Author
|
Topic: Afghans demonstrate against NATO killing of civilians
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 May 2007 05:48 PM
30 civilians killed in NATO assault quote: At least 30 civilians were killed during recent fighting in the Afghan province of Herat, police and government officials say.They say that women and children were among the victims.[...] Meanwhile in the eastern city of Jalalabad, there has been a third day of protests against the alleged killing of civilians by US-led forces. Hundreds of people - mostly students - briefly blocked a main road into the provincial capital and repeated calls for President Hamid Karzai to step down.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 01 May 2007 07:20 PM
Well, as the Americans are fond of saying when this type of thing erupts in Iraq....See how successfully we have imported democracy into country X? They wouldn't be able to demonstrate like this under the old lice infested regime. It's odd though that the story doesn't appear to have currency in Canadian media. Perhaps it's not really happening.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 May 2007 08:18 PM
Afghan Senate calls for talks with Taleban and asks NATO to halt offensive actions quote: The Afghan Senate has called on the government in Kabul to open direct talks with native Taleban militants, and for Nato to stop attacking them.The Senate passed a bill which will now go before the lower house and, if passed, to President Hamid Karzai. The draft law distinguishes between Afghan members of the Taleban, and Pakistani and al-Qaeda fighters, which it says are the enemy of Afghanistan. In the past the Taleban have rejected efforts to open negotiations.
Sounds as if they're getting ready to hoist the white flag. NATO soldiers - watch your derrières on your way home!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 08 May 2007 09:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Sounds as if they're getting ready to hoist the white flag. NATO soldiers - watch your derrières on your way home!
I wouldn't break out the victory champagne just yet... the Taliban are in a position of strength now and just might not be interested in coming to the table. And... Karzai's been calling for this for some time now. Don't we just ignore him?
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 09 May 2007 03:16 AM
Air strike kills at least 21 civilians quote: Foreign forces have killed at least 21 civilians in an air strike in southern Afghanistan, local officials say.Helmand provincial Governor Asadullah Wafa said the deaths came in Sangin district, where Nato-led troops are battling Taleban fighters. He said women and children were killed when civilian homes were bombed. [...] Wednesday's reported deaths came a day after the US military said it was "deeply ashamed" over the killings of 19 Afghan civilians by US Marines in early March.[...] Our correspondent says that there have been a number of incidents in the past few weeks where US special forces outside the Nato remit have been blamed for killing civilians.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 09 May 2007 05:09 AM
Unfortunately, the Nazis were not the only practitioners of collective punishment - they just set the modern precedent. A more interesting question would be: when does an "accident" or a series of "accidents" become deliberate policy? This seems to be one more reason for Canada to withdraw its troops. If the NATO Axis of occupying armies and the Karzai puppet regime can't be relied upon to obey international law in regard to the treatment of prisoners, collective punishment, and so on, then Canada should get our troops out of there immediately. Otherwise, we're just going to get more "ugly" smeared all over our international reputation. __________________________ More about collective punishment: Collective Punishment isn't Self-Defence quote: Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which has been signed and ratified by both Israel and the United States and was drafted in response to the kinds of Nazi atrocities described at the beginning of this column, specifically prohibits collective punishment.
U.S. Resorting to "Collective Punishment" in Iraq Israeli Collective Punishment in the occupied territories [ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 05:25 AM
Is there any evidence of 'collective punishment' here? It seems more like a battle occurred in which civilians were caught up and some died, along with many Taliban.Collective punishment as practiced by the Nazis was more along the lines of going on a punitive murder raid _after_ suffering a sabotage attack. Someone blows up a train, so two days later the Nazis round up a bunch of locals and kill them.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 09 May 2007 05:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by riptide: Is there any evidence of 'collective punishment' here? It seems more like a battle occurred in which civilians were caught up and some died, along with many Taliban.
Just a small comment - Taliban are civilians, are they not? Perhaps you meant to distinguish them from non-combattants. [ 09 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 05:55 AM
>How many "accidental" deaths of civilians does it take before it ceases to be accidental? Are you saying that any civilian death in a war zone is collective punishment? That's a pretty expansive definition. It would mean that Taliban moving even near to civilians would make the Taliban immune from attack. I agree about the lack of info though. Both sides in the conflict seem to be limited access by journalists.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 09 May 2007 06:03 AM
quote: riptide: Are you saying that any civilian death in a war zone is collective punishment?
Occupying powers have a duty, codified into international law, to protect people under its authority. If it's likely that as a result of the actions of NATO troops civilians are killed then that duty has been violated. It's not all that clear to me that NATO can really tell the difference between so-called Taliban and civilians anyway. quote: I agree about the lack of info though. Both sides in the conflict seem to be limited access by journalists.
NATO allows embedded journalists in Afghanistan just as the US does in Iraq. We see them on the CBC all the time. However, independent journalists are a different matter.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 06:18 AM
>Occupying powers have a duty, codified into international law, to protect people under its authority. If it's likely that as a result of the actions of NATO troops civilians are killed then that duty has been violated.Agreed, but the question is: is it collective punishment? Also, you are assuming that NATO killed the civilians, although the article never says this. Simply says "died in the exchange". It seems plausible that they were killed by the Taliban, who have a clear record of killing civilians. Given the PR flap this is causing, it's the Taliban who gain from these deaths.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 09 May 2007 06:31 AM
quote: Also, you are assuming that NATO killed the civilians, although the article never says this.
The article would never say this. No western corporate press will ever state that NATO kills civilians. When civilians die, it is always an "unfortunate incident", and blame is placed everywhere but the perpetrators. The unstated yet unmistakable subtext is that those people had it coming for not submitting to our obvious superiority. quote: It seems plausible that they were killed by the Taliban
Yeah, those treacherous Taliban probably made their own Apache Helicopters out of sheep skin and sticks, painted it to look like a US Air Force helicopter, and killed their own neighbours just to make us look bad. Have they no shame?
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 06:35 AM
In other words you assigning blame with no proof. I'll ask one one last time: is any civilian death in a war zone "collective punishment"?
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 06:59 AM
>My original point, which I'm sticking to, is that a series of "accidents" eventually cease to be accidentsSo, if I understand, your answer to my question is 'no', but that a pattern of civilian deaths can be collective punishment. Fair enough. But you're still left with making the assumption of NATO blame here. Taliban are known war criminals (beheading, killing aid workers, diplomats, and civilians). Isn't it at least plausible that they murdered their civilian hostages? These guys fight to the death; why would they leave others alive? This is a very sketchy news report, without even a confirmed death toll, and you're jumping to huge conclusions. Basically all we know is that there was a battle in which civilians died.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 07:06 AM
Human Rights Watch says "Rising Civilian Death Toll Points to Taliban, Hezb-e Islami War Crimes" and that"Civilian deaths from insurgent attacks in Afghanistan increased dramatically over the past 15 months, and many were the result of insurgents’ failure to respect the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today." “The insurgents are increasingly committing war crimes, often by directly targeting civilians. Even when they’re aiming at military targets, insurgent attacks are often so indiscriminate that Afghan civilians end up as the main victims.”
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 07:50 AM
People look to the strong horse. But neither the Taliban or NATO have overwhelming strength in Afghanistan. So the fighting goes on and on, with no clear end in sight. This makes civilian deaths even harder to bear.NATO's (moral) crime is going in half-way. It's not helping anyone.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 09 May 2007 08:08 AM
quote: riptide: NATO's (moral) crime is going in half-way.
This reads like the after-the-fact rewriting of history by proponents of more bombing and killing in Viet Nam. What's "all the way" anyway? The depopulation of Afghanistan? Or "all the way" to Islamabad? The latter, I think, will never happen as long as Pakistan plays such a "supportive" role to US foreign policy. There are real crimes here already. We've heard about the treatment of prisoners for example. Furthermore, at the beginning of the bombing campaign and invasion way back in the fall of 2001, General Richard Meyers, President Bush's point man in the military, publicly gloated, "There is no limit to our bombing campaign." There were a lot of predictable civilian deaths from the start. Some sort of resistance, Taliban or otherwise, was bound to develop in the face of the NATO occupation. And, in the best case scenario, if the two sides negotiate some sort of cessation of hostilities in the future then NATO will have accomplished little other than to impoverish Afghanistan still further. All this seems so tiresomely predictable. As people used to say about computers: "Garbage in, garbage out." If the premises for invasion and occupation are faulty, then the conclusion is likely to be more harm than good.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 08:21 AM
>in the best case scenario, if the two sides negotiate some sort of cessation of hostilities in the future then NATO will have accomplished little other than to impoverish Afghanistan still further.No. The best case is that the democratic government controls the country. Its rule would be markedly different from that of the Taliban. Unless you think that girl's schooling is a meaningless detail, which I'm sure you don't. The Taliban form of Islam is not natural to Afghanistan. It's an import, and a set of beliefs that all progressive people should object to.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 08:49 AM
Human Right watch notes that by a 3:1 margin it's Taliban who are doing the killing. And of course you leave out the Afghan army and police that are fighting Taliban. Yes, Afghans themselves are fighting to rid the country of Islamic thugs.And yes I did put end the killing as a top priority. That's what "government controls the country" means. As in no longer are there two contesting forces.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 09 May 2007 08:55 AM
Oh riptide, what an idealistic person you must be! The occupation of Afghanistan by NATO will NEVER clean "Islamic thugs" out of that country. The occupation of Afghanistan by NATO will CREATE "Islamic thugs" by the thousands. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan had almost precisely the same objective: insure that their chosen government had control over all of Afghanistan by wiping out Islamic oppositionists. Afghans will never let "the infidel" (ie. you) control their country. It is considered a PATH TO HEAVEN to expel infidels. They take this heaven stuff seriously, you know.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 09:05 AM
>As in "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" ? I think I understand where you're coming from now.I did not say that. I do not support mass murder. Please withdraw that outrageous slur.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 09:10 AM
>The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan had almost precisely the same objective: insure that their chosen government had control over all of Afghanistan by wiping out Islamic oppositionists.Jeff, the Mujaheeden are not the Taliban. One was a pan-Afghan resistance movement and the other is a Pakistan-inspired Wahabbi force. I certainly agree that NATO (as currently engaged) will never push out the Taliban, and that this is helping no one. As to naive, I watched Ian Paisley have tea with IRA commanders yesterday as part of peace in Northern Ireland. Who'ld have thunk it!
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 09:30 AM
This is what I said:"The best case is that the democratic government controls the country. Its rule would be markedly different from that of the Taliban." How you go from this to unending killing is beyond me. There are many ways for the government to prevail: -taliban "redeploy" to Pakistan -taliban surrender -taliban agree to a truce That's Ending-a-War 101. Seriously, what are you on about?
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 09 May 2007 09:32 AM
quote: Originally posted by riptide: >The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan had almost precisely the same objective: insure that their chosen government had control over all of Afghanistan by wiping out Islamic oppositionists.Jeff, the Mujaheeden are not the Taliban. One was a pan-Afghan resistance movement and the other is a Pakistan-inspired Wahabbi force. I certainly agree that NATO (as currently engaged) will never push out the Taliban, and that this is helping no one. As to naive, I watched Ian Paisley have tea with IRA commanders yesterday as part of peace in Northern Ireland. Who'ld have thunk it!
Boy is that ever a rewriting of history. Pan Afghan resistance movement. LOL You mean American backed terrorists trying to destablize the central government of Afghanistan because it was backed by the Soviets. Gee isn't language a wonderful thing?As I've said before the central government of Afghanistan has never actually controlled the whgole of the country. The King allowed the feudal lords to control the regions and he controlled Kabul as neutral ground for the lords. When the soviet backed government threw out the corrupt government they were met with resistance from the feudal lords and the Americans just as it did in Latin America and other places armed and trained murderers to defeat the leftist government. The Taliban remember were originally greated as heroes precisely because the Northern Alliance was so brutal to the people including women. Your attempt to paint the whole of the resistance movement in Afghanistan as foreign is just imperialist propaganda. They are brutal murderers yes but so are our supposed allies and the longer we stay and prop up a corrupt brutal regime the more the regular people who just want peace will see us as part of the problem not part of the solution. The only solution is for the government to open up peace talks and for the foreign troops (NATO) to go home.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 09 May 2007 09:35 AM
quote: Unless you think that girl's schooling is a meaningless detail, which I'm sure you don't
Huzzaahh! Everyone, drink a shot. Here's the game: every time an apologist for crusader aggression and atrocity brings up a propaganda talking point, down a shot of tequila or good ole Canadian rye whiskey. quote: Jeff, the Mujaheeden are not the Taliban.
Your right. One of those are Freedom Fighters, the other Terrorist. Doesn't matter which is which. In a couple of years, they'll switch over again.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 09:54 AM
>LOL You mean American backed terrorists trying to destablize the central government of Afghanistan because it was backed by the Soviets. The Mujaheeden rose up _before_ getting any outside support. Read Charlie Wilson's War. It took years for the US to begin supporting the Muj. And as you say "feudal lords" from many parts of the country rose up. So yes: pan-afghan resistance.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 09 May 2007 11:26 AM
>This is why it is often said that the Taliban are a Pashtun nationalist movement.That's what I'm saying: Taliban are basically a regional group whereas the Muj came from many parts of Afghanistan. You're right that "pan-Afghan" is a stretch -- let's say "broadly-based Afghan resistance" instead.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 09 May 2007 01:21 PM
I can't say that I speak on behalf of the Afghan people, because I think they have all sorts of different views. Some support Karzai, and others don't.The point is that ENOUGH of them don't want infidels in their country, and so the war against them will be enddless. Then, I try to think about Canadian people. IU try to ask how much treasure is being pumped into Afghanistan, and how many people in Canada have to do without. If the total cost of the war is $4,000,000,000.00 as the Defence Minister says, how many schools would that build? How many young people could be given a scholarship to attend university? People who support the Afghan war have to show that the money is BETTER spent there than here.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 09 May 2007 02:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
If the total cost of the war is $4,000,000,000.00 as the Defence Minister says, how many schools would that build? How many young people could be given a scholarship to attend university? People who support the Afghan war have to show that the money is BETTER spent there than here.
Jeff
I agree, we should look after Canadians here at home first before sending money and aid to other nations.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Elysium
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14099
|
posted 09 May 2007 02:49 PM
I'm completely confused with this thread.So the 'real' Taliban supports human and women's rights??? If not, which side is? And who destroyed the Buddha statues and forced women into Burquas? Those that have committed those atrocities are the ones that should be punished. Personally, I'm wary towards the Afghan system of tribalism. It has caused nothing but human rights violations, and should not be supported. Remember this sentence: The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 09 May 2007 04:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Elysium: Those that have committed those atrocities are the ones that should be punished.
Yes, but not by you, or me, or other Canadians. It is none of our business. Would you feel good about NATO (or China or the U.S.) invading Canada, installing a puppet regime loyal to foreigners and warlords, bombing us into oblivion, and militarily occupying us for years on end if we: 1. Committed genocide against indigenous inhabitants and kept their descendants impoverished and underprivileged; 2. Destroyed cultural landmarks; 3. Destroyed old growth forest for profit; 4. Had sodomy in the Criminal Code; 5. Arrested hundreds of people without charge on suspicion of "apprehended insurrection", but really because they promoted nationalism; 6. Banned same-sex marriage; 7. Criminalized abortion; 8. Etc. Or, do you think Canadians should be left to sort out those problems by themselves? I'm sure you feel very superior to these "primitive" people who blow up Buddhas. Maybe you are. Maybe you're not. But one thing for sure - you're not one of them. So keep your guns out of their affairs. Otherwise, you never know who will declare themselves morally superior to you, and come and enslave and kill you for your own good.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 09 May 2007 09:59 PM
quote: give me a break. You can do better than that.
I didn't make myself clear. I mean, no corporate media will ever admit that NATO uses terror in Afghanistan no differently than the Taliban. The media's narrative allows no deviation from the script that the west's intentions are unquestionably noble, even if that nobility has tragic effects. But this is inverted: the tragedy is presented as ours, and the dead civilians are to be blamed for their own deaths. The Crusader armies kill civilians the same way we euthanize unwanted pets; regrettable, but necessary. Afghans are unworthy victims, messing up the war pimp's infantile Boy's Life fantasy.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 10 May 2007 05:10 AM
unionist says: In this war, I stand proudly on the side of the Afghan people who are fighting to crush and expel the invaders and their puppets. So do you support the aims and methods of the Taliban? In case you've forgotten the babble definition of progressive is: "rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist and pro-labour stance." The Taliban stand for none of this.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 09:27 AM
quote: Originally posted by riptide: So do you support the aims and methods of the Taliban?
Guess. quote: In case you've forgotten the babble definition of progressive is: "rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist and pro-labour stance."The Taliban stand for none of this.
You're right! Any Taliban that signs up for babble will have to watch their step.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 10 May 2007 10:21 AM
Well from this, "I stand proudly on the side of the Afghan people who are fighting to crush and expel the invaders and their puppets" I would have to assume you do support the Taliban. They are Afghan fighting to "crush" invaders and "puppets". Your statement was not qualified in any way, and appeared in a thread about a NATO - Taliban battle. Am I right or wrong?
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 10 May 2007 10:37 AM
Obviously it would not be progressive in any serious way to support the Taleban.But imposing modernity on a tribal society is what the Soviets tried, and what most of us opposed. At that time, the idea was that Soviet troops didn't "belong" in Afghanistan. I don't think Canadian troops have any closer affinity with Afghanistan than the Soviets did. But even if every Afghan supported Canadian troops there, I would still see it as a misuse of our tax monies. I would rather that Canadians get the schools and health care, and that the weapons budget be converted to subsidizing daycare or mass transit.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 10 May 2007 10:52 AM
>But imposing modernity on a tribal society is what the Soviets tried, and what most of us opposed.Well said. I'm for self-determination by the Afghans, which unfortunately is the opposite of Taliban ideology which believes God trumps democracy (not to mention human right, etc): The head of the Taliban said this: "Sharia does not allow politics or political parties." Life under the Taliban was imposed. Here's a sample edict: "banning a variety of things and activities: music, beard shaving, keeping of pigeons, kite flying, displaying of pictures or portraits, western hairstyles, music and dancing at weddings, gambling, "sorcery," and not praying at prayer times. Women in particular were restricted from wearing "Iranian burqa" (which was not sufficiently complete in its covering) or "stimulating and attractive" clothing, from taking a taxi without a "close male relative," washing clothes in streams, or having their measurements taken by tailors" Taliban impose _their_ views on everyone. So it puzzles me to see "progressives" wishing for a situation (NATO withdrawl) that will most likely lead to resumption of Taliban rule.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 11:00 AM
quote: Originally posted by riptide:
I would have to assume you do support the Taliban.Am I right or wrong?
Keep guessing.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 10 May 2007 11:04 AM
quote: Originally posted by riptide: Well from this, "I stand proudly on the side of the Afghan people who are fighting to crush and expel the invaders and their puppets" I would have to assume you do support the Taliban. They are Afghan fighting to "crush" invaders and "puppets". Your statement was not qualified in any way, and appeared in a thread about a NATO - Taliban battle. Am I right or wrong?
You are wrong and insulting. I don't support the Taliban or the feudal lord/Northern Alliance government because they are both brutal and don't respect human rights. There is no either or in that proposition. Any foreign troops in that country supporting either side need to withdraw immediately. As a Canadian I do not care to debate which of the sides is the least of the evils, I don't support evil regimes full stop.Get our troops out and start pumping money in to NGO's who have the contacts on the ground with non-combatants seeking peace.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 10 May 2007 11:04 AM
Hi, moderator here.This: quote: Originally posted by riptide: Well from this, "I stand proudly on the side of the Afghan people who are fighting to crush and expel the invaders and their puppets" I would have to assume you do support the Taliban.
is trolling. Cut it out, or find another forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 11:09 AM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: I don't think Canadian troops have any closer affinity with Afghanistan than the Soviets did.
You're correct, jeff - and if two vicious aggressors could be rated on a scale (!), Canada's "affinity" is even less: 1. We don't border Afghanistan, hence no geopolitical "security" excuse. 2. We didn't send troops to defend an existing regime against an insurgency fueled by foreign forces - in fact, we installed one. Still, that's all minor. Both Canadians and Soviets (and of course the U.S. and others) were overflowing with moral and cultural superiority, so much that it allowed them to justify (in their own confused brains) occupation and slaughter aimed at imposing their "civilization" on "lesser tribal types". Nope. Never worked, never will. As for those who squeal from afar about the evil Taliban and the poor women and who keep sending troops and planes and tanks and guns and markets for opium: Complicity in war crimes is not nice. One day, when the victims gain enough strength, it will even lead to prosecution.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 10 May 2007 11:19 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
You are wrong and insulting. I don't support the Taliban or the feudal lord/Northern Alliance government because they are both brutal and don't respect human rights. There is no either or in that proposition. Any foreign troops in that country supporting either side need to withdraw immediately. As a Canadian I do not care to debate which of the sides is the least of the evils, I don't support evil regimes full stop.Get our troops out and start pumping money in to NGO's who have the contacts on the ground with non-combatants seeking peace.
Hear-hear! The U.S. shadow government and military have propped up 36 brutal right-wing dictatorships in the last century. And the CIA was behind the attempted overthrow of two democratically-elected leaders in this hemisphere in this decade. Jean Bertrand Aristide is still more popular in his country than either of our two old line autocratic parties in Canada in comparing election results.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 10 May 2007 11:37 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
You're correct, jeff - and if two vicious aggressors could be rated on a scale (!), Canada's "affinity" is even less:
The Soviet-backed PDPA government stood alone against western aided proxy fighters and mujahiedeen from 1989 to 1992. When the Soviets pulled out in 1989, the most ruthless of mercenaries and warring factions aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia, Pakistani ISI and American CIA, continued tearing Afghanistan apart from stern to stem and producing millions of refugees who fled to surrounding countries where many still live today. NATO stood down while this carnage took place over two and half years, and western news agencies were silenced as the CIA stepped up aid and weapons supplies directly to the militias and mercenary armies. The PDPA men and women's auxiliary and army actually defeated mujihadden at Jalalabad. They could not defend against rockets raining down on Kabul however. The Saudi and US-backed mercenaries celebrated in 1992 by raping and hanging women upside down and shooting them to death for challenging a distorted view of Islam as they did in 1996 and will do so again when NATO finally pulls out. One of the mujahideen leaders, Ahmed Shah Massoud, pledged allegiance to Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and was murdered for it. Yes, it's not our side of the planet for imperialist meddling. Let NATO forces pull out of Afghanistan today, and we'll observe how long Karzai's government is worth defending since Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan has proliferated through the 1980's and continuing today. The rise of militant Islam in Central Asia should no longer be considered the western world's pet project. [ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 10 May 2007 11:59 AM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical: Keep in mind, the government of South Vietnam lasted just as long after the U.S. quit that country.
But the U.S. had stepped up aid and weapons and was waging a proxy war against the NVA via Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. The doctor and the madman bombed Cambodia, Viet Nam and Laos to smithereens with ordnance and chemical weapons. Ho Chi Minh didn't really focus the attack on S. Vietnam for some years because they were still pre-occupied with proxy war in the North and along the border with Cambodia. The CIA and China aided and abetted Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge against the NVA. The Vietnamese army were still ferreting out khmer Rouge mercenaries from the jungles inside their border in relatively recent times. Different scenario altogether. quote: . . . by Al-Qaeda and or the Taliban - and for reasons completely unrelated to his relationship with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
How do you know this ?. The CIA cutoff funding to Massound "the Lion of Panjshir" in 1992 when he declared war on the Taliban. The US ambassador at the time suggested Massoud simply surrender to the Taliban.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 10 May 2007 12:03 PM
>I don't support the Taliban or the feudal lord/Northern Alliance government because they are both brutal and don't respect human rights. Good. me too. >There is no either or in that proposition. Any foreign troops in that country supporting either side need to withdraw immediately. Shouldn't this decision be up to the UN-recognized government? If they want NATO to leave, then by all means let's split.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 10 May 2007 12:16 PM
quote: 'The people who bombed us are bad guys' Survivors of U.S. air strike that killed 21 Afghan civilians bring their wounded en masse to nearby military base GRAEME SMITH From Thursday's Globe and Mail May 10, 2007 at 3:35 AM EDT SANGIN DISTRICT, Afghanistan — Bleeding and moaning softly, dozens of injured women and children fled the fighting in a northern valley of Helmand province Wednesday after a night of U.S. air strikes that killed an estimated 21 civilians. Their stories of terror amid thunderous attacks from the sky will add to the pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has recently grown more strident in his protests against civilian deaths inflicted by foreign troops. Rising concern about civilian casualties was also seen as a factor behind a law proposed by Afghanistan's Senate this week calling for talks with Taliban insurgents and urging international forces to halt their operations in the country unless attacked. A grim tally emerged as angry villagers brought their injured and dead to Forward Operating Base Robinson, an outpost shared by Canadian, British, and U.S. troops. There were seven women, three men and two children among the dead; five women, five men and 15 children were injured. .................... As in many such cases, the ordinary Afghans caught in the latest incident say they feel trapped between warring factions. Rahmatullah said he hasn't been able to attend classes since the Taliban visited his school a year ago and cut the heads off four students. Yesterday morning, he said he saw 12 of his neighbours lying dead and a girl with her foot blown off by the foreigners' bombs. Both sides are brutal, he said.
Could the govt. of Afghanistan be any more clear that they want the aerial bombardment to stop and talks with the Taliban to start? No, they're not calling for NATO withdrawal, yet. The former NA and Taliban warlords in Karzai's government like the colour of all of our "reconstruction" money.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 10 May 2007 12:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by Free_Radical:
You never found it at all suspicious that Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance and the last effective opponent of the Taliban's rule, was killed by suicide bombers on the eve of the 11 September attacks?
Not at all. I think al Qaeda is a proxy arm of the CIA and Pakistani ISI. Most of the Pakistani army is said to be sympathetic to the Taliban. A CBC news report last year said Pakistani army routinely wave Taliban fighters past checkpoints along the khyber Pass into Afghanistan, as it was in the 1980's when General Zia ul Haq presided over an illegitimate militia government. Reagan stepped up aid and weapons to the CIA and Saudi Arabian backed proxy mercenaries using Pakistan as a conduit. After 1992, the CIA began bypassing Pakistan in favour of aiding mercenaries and the most ruthless of mujahideen directly, about a half-billion dollars per year apiece as it was the 1980's. Massoud saw what was happening and switched allegiances. Massoud, a Tajik mujahideen leader, curried favour among mujahideen throughout the stani nations as well as the governments of Iran, India, China and Russia. And western news agencies from Pakistan westward began referring to the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan as simply "The Northern Alliance" in order to understate Massoud's support in the region. It was part of the propaganda. [ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 12:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by riptide: Shouldn't this decision be up to the UN-recognized government? If they want NATO to leave, then by all means let's split.
Don't you mean: "If they want NATO to leave, then by all means we dump them and install a different regime?" Lost your script?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 10 May 2007 12:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by riptide: >I don't support the Taliban or the feudal lord/Northern Alliance government because they are both brutal and don't respect human rights. Good. me too. >There is no either or in that proposition. Any foreign troops in that country supporting either side need to withdraw immediately. Shouldn't this decision be up to the UN-recognized government? If they want NATO to leave, then by all means let's split.
Absolutely not. Where Canadian troops should be is up to the democratically elected government of Canada not a brutal regime headed by an American puppet. The UN recognizes many governments that I would not want our troops propping up.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 10 May 2007 12:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
You're correct. If Karzai and his thugs wanted the killing to stop, they could ask the killers to leave. But they love the power and the money, and they value their skins. The memory of Najibullah must be ever fresh and present in their nightmares.
I think NATO would miraculously ferret him out of the country if at some point he and his ministers were to seek assylum within the UN compound. The west and NATO turned their backs on the carnage that took place from 1989 to 1992 when the militia proxies dragged Najibullah from a UN compound and beat him to death. Millions of refugees fled the country as rockets rained down on Afghan cities. There were also said to be several hundred al Qaeda and their families rescued from the hands of defeat to Northern Alliance during the US war with the Taliban. And there was mention of some "prominent" al Qaeda leaders rescued by the emergency airlift. General Musharraf mentioned Rumsfeld as the one who ok'd the rescue operation. How U.S. destroyed progressive secular forces in Afghanistan U.S. Policy Has Betrayed Afghan Women for 20 Years [ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 10 May 2007 01:59 PM
>Absolutely not. Where Canadian troops should be is up to the democratically elected government of Canada not a brutal regime headed by an American puppet. The UN recognizes many governments that I would not want our troops propping up.The interntional community recognizes the current Afghan government as legitimate. It is not brutal. But don't believe me. People vote with their feet. 4 millionrefugees fled during Soviet and Taliban rule. The vast majority have returned and are staying. So they obviously disagree with you.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
muggles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10070
|
posted 10 May 2007 02:33 PM
riptide: quote: The interntional community recognizes the current Afghan government as legitimate. It is not brutal.
This Magazine gets it wrong on AfghanistanThe US State Department's Afghanistan Country Report on Human Rights (2005) found "Afghanistan's human rights record remained poor", citing "extrajudicial killings and torture" by government forces and warlords. The UN Development Fund for Women similarly notes that "Afghan women continue to be among the worst-off in the world, especially in measures of health, poverty, deprivation of rights and protection against violence" (UNIFEM, Aug 14/06). And Amnesty International reports that "Violence against women and girls in Afghanistan is pervasive"... quote: But don't believe me. People vote with their feet. 4 millionrefugees fled during Soviet and Taliban rule. The vast majority have returned and are staying. So they obviously disagree with you.
If you had been paying attention to the latest news from Afghanistan, you may have read how Iran recently decided to kick out a large number of refugees. And at last count there are still millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan - where they are creating problems for the status quo. But I doubt you'd concede that these refugees "obviously disagree with you".
From: Powell River, BC | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 02:57 PM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Absolutely not. Where Canadian troops should be is up to the democratically elected government of Canada not a brutal regime headed by an American puppet. The UN recognizes many governments that I would not want our troops propping up.
The UN recognizes the puppet regime in Iraq. I wonder whether they favour continued U.S. occupation? When a pro-U.S. troll tries to "cross-examine" progressive posters on babble, the appropriate response is ridicule.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 10 May 2007 06:05 PM
>The US State Department's Afghanistan Country Report on Human Rights (2005) found "Afghanistan's human rights record remained poor",The valid question is whether conditions now are better in Afghanistan than before 2001. For most of the country they are. >refugees. And at last count there are still millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan Millions? Please provde proof. Here's what 2006 UN data says: there were 832,000 Afghan refugees. My point is that the vast majority have returned; proof that Afghans themselves think things are better. In Iraq on the other hand people are currently leaving because it's so bad.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 10 May 2007 06:16 PM
>The UN recognizes the puppet regime in Iraq. I wonder whether they favour continued U.S. occupation?12 million Iraqis voted for the current government. 8 millions Afghans voted in their election. Human Rights Watch reported "Everyone was relieved that elections proceeded so smoothly, with little violence from warlords, and less than expected disruption by the Taliban and other anti-government forces. There is no question these are major achievements for the people of Afghanistan, as well as for the election authorities here." Support for self-determination is a good thing. As is honouring the first election in a country's history. "More significantly, though, the farmlands surrounding this road are now green again, with vendors every few meters selling beautiful, luscious green grapes that are a tonic after a day of dusty interviewing. In 2002, this area was entirely denuded of people, and its once (and currently) ample orchards and vineyards cut down to burnt out stumps by the Taliban as punishment for the area´s support of anti-Taliban forces (and predilection for pressing grapes into wine)."
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 10 May 2007 07:16 PM
riptide, I'm afraid your information on refugees is a little dated. Things move quickly in a war zone....Arthur Kent was recently interviewed on The Hour by George Stroumboulopoulos. Kent has covered Afghanistan for some 25 years and was, initially, a proponent of Canada's engagement there. Recently he said the best and brightest in Afghanistan, many returned from exile, are contacting him on the best way to get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Kent puts it down to NATO air strikes and corrupt Karzai officials smothering democracy -- many of the people he works with are in media. E. Margolis and K. Gannon, both 30 veterans of Afghanistan, say much the same thing. Try Kent's site, you might like it. And welcome to babble.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 11 May 2007 02:39 AM
>riptide, I'm afraid your information on refugees is a little dated. Things move quickly in a war zone....Very possibly. I don't doubt that many of the "best and brightest" want to leave Afghanistan. It's bad there. The question is whether it is worse than before. As Fidel says, 6 million refugees left. I still stand by the statement that the vast majority have returned. And as skyreporter says: "While polls over the past year have shown that an overwhelming majority of Afghans welcome assistance in fighting off the Taliban and al Qaeda, public protests have grown in recent weeks in response to the mounting civilian death toll. Twenty-one people are alleged to have been killed in a U.S. air strike Wednesday in Helmand province." So it appears that ISAF's presence, and fighting Taliban, are the what the majority want. Of course, if the US keeps dropping bombs on civilian houses, that feeling may not last long.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391
|
posted 11 May 2007 03:47 AM
Is "ORPHANIZATION" a word ? I sure hope it is, or should be (heck, 1000's of new words enter the big Dictionary every year, so there is a creative process going on, it's not 100% stale, stagnant and complete).What about the phrase, "Waves Of Repurcussive Orphanization" ? Is that acceptable in the mainstraem media ? Likely not. Let's numerically nuance this "kill all the bad guys" strategy of the American role, which was handed over, hot-potato style, to Canadian soldiers (when we, Canada, were not actually attacked on 911, and [many/most] American forces had to depart in order to aid Rumsfeldian Iraq-Smashing). Y'see, when you launch an attack via Rocket Launcher, or any other device, against who you think is DEFINITELY a "criminal terrorist", or "Islamofascist", you suffer a percentile modifier for possible error.Let's conservatively say, 10%.So you launch 1000 attacks / day.That's 100 misses.
Well, eventually your imperfectly defined target and IMPERFECT MECHANICAL TARGETTING, is going to hit an innocent civilian.And then what happens ? You create a massive amount of resentment to the victim's family, causing a family catastrophe.They don't have much over there, but you've just violently obliterated and massacred a child, sibling, parent or other relative, what little they do have is destroyed. Heck, even if you successfully kill a criminal terrorist or "islamofascist", do you really think they have no relatives ? Well they do, and children of bad guys still love their bad guy parents. Point is, all they are doing numerically, ultimately, is fostering a breeding ground for extreme resentment and future terroristic tendencies (which grow from the resentment forcefully instilled by violent attacks, justified or not). --------------------------------------------- I have to concur with Vegan Pacifist Social Democrat Dennis Kucinich,(the guy who launched the Bush impeachment papers), and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders (the hero from Vermont), on this one folks.I also have to concur with Sean Penn.Both of whom said some truly great things regarding the current war issues on "Real Time" with Bill Maher (HBO).They (middle-eastern) folks don't want us there, as aggressive occupiers.They never did and never will.And killing all those who don't want us there is insanely oblivious and genocidal.The inevitable long-term calculation, if the current trend of inevetible and exponentially reciprocated attacks continue, is an increase in terroristic tendencies on BOTH sides.That means the good guys and the bad guys, both of whom think the other is the moral opposite of himself, perpetuate the cycle in a blindly righteous manner.
Killing begets killing, and it simply cyclically self-exacerbates as witnessed previously in Ireland and continuously with the Israel-Palestine conflict. ----------------------------------------------- Solution ? Only an imperfect C+/B- one exists.At best.
Divide up the country, let the various allegiances find their turf, give fractioned regional power bases, inclusive to all respective religious and community figures, and get the hell out of there.We (Canada) were never attacked by Afghan-Based militants, so what are we doing there ? No, I do not accept circular and authoritarian "NATO said so" arguments, or oblivious "some Canadians died in the towers" fallacies and obfuscations. There's only 1 country who is responsible for military operations Afghanistan, and it's the US.But apparently, they got pre-occupied in a close but different country, with pin-the-tail-on-the-camel, in an engineered catastrophe of imperialistic and manipulative proportions.If they don't have enough troops, they can't pass the Uncle Sam buck on to us for Afghanistan duties, they have only 1 option : the draft. We'd then have the obligation to provide BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND RESOURCED support re : non-military operations for food, clothing, shelter, and later societal infrastructure, and everything they ask for UNDER THE CONDITION THEY RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS, and they will, if we do.The most basic right is to be free from the initiation of violent physical force.Inalienable Universal Human Rights 101. Iraq and Afghanistan are currently at an F rating, in terms of stability, safety, health, rights, happiness, security, opportunity and many other things we take for granted.
But from a distance, some can say ..."let the cycle of death & destruction continue until we prevail...", but folks, honestly, that is murderous & delusional insanity without an ounce of compassion or common-sense. I'll take a C-, C+ or B- scenario any day, over what we have there now.But sometimes programmed agendas (via extensive media indoctrination and political monopolies) paralyze entire populations and the paradigm can't shift out of the destructive and blind insanity... But humanitarians and pacifists will try.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 11 May 2007 10:47 AM
quote: My point is that the vast majority have returned; proof that Afghans themselves think things are better.
You have obviously never been a refugee, or visited a refugee camp. People who leave their country during a time of war are often given UN supported housing for a time, but as soon as the war lessens, they are "encouraged" to return. This encouragement is often pushed along by the "host" country, and its policies, which may or may not wish to make use of millions of displaced people. The number of refugees who return home may tell you whether their home city is being bombed or not, but not anything more significant about whether they actually want to be there.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
riptide
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14143
|
posted 11 May 2007 01:27 PM
>This report says there are over two million Afghan's living in Balochistan. Excellent -- better than my research. However this report says "since the launch of UNHCR’s voluntary repatriation effort in March 2002, close to three million Afghans have returned to their homeland. The refugee agency’s planning figure for Afghan returns in 2007 is 250,000 from Pakistan and Iran, the primary host countries of the Afghan diaspora." The 2.5 million figure you cite are people with no intention of returning, citing security concerns. And as Human Rights Watch reports (above on this thread) civilan deaths are primarily by the Taliban these days. Jeff, you're right I know little first hand about refugee-ing. But refugee flows are a good measure of insecurity. Look at Darfur with huge numbers of internally displaced refugees, living in camps. This is not happening in Afghanistan. unionist, we certainly disagree. I especially think that looking at the overall situation is important before reaching a judgement. You call this hijacking. Final thought: siren's link to "KARZAI REGIME COVERS UP AND CRACKS DOWN" makes my point in a very Machluhan-esqe way. It shows (a) a woman who (b) is a member of the Afghan gov't, (c) criticizing the government to a western news crew. None of these things would have happened under the previous government.
From: ottawa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 12 May 2007 05:00 AM
I spent some time last weekend spellunking at Nato and Afghan war related sites.One question that everyone seems to ignore is why Canada is suffering a disproportionate amount of casualties. An obvious answer is that Canadian troops are in the front lines. We have to be, because many of our so called allies just want to guard airports, or sit around in relatively safe Kabul. But that's not the whole reason, and that's the question that should be put to Hillier. Why troops under his command are suffering a high casualty rate. It's a mess and it's going to get messier. At least in the Boer War, Canada had the good sense to withdraw most of it's troops before the British decided to put women and children in consentration camps to die of typhus and cholera. Rule Britania. Based on historical accounts of wars for the last, oh, say five thousand years, it would be increadible to believe that villages and civillians are not being targeted by Nato countries for retaliation for guerilla attacks. Such retaliations are hardly Nazi specific. They are war specific, and no nation, no soldiers-- including Canada and Canadian soldiers are imune from the dynamics that cause atrocities. On the day now known as "9/11" our ally to the south was attacked. There was good evidence to support that the then Afghan government was complicit in that attack, and was harbouring the leadership of those attackers. The United States, with help, if memory serves, from Canada's JF2, saw to it that this regime was toppled. That, and a warning that we'd be back to do the same if the next government returned to the previous governments ways, should have been the end of things. Now, we are just watching a clusterfuck unfold before our eyes.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 12 May 2007 05:53 AM
Tommy PaineHave you taken the difference in tactics being used in Kandahar province between US and Canadian Forces? Have you taken into account if the dead are regular or reserve forces members? Have you taken into account where both forces have operated and where their bases are? Have you compared the occupational roles of dead soldiers (infantry vs support trades) between nations and how they have been killed (IED vs small arms fire)? Have you compared the type of equipment used between forces? The British and Americans have lost a number of soldiers because they are still driving around in unarmoured vehicles. If you compare infantry loses between British and Canadian Forces you will see that the British have lost a higher percentage of infantry compared to Canadians. Why is there a difference? Is it because a lack of training, supporting elements (aircraft, supply system), location of forces? Maybe we should start a separate thread on this topic instead of derailing this almost closed thread?
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 12 May 2007 06:37 AM
Well, I thought the thread had kinda drifted long before I got here.The differences you bring up are not determinable from here. And I doubt even being on the ground in Afghanistan would give one a comprehensive knowledge of everything all at once to do an empirical analysis. What I did do was mentally eliminate casualties due to accidents. And yes, it does seem the British and Americans and Canadians are taking a disproportionate amount of casualties. Perhaps the British more. If I was British, maybe I'd be asking the British General about his casualty rates. But, if Hillier wants to wade in an accuse people of being somehow disloyal Canadians for asking questions on torture, right off the Tory talking points page, then maybe it's time he was thrown some hard questions. What I want, Webgear, is to get Canadian troops out of this bad situation. Guys like you are going to do more heavy lifting because arms dealing nations like Germany and Belgium-- who accused Canada of not carrying thier wieght in terms of GDP spent on Military hardware not that long ago, won't send their soldiers in harm's way. They won't live up to their duty as allies. Instead, the Germans want to rent us tanks they should be giving us. We are being hosed, played for suckers. And it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that Canadian soldiers are losing life and limb because many of our European allies are cowards. From Paardeburg to the Medak Pocket, how many bayonetts are we going to take in the back from our allies before we stand up and say that enough Canadian blood has been shed on their behalf that it's time they stepped up to the plate? Man, we're patsies.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 12 May 2007 07:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:Man, we're patsies.
I agree. On this issue and others. [ 12 May 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 12 May 2007 10:03 AM
quote: On the day now known as "9/11" our ally to the south was attacked. There was good evidence to support that the then Afghan government was complicit in that attack, and was harbouring the leadership of those attackers.
Where was that evidence? Even if that were true, Canada still has no right to invade and occupy the place. Canada was not attacked. I don't know why this isn't said again and again: Afghanistan did not attack Canada. Afghanistan did not attack the US, for that matter. Afghanistan did, however, offer to extradite OBL to the US if they (like all civilized nations seeking to extradite a suspected criminal) provide evidence of OBL's involvement. The US refused, and used that as an excuse to exercise long-standing invasion plans. quote: The United States, with help, if memory serves, from Canada's JF2, saw to it that this regime was toppled.
Not only against international law, but the involvement of the Prime Minister's private, secret death squad in that crime is a violation of any democratic principle we may claim to have. JTF2 is a terrorist organization, and must be disbanded and its members' and political masters' activities subject to public review and possible criminal prosecution for war crimes. Tommy, I don't understand why you are falling for the "we do all the hard work while those lazy Europeans sit on their asses" talking point. The fact is, the Germans aren't stupid. They know Afghanistan is a lost war, and aren't about to sacrifice their own conscripts for George Fucking Bush. I think European sticking it to us is hilarious. If the Canadian military and government are too goddamn stupid to figure out that they cannot win, then they'll learn the hard way. And selling us their used tanks; too funny. Who says Germans have no sense of humour?
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|