to secular values.

quote:

---

And towards the establishment of a government which eventually will be free of foreign domination, as it becomes capable of providing for its own security.

---

That sounds alot like this:

quote:

---

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes and you sleep out every night
Where the boxcars are all empty and the sun shines every day
On the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees
Where the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains all the cops have wooden legs
And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth and the hens lay soft boiled eggs
The farmer's trees are full of fruit and the barns are full of hay
Oh, I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow
Where the rain don't fall and the wind don't blow
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains you never change your socks
And the little streams of alcohol come a-trickling down the rocks
The brakemen have to tip their hats and the railroad bulls are blind
There's a lake of stew and of whiskey too
You can paddle all around 'em in a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains the jails are made of tin
And you can walk right out again as soon as you are in
There ain't no short handled shovels, no axes saws or picks
I'm a goin to stay where you sleep all day
Where they hung the jerk that invented work
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

---

What we are doing in Afghanistan has nothing to do with making it a country free from foreign domination, but insuring that the US is the one dominating. How far do you think Karzai would get if he declared the country a socialist republic , seized all foreign assets and nationalized everything, even if he had massive popular support?

quote:

---

Would anyone argue that Afghans would be better off under the Taliban?

---

That is a very subjective issue. Some Afghans have already said that they were better off under the Taliban. It depends on which system is providing you the most benefits as to how you see better off. No doubt some Afghans probaly hope that the conflict never ends since they are getting rich off of it.

quote:

---

Hence the inescapable immorality and hypocrisy of calling for an ISAF withdrawal.

---

This is kind of like the virgin birth or the fact that Elvis was swooped up in a UFO. You either believe it or you don't, it is a matter of faith.

quote:

---

The "inconvenient truth" for the opponents of the Afghanistan mission is this - the only thing preventing a return to medieval slavery for Afghans is the ISAF mission.

---

As if some of the areas under warlord control are not akin to medieval slavery as you call it. The oppressive features of Afghan society are inherent in the culture. Is our mandate there to force them to change their culture? Why is it an Islamic Republic instead of a Democratic Republic or just a Republic.

Iran is an Islamic Republic, is that the plan for Afghanistan?

quote:

---

Afghans are well aware of this, and the majority are willing to tolerate ISAF troops....

---

I can tell you from experience in these kinds of things that tolerance does not equate to acceptance. Buddy by day and insurgent by night is not uncommon. And then there are those who smile at you only as long as they can milk your system. The Afghan-Iraq War (or Global War On Terror) provides a significant profit opportunity for not only western corporations, but for many Afghans and Iraqis as well.

quote:

---

There is good evidence which is repeatedly dismissed or ignored that the majority of Afghans emphatically do not want the Taliban back in power.

---

Which of course is not the same as wanting foreign occupation and control of their country, which is what we have given them.

quote:

---

Talk about unbelievable western arrogance....

---

What is arrogant is thinking that a foreign invasion and occupation of the country is the only way to change it, and that that change must conform to certain foreign requirements. Beyond arrogant it is foolish to commit troops to a guerilla war in an attempt to dominate a country that historically has turned foreign troops into mince meat.

[CHORUS]
The Maple Leaf
Our Emblem Dear,
The Maple Leaf Forever.
God save our Queen and heaven bless,
The Maple Leaf Forever.

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane
Our brave fathers side by side
For freedom's home and loved ones dear,
Firmly stood and nobly died.
And so their rights which they maintained,
We swear to yeild them never.
Our watchword ever more shall be
The Maple Leaf Forever

[CHORUS]

From Spectors link:

quote:

---

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.”

NOTE: It should be noted that even though the film does not make the allegation, strong evidence has recently come to light that at least one private plane flew to pick up Saudi nationals while private flights were still grounded. Moreover, for nearly three years, the White House has denied that this flight existed. This was reported in the June 9, 2004 St. Petersburg Times article cited below.

---

Unfortunately, it gets tough to recognize if a tidbit of info on 9/11 is accepted as fact or still in the conspiracy range. TY for that SPector.

Back to this point after reading Jerry's comment:

quote:

---

Would anyone argue that Afghans would be better off under the Taliban?

---

Hmmm, perhaps we should dig into the setup more thoroughly so Brett can understand why this is quite a stupid statement. The Taliban never ruled over any people directly... Tis Fuedal remember? The Taliban operate on the level of village elder (or warlord if you prefer that term... Pending setup of course). The villages customs and norms dictated the way of life.

First part of the comment that is dumb is arguing that 'Afghans' think anything... only the Afghans living under Karzai really consider themselves that, most other people that you'd call Afghans would have no clue what you are talking about (they identify to their village/tribe and not this nationalistic concpet we've invented for them). Hey, who would guess that the national Afghans that we've created under Karzai would say they are better off under Karzai and not the Taliban?

Second part thats dumb is to assume theres a difference between life under the Taliban and life under the... well... anyone else ^^ The village elders/warlord and the tribal customs dictate life. Under the Taliban, it actually looked like the Taliban had some form of control at the tribal leader level as they were very close to completely choking off the poppy production prior to 9/11 (They were heavily CIA funded then, you could see why it would be a priority). Under Karzai, the morales are gone and the warlords are free to grow what they need for profit. 2 extremes, harsh morales vs no morales at all... But in either event, it's the warlord that the Taliban/karzai gov't are trying to court that dictate the way of life for a person living under a warlord. To say theres a difference between life under a warlord who supports the Taliban and life under a warlord that supports Karzai is exceedingly naive (added... Oh wait, I think under a warlord supporting Karzai you got the option of voting for your warlord. I guess theres freedom in going to a ballot box and say 'yup thats my elder!').

Tell me Brett, where is the implied freedom granted to a woman living under a warlord that the Taliban influenced vs a woman living under a warlord that Karzai is desperately trying to court the support of? Both the Taliban and Karzai have no control over that warlord except on the highest of level (And it turns out the taliban were very effective in telling the warlords what to grow, while Karzai and his gov't is unable to. Lil ironic, because Karzais gov't is primarily composed of these drug warlords that Karzai seems to be unable to influence ^^). Were the harsh morales of the Taliban better or worse than the moraless greed thats consumed the region instead?

If we were infact interested in setting up a democracy within Afghanistan, we would spend more time preparing the people of Afghanistan with the basic essentials required to form a democracy... Like providing low power usage lights to allow night time reading (LED lights can operate on batteries that charge from manual use of a small hand wheel... It's actually a small and vastly successful program being used within Africa at this moment in time. Westerners take the freedom that night time lighting allows for granted... Imagine never have been able to do school work like reading after the sun went down). The only light we seem to be interested in providing is phosphorous ^^

Though with all this... We're unfortunately unable to completely cut and run. We're either going to have to stay long enough to completely wipe out the taliban and it's supporters (I strongly beleive that NATO is quite capable of the near act of genocide required to do this), or we're going to have to come to terms with the Taliban. This Islamophobic 'Taliban are only motivated by pure evil' outlook is forcing us towards the military route.

[ 23 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

Just to keep our 'morale commitment' within Afghanistan in perspective... Our AIDS initiative is receiving less than 1% of the funding we dedicate to our Afghanistan mission (apparently a response to terrorism that has tragically taken around 5000 lives).

quote:

---

The Americans are addicted to war and Canadians are learning.

---

I'm not sure if I'd go that far... The Americans are addicted to spreading their far superior values to the world, Democracy and the ensured freedom and values that Democracy comes with. Though admittadely, thats just what the people thinks. To corporate America (the lobbiests especially), it's simply expanding their markets. Nations unwilling to adopt the cultural exports of the US require military intervention instead.

But the American populace has almost tired of their 'unwinnable war'. It's funny to see a leader speak so much of victory and defeat, yet never once mention what victory would look like (short of 'dead extremists', without ever defining what an extremist is... Well, a definition beyond a dead body that one of their soldier killed/raped). America's exceedingly large deployment is stretching their means... a 6 month deployment isn't too hard on a solider, a 3rd or 4th deployment begins to take it's toll on the soldier mentally, the family at home, and the economy suffers as the workforce is leeched to the military. Took them 5 years to hit that point, which could be taken as a pretty strong testiment to the will of the american people, they are very willing and capable of enduring pretty rough times when their leader calls for it... As misguided as that leader might be.

Canada is lagging a bit behind the US... Our deployment is small enough that only soldiers who want to be soldiers are in Afghanistan for the time being (reduces the impact on us as only career soldiers have gone there... Little to no impact on the economy... And the families invovled have come to terms with their family members being with the military). Makes it so the greater part of Canada barely realize we are there (let alone care about what we are doing there). Not quite sure which way the Canadian public will trend to this coming year though... Sadly, the weather is going to be the greatest determination on how many of us care about Afghanistan. A mild spring/summer means there will be less buzz about global warming (leaving more attention for other issues)... A really rough spring and then a hyperactive hurricane season will continue to distract the Canadian public.

quote:

---

Since it would be so much cheaper to do positive things, one has to conclude that peace is not desired by those in power.

---

[ 23 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

There is plenty of evidence that the majority of Afghans were very unpleased with Taliban government (and yes, they did control the whole country, establishing their rule over the "tribal elders.") The Senlis council, which tends to be respected by the left as quite authoritative on Afghanistan, has said that allowing the Taliban to return would be the equivalent of returning Germany to the Nazis. And yet this is exactly what large sections of the Canadian left is calling for. "Disgraceful" and "disgusting" don't quite describe this position. The left has made itself the enemy of the people of Afghanistan and is close to making itself a supporter of the Taliban. The real question of interest to me at this point is how did the left in Canada become so morally blinded that it end up defending totalitarian repression?

quote:

---

My comment was not "spin", Noise, but my honest appraisal of the left in Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
"Arrogance" is the only term to describe the willingness of the left to overlook or diminish the tyranical awfulness of the Taliban and allow them to resume control.

---

You would graciously send troops to kill Afghans because of Taliban who won't let women go to school. Ok, big guy, how about getting your gun and go murder Americans? They ban same-sex marriage and won't let LGBT into the armed forces. Or is ok to be homophobic but not anti-woman?

quote:

---

There is plenty of evidence that the majority of Afghans were very unpleased with Taliban government

---

There is plenty of evidence that GW Bush stole two consecutive elections and that a majority of Americans hate him. Or don't you read the newspapers before penning your diatribes? What do you say, big boy? Get in your tank and git on down there and liberate those American folks? Or are they white, Christian, and with high IQs (not like the furry Afghans), so they don't "need" your help?

Oh by the way, forgot to ask, if there's so much evidence the Afghans didn't like the Taliban, remind me why the invading democracy-lovers wouldn't let the Taliban run in the "election"? Harder to rig Afghan elections that U.S. ones? I wouldn't think so.

quote:

---

Arguments that the Taliban are the moral equivalent of the current government in Afghanistan are false and abhorrent.

---

I agree. The Taliban government pre-October 2001 was the legitimate government of the Afghan people in the same sense as scores of others around the world. The Karzai government is the equivalent of some home invaders destroying your house, murdering half your family, then leaving some Karzai thug to sit in your living room drinking beer and threatening that if you or your remaining kids venture out of the basement, he will call the Hell's Angels back and finish the job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Then quite 'honestly', Brett, you are nothing more than a polite and well-spoken troll.

---

Why is this polite and well-spoken troll allowed to continue playing his one-note samba on babble - that the left in Canada is evil and immoral and makes him want to vomit yadda yadda?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
"Arrogance" is the only term to describe the willingness of the left to overlook or diminish the tyranical awfulness of the Taliban and allow them to resume control. Evidently, in the their eyes, Afghans are too primitive to deserve freedom and democracy.

---

Now that is a nice twist, when it is the foreign occupiers that you are supporting,that is telling them they have to be what the west wants.

quote:

---

The left has made itself the enemy of the people of Afghanistan and is close to making itself a supporter of the Taliban.

---

Ok big boy, how about you provide proof that Afghans feel the left in Canada is their enemy? Because it appears, that it is just your simple delusions that are making you believe your personal opinion is true.

quote:

---

The real question of interest to me at this point is how did the left in Canada become so morally blinded that it end up defending totalitarian repression?

---

Again, where is your proof to support your personal opinion, I mean you have to have some proof that you formulated this opnion on right?

quote:

---

A future under the Taliban offers the prospect of a Mullah's boot on the neck of Aghans forever.

---

Are you a teller of the future now? Did this come to you in a vision, that forevermore the mullahs would control Afganistan?

quote:

---

And the left is calling for an ISAF withdrawal which could only put the Taliban back in power. I have never seen a more sickening betrayal of human rights and fundamental decency as that offered by the left and NDP in Canada. I will use every opportunity at my disposal to point out the immorality and hypocrisy and blindness of this stance.

---

It seems, Afghans are making the choice to join the Taliban, as they feel they are better off with them than the occupiers, did you NOT read that in the Senlis council report?

quote:

---

The local Afghan population has legitimate grievances with the international
community

We must acknowledge and respond to the legitimate local grievances caused by the both
the actions of, and inaction of the international community in Southern Afghanistan. These legitimate grievances are causing people to turn their backs on the Karzai Government, and
engender mistrust and anger against the international community. This in turn fuels the
insurgency which is gaining in size and support.

---

Blaming the left, for what the right's war machine is causing in Afganistan, is 180 degrees in opposition to what is happening in Afganistan and what the Senlis Report contained. You liar. The Senlis council squuarely placed the blame on the actions of the military, namely the Canadian and American.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
Why is this polite and well-spoken troll allowed to continue playing his one-note samba on babble -

---

Why not? The left, at least the progressive left, believes in free speech, and I for one find Brett's Pat Robertson like stuck record amusing.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
....my honest appraisal of the left in Canada.

---

If it is honest it is shallow.

quote:

---

....the willingness of the left to overlook or diminish the tyranical awfulness of the Taliban....

---

Overlook and diminish are the wrong terms here in the context of what is being said. I get the sense that nobody disagrees that the Taliban are benighted religious zealots, or that given the chance for something better in Afghanistan wouldn't be happy to see it.

The debate is about whether throwing the country into chaos and empowering thugs who are no better if not worse than the Taliban was and is the way to do it. Particularly when that action strengthens groups like the Taliban and destroys the credibility of the invading nations in many parts of the world where that credibility is needed. (Well, at least the credibility of those nations that had some, internationally, like Canada)

quote:

---

....in the their eyes, Afghans are too primitive to deserve freedom and democracy.

---

Once one realizes that freedom and democracy are not the reason that Afghanistan was invaded, and are no more than PR buzz words when used when justifying that invasion and occupation, then this argument becomes meaningless.

quote:

---

There is plenty of evidence that the majority of Afghans were very unpleased with Taliban government....

---

And with the warlords and Karzai, and with the foreign invaders and with....

What is really arrogant is thinking that the Afghans are not able to take care of their own business and need to be guided and controlled by outsiders.

quote:

---

The Senlis council, which tends to be respected by the left as quite authoritative on Afghanistan, has said that allowing the Taliban to return would be the equivalent of returning Germany to the Nazis.

---

Actually not. The Nazis had a program of territorial expansion and domination of surrounding areas. Had Hitler kept his army at home and continued to gobble up territory through negotiations and clandestine operations the world would have left him pretty much alone.

It is not what the Taliban were up to that triggered the invasion, but what the US wanted that did.

Anyhow, it is debatable how much of Afghanistan the Taliban would regain control of should the occupation forces withdraw.

quote:

---

The left has made itself the enemy of the people of Afghanistan and is close to making itself a supporter of the Taliban.

---

That is a very subjective statement in a Pat Robertson sort of way. Perhaps the left that you object to sees a more productive way to help Afghans build a more progressive society.

quote:

---

I have never seen a more sickening betrayal of human rights and fundamental decency as that offered by the left and NDP in Canada.

---

Let's see, the Taliban stopped rape and looting, the warlords that are our puppets are noted for rape and looting, by your logic that makes them more decent?

And human rights? You cite the UDHR. Where there are human rights people have the freedom to speak their mind (including blasphemy), freedom of and from religion, gender equality and etc., etc.

Those "liberating" forces you tout have allowed the creation of an Islamic Republic which is a slap in the face of human rights as we see them, and so far I have not seen any commitment to declaring Afghanistan a secular state, allowing the free embrace of any or no religion with no preference, free speech including the right to blaspheme, and so on.

If one wants to defend the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan because it serves the expansion of US power and influence in the region, they are on much more intellectually solid ground than if they choose to defend it in the interest of bringing freedom and democracy to the Afghan people.

quote:

---

It's also true peacekeeping is not what the military wants to do. It doesn't want to go back to Africa where it's most needed and it doesn't like working without the U.S. logistics safety net.

But there is pressing international need for militaries as sophisticated as Canada's. And there is the discipline democracies impose on armies to deliver what the public orders, not what generals want.

If the military has its way, Afghanistan will finally shoot dead Canada's peacekeeping image. But killing it will distance a lot of Canadians from how they see themselves and how they want to be seen by the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
James Travers nails the real issue of a recalcitrant military down here. I find it rather revealing that the only right wingers that can be bothered to defend the Afghani mission at this point are military personnel themselves.

---

Travers' column promotes a suspicion I have had for a long time: The Canadian military has had an internal discussion and decided to ditch the difficult realm of "peacekeeping" in favour of "being able to kill people".

Travers is correct to point out that the military must be under civilian control. But I don't know if even Layton could take the political hit that would develop as a result of questioning the military in Canada right now. The situation however will only worsen over time -- right up to the point that we get our asses kicked out of Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
-- right up to the point that we get our asses kicked out of Afghanistan.

---

I don't expect defeat to look terribly clear -- and various governments will, I suspect, take great pains to muddy the publics understanding.

Basically there will come a time when our military realizes they are doing little more than killing people. They will make preparations to leave, declaring victory. I suspect it will be aided by saner countries (Norway, Sweden, France, Germany) having already left the conflict.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
Siren, do you foresee ultimate military defeat for the NATO forces in Afghanistan? I don't.

---

It all depends on how one defines victory and defeat.

If defeat is the insurgents driving the occupying forces from the battlefield in a series of engagements, then it probably won't happen.

If victory for the allies is spending lots of dollars and lives in Afghanistan to pump up profits for their defense industries, then that is happening.

If victory for the allies is creating a stable client state in Afghanistan that follows the lead of the US, then that happening is questionable.

If it is bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, then it may be a catalyst to something that could happen once the foreign presence is removed from the country. If this does happen, however, it would more than likely be an unintended consequence because one has to have faith in fairy tales to think that that is the reason for being in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

My comment was not "spin", Noise, but my honest appraisal of the left in Canada. "Arrogance" is the only term to describe the willingness of the left to overlook or diminish the tyranical awfulness of the Taliban and allow them to resume control.

---

It is fantastic Spin Brett and quite impressive. You've taken a stance based on your arrogance and morale superiority and claimed others not adapting your morally superior and arrogant view is arrogant themselves. Not quite MOD squad worthy, but impressive spin nonetheless.

"tyranical awfulness of the Taliban" that is a great quote too. Were you aware that the Nazi's used similar references to spawn irrational hatred vs Jewish people in a very similar manner? Made an entire population of German people capable of acting against a race of people who they felt were absolute lessers. It's interesting to watch how you can take someone that we (as the Western world) have openly supported in their fight for years... Then due to a single event, this support turns to irrational hatred reducing them to the level of inhuman demons that awake each morning going 'Hey, tis a good day for evil!'.

quote:

---

Evidently, in the their eyes, Afghans are too primitive to deserve freedom and democracy.

---

Now let me reverse it, evidently, in your eyes, our magical value and morale system will sweep over Afghanistan and the poor plebs will realize how foolish and absolutely evil their way of life truely is. Democracy and free market alone will install absolute freedom (well, absolute freedom if you're the warlord deciding what crops to grow I guess).

quote:

---

Or freedom and democracy are simply "western constructs

---

quote:

---

The real question of interest to me at this point is how did the left in Canada become so morally blinded that it end up defending totalitarian repression?

---

Exceptional spin. The guy so blinded by his morale superiority that he's capable of claiming those opposing are morally blind That takes skill. Anything short of the complete annhilation of your demon of the week is obviously supporting totalitarian repression isn't it? It would have been interesting to have asked you your position prior to 9-11 on the Taliban when we were actively funding them in any manner possible... Prior to them becoming your hated scapegoat, I wonder what you would have thought of the Taliban then? But I get the distinct feeling you're unaware of any Afghan history prior to Canadian invovlement (which is most Canadians)

The real question of interest to me at this point is why you keep avoiding this one simple question... Does your morale obligation come at all cost? Do you even realize the cost so far of your morale obligation?

quote:

---

The Senlis council, which tends to be respected by the left as quite authoritative on Afghanistan,has said that allowing the Taliban to return would be the equivalent of returning Germany to the Nazis

---

Heh, good cherry pick Brett... That's as impressive as Bush picking a few items he enjoyed from the 'bi-partisan Iraq report'. I like how you instantly equate this to mean "we must destroy the evil taliban!" Go read the report and then get back to us plz (and not just the 'well I read the a Global Media article that says Senlis says we should kill Taliban' this time plz)

quote:

---

I will use every opportunity at my disposal to point out the immorality and hypocrisy and blindness of this stance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Remind, I'll thank you not to call me a liar. That quote was directly from a speech by Elizabeth (?) MacDonald, President of the Senlis Council. While the Senlis Council indeed is very critical of the foreign troops in Afghanistan, especially before ISAF came under closer NATO control, they are not calling for a withdrawal of ISAF forces. If you have information to the contrary, then I will apologize.

---

Not taking anything back, I was talking about your comments regarding the left, and how it has morally collapsed and how you proclaim the left in Canada are hated by the Afghans, nice try in trying to slip away and say the Senlis Council said that about the left in Canada.

Then you completely overlooked what they had to say about the conduct of the ISAF and tried to skew it into to being the left's fault that the mission is failing!

And 2: It is a gross smear to accuse me of being anti-Islamic or Islamophobic. A review of many posts I've made on this very board will show that I in fact have great respect for Islam and for Islamic thinking. This false accusation also misses the point that Islamic extremism is as much the ememy of true, peaceful, traditional Islam as it is the enemy of the west.

and added: I don't believe I said that Afghans hate the Canadian left. My implication is that they would hate them, or be very disappointed, if Canada and ISAF withdrew and let the Taliban take over. Perhaps I'm not a genius of spin. Maybe I'm very straightforward and correct.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I have never seen a more sickening betrayal of human rights and fundamental decency as that offered by the left and NDP in Canada. I will use every opportunity at my disposal to point out the immorality and hypocrisy and blindness of this stance.

---

That opporunity isn't going to happen here anymore. Sorry, but you've worn out your welcome, and you clearly don't respect the mandate of this forum, which you've been reminded of several times by moderators in the past, and many more times by other participants.

Find another forum to call leftists names. We don't owe you any space to do it here.

[ 27 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]