quote:

---

Hundreds of Taliban prisoners freed after daring operation

Jun 13, 2008 07:36 PM

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan–Hundreds of pro-Taliban militants spilled freely into the streets of Kandahar city tonight when a brazen insurgent attack blew down the walls of the prison at the heart of Canada's detainee scandal.

A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the multi-pronged assault that saw Sarposa prison pounded with an explosives-laden tanker truck, rockets and suicide bombers.

Canadian troops rushed across town from their base at Kandahar Airfield to secure the area around the prison, where the inmate population included insurgents captured by NATO soldiers.

Just months ago, the Canadian government resumed transferring prisoners to Sarposa prison after suspending the transfers for several months because of documented detainee abuse there by Afghan officials.

The devastating and co-ordinated attack was reported to have killed an unspecified number of police officers. The facility is said to be virtually empty after the attack, and international forces were searching for inmates they had captured earlier.

"We have troops on the scene right now," Canadian military spokesman Maj. Jay Janzen told reporters at Kandahar Airfield, the main NATO base in the region.

"We have established a security perimeter in the vicinity of the prison."

The Taliban said 30 insurgents on motorbikes and two suicide bombers attacked the prison, used to hold both common criminals and Taliban militants.

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told The Associated Press that militants had been planning the assault for the last two months ``to release our Taliban friends."

"Today we succeeded," he said. The escaped prisoners "are safe in town and they are going to their homes."

It is a deep blow to the international coalition which has been engaged in fierce battles with insurgents in the chaotic rural areas of Kandahar province.

While Canadian soldiers have been engaged in frequent firefights in the outlying areas, Kandahar city had been considered a relatively safe haven. It was unclear how many of the escaped prisoners had taken refuge in the city and how many had fled to surrounding areas.

The attack raised another question for NATO: with Sarposa now in partial ruins, what will Canada and other countries do with any insurgents they capture?

Around the time of the attack, Kandahar Airfield was abuzz with the cheers of European soldiers taking in their continent's soccer championship on giant-screen TVs around the base.

---

Sorry but I could not resist the urge to

quote:

---

[April 27, 2007:] Garwood-Filbert says she is not naïve enough to think that cases of abuse don't happen but believes in the progress her team is making.

"It's a generational project, we're probably looking at 20 years but I think a good 5 years would probably show a significant impact," she says.

Also encouraging is the fact that jailers from rural districts are cycling through the city's prison in order to learn from their Canadian mentors.

'If we get it right in Sarposa, we have an ability to have an impact in the whole of Southern Afghanistan," Garwood-Filbert says.

---

quote:

---

A Taliban spokesman is urging Canadians to pressure their government to pull its troops out of war-torn Afghanistan.

In an interview with CBC News, Qari Yousef Ahmadi said Canadians are involved in the war only because the United States influenced them to join.

"I ask the Canadian people to ask their government to stop their destructive and inhumane mission and withdraw your troops," said Ahmadi, speaking on his cellphone from an undisclosed location in Afghanistan.

"Our war will continue as long as your occupation forces are in our land." ...

Ahmadi said if the public knew the truth about the Afghan war, they would be horrified.

He said NATO countries are hiding the true number of casualties they've had since the mission began in 2001.

He also argued that while NATO accuses the Taliban of killing more civilians than soldiers with their suicide bombing, the United States is killing even more civilians when it bombs villages and towns.

"I invite you to contact these people in the villages; you can find out for yourself," he said.

Independent Canadian military analyst Sunil Ram said some of Ahmadi's points are not completely off base. Ram said independent studies show that the American military has underestimated the number of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded.

Ram said Canada's tally of dead soldiers is accurate — a total of 85 soldiers have been killed since Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan in February, 2002.

But Ram noted that the number of wounded has never been made clear.

He also agrees that the U.S. has done widespread bombings during the mission.

"The Americans will come in and flatten a village," he said. "It's standard tactic."

---

quote:

---

"Our war will continue as long as your occupation forces are in our land." ...
Ahmadi said if the public knew the truth about the Afghan war, they would be horrified.
He said NATO countries are hiding the true number of casualties they've had since the mission began in 2001. –Qari Youssef Ahmadi as quoted

---

The prison operation gives credence to this guy. Even if the Taliban got help from Afghani staff, as suggested in Al Jazeera’s article, it says all about Afghani’s “support” to NATO’s ‘democratization’ mission.

It is reported here that nearly all of the estimated 1,150 prisoners have escaped. I suggest that those who did’nt escape would be inmates with mental illness who may have simply refused to leave for that obvious reason. (Canada’s mentoring of the prison staff must have instilled in Afghanis that it is OK to jail the mentally ill!)

[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: mahmud ]

quote:

---

A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the multi-pronged assault that saw Sarposa prison pounded with an explosives-laden tanker truck, rockets and suicide bombers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mahmud:
I suggest that those who did’nt escape would be inmates with mental illness who may have simply refused to leave for that obvious reason.

---

Maybe it was the 19 mothers who didn't want to endanger their 22 children imprisoned with them?

quote:

---

There are 19 inmates in the female wing of Sarposa and 22 children – from a newborn to preteens – their only "crime" an umbilical attachment to incarcerated mothers, nurturing-by-felon. This, for many of these youngsters, is the only life they remember, behind thick, high walls topped with razor wire.

---

Of course, according to White Christian Crusader DiManno, why would they leave the White Christian Canadian-funded prison anyway:

quote:

---

Given how Afghan women are traditionally isolated from community life, there is almost a kind of emancipation within these walls, where men don't make the rules – the matron Rahim Bebe lives on the premises with them – and faces are never covered.

---

This operation by people of the "cave" as they have always been depicted by Western media put to shame NATO, its "intelligence" apparutus and its Hi Tech gadgetry.

BTW, if we are to mention horror stories, they are not the reserve of the Taliban. I can tell you many that happened here is good 'ol democratic Canada!

One time, there is this government in Canada who deemed that the poorest of the poor have too much money to spare. They sat down and said "How about we cut 22% of their misery allowance and give the money to our well heeled friends who facilitated our electio?" Having said that, they listened if there is any opposition from the good ol' kind and fair-minded Canadian citizenry. A very weak, barely audible whimper was heard. "Listen! Listen! Just the "freeloaders" and a few supporters, all totally irrelevant" they said.

The allowances were cut and the ravages and devastations were never even considered worth monitoring.

I have other stories too. Suffice to say that you may be aware of some "apology" these last days.

Finally, al-Qa'bong, I can assure you that I will be so proud my chest would burst if Canada had 2 or three suicide-commandos à la Taliban, ready to give their lives in order to free Canada should any foreign power forcefully barge into our territory.

[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: mahmud ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I don't see them as liberators of the Afghans, any more than I see Canadians as Afghanistan's liberators.

---

[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]Ya, things really aren't the same in Afghanistan and Pakistan today compared with the period before USSA/UK/Saudis aided and abetted the Talibanization of those two countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mahmud:
[QB]Nobody ever claimed that the Taliban are angels. What we are talking about here, al-Qa'bong, is their determination to cleanse their country from foreign occupation. And that is laudable.

---

Considering that Taliban are mainly from Pakistan, they are also foreign occupiers of Afghanistan. No applaud here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanizadeh:

Considering that Taliban are mainly from Pakistan, they are also foreign occupiers of Afghanistan.

---

Troublemakers are always foreigners. The locals actually love our boys. I'm surprised those Pakistani troublemakers make any headway at all, what with all that love going on.

It's easy to spot a Taliban foreign troublemaker:

quote:

---

Wali Karzai, head of the Kandahar provincial council and also the brother of the Afghan President Hamid Karzai, suggested that the search for the escapees might prove futile.

"Honestly I don't know because this area you can walk to the other districts," he said.

"They might recapture some people but I don't know."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mahmud:

Finally, al-Qa'bong, I can assure you that I will be so proud my chest would burst if Canada had 2 or three suicide-commandos à la Taliban, ready to give their lives in order to free Canada should any foreign power forcefully barge into our territory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

Suicide bombing - the new face of progressive politics? I certainly think so.

---

Oh, don't you worry, Pope Bull. The defenders of Christian civilization in Afghanistan have got all the criminals locked up, every single one of them - under house arrest in fact:

quote:

---

A state of emergency was declared in the city, the second biggest in the country, after the attack on Friday night. All residents were ordered to stay in their homes.

---

1. Massive collateral damage? Check
2. Directed political violence? Check
3. Use of rape as means of coercion? Check
4. Mass executions? Check
5. Mass imprisonment? Check
6. Directed violence against various ethnicities and people outside of the status-quo/majority? Check

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
My wish is for the Canadian forces to leave, or surrender, or be routed - their choice (for the time being). Likewise with NATO and the U.S., but Canada first of all. Who takes power after is none of your business, only that of the Afghan people. If it's the Taliban, so be it - none of your business. It wasn't your business before October 2001, and it doesn't become your business seven years later.

Of course, if you supported the invasion in the first place, to save the Afghan people from their evil government, then I guess I have to apologize for even talking to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

Not to me. Just the victims of the force you are lending your voice to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Self-righteous bullshit, my friend. The Afghan people can look after themselves, and believe me they will. They don't need you to rescue their "victims".

---

Nope, they just need external forces to kill them. People that you are supporting. A sort of International Brigade, with an ideology directed mostly towards oppression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

Nope, they just need external forces to kill them. People that you are supporting. A sort of International Brigade, with an ideology directed mostly towards oppression.

But you are comfortable with that? So long as Canada and NATO leaves?

---

Absolutely. I supported the Afghans when they were kicking the ass of the Soviet Crusaders, and I support them now when they are disturbing your sleep and that of the U.S.-led Crusaders.

Your predecessors said the "south" Vietnamese loved the U.S., it was just the invading "north" Vietnamese who were the problem.

They said it wasn't Canadian workers rising up after World War II, it was U.S. radicals led by Moscow.

The Winnipeg General Strike was led by foreign anarchists and Bolsheviks. What real Canadian would stand up against the millionaires?

It's not Iraqis fighting the U.S. occupiers and puppets, you know. It's Al Qaeda! No, wait, it's Iran! Oh shit... gimme a sec...

Palestinians? Ha! It's a bunch of SaudiIran-funded radicals. They used to be funded by Moscow I think. Or Nasser before that.

Can you pass me some Tylenol please?

You have discovered that prior to October 2001, Afghanistan's government was composed of "Pakistanis".

Welcome to the Land of Denial. You are the proud heir of a long line of defeated oppressors.

Oh, by the way, you're right about those cowardly suicide bombers. Just imagine, one dude blowing himself up to liberate 1,200 prisoners. These people have no appreciation for human life, the way We do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Surrounding countries would have no further reason to fund the Taliban once the foreign invaders have gone home.

---

quote:

---

1. Massive collateral damage? Check
2. Directed political violence? Check
3. Use of rape as means of coercion? Check
4. Mass executions? Check
5. Mass imprisonment? Check
6. Directed violence against various ethnicities and people outside of the status-quo/majority? Check

---

First there is the mention of suicide bombings to introduce the moral superiority of blowing people to itty-bitty bits of blood, bone, and flesh from 10,000 feet in the air or genetically poisoning, some might call it slow-genocide, with such civilized weapons as depleted uranium. Hurray! We are morally superior mass killers.

Then there is the whole white-washing of history such as when the Taliban were committing atrocities by burning schools and murdering teachers for the Americans and the British, we were celebrating them as freedom fighters. Or the fact that the Taliban rose to national prominence with popular support due the widespread rape, robberies, and murder carried out by our allies, justice for all, in Kabul.

I don't celebrate the Taliban. But this sort of mind-numbing, racist (they are worse than anything we can muster when we bloody well mustered them), BS is pathetic, sick, and more offensive than any of the other crap I've read on this site in some time except when it comes to apologizing and making excuses for the barbarity of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza and the silent, deeply cynical hypocritical complicity of western powers and so-called progressive US presidential candidates.

ETA: I'm going to take a break now as I'm obviously pissed. I just find I am less tolerant of such ignorant western chauvinist crap. Look anywhere on this planet where there is blood being shed in the most violent and vile means, and you will find the West in corporate and official capacity counting dollars and mouthing moralistic platitudes and all so we can more speedily and efficiently consume what little the planet has left while amusing ourselves with electronic games, trivial game shows, fantasy, and porn. Yeah, we are certainly the superior culture. Now get out of the way before we fucking kill you.

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think PapalBull had you reeling a bit there, unionist.

However, PB, various credible sources have stated recently, and I can't recall who they are exactly at this juncture in the AM, that the best way to stop the Taliban is to remove their raison d'etre from the premises. And that'd be NATO troops. Surrounding countries would have no further reason to fund the Taliban once the foreign invaders have gone home.

---

And I don't disagree. The NATO mission was poorly thought out and absolutely wrong. We shouldn't have intervened under the aegis of a multi-national Western force. No intervention should have occurred. Even if it were done properly, the Taliban and other extremist elements routed and Afghanistan turned into a beacon for the region of What Could Be...it still would've carried horrible ethical and moral consequences for the nations involved.

As for FM...yes, pointing out the obvious is sooooooooo racist. Pointing out the Khmer Rouge's excess? RACIST! And where am I justifying anything else that you're accusing me of? Is anything that I said about the Taliban untrue? Am I supporting the NATO intervention?

So, the Afghani government troops are barely hanging on against the Taliban with Nato assistance in their OWN country, and there are expectations they'll be more successful in Pakistan?

quote:

---

Just caught Hamid Karzai on CBCNW stating he will start sending Afghani troops into Pakistan to attack Taliban. -By Maritimesea

---

The armament business is brisk and the market has to expand before it witnesses a saturation.

Karzai at the service of his masters in Washington, as usual.

BTW, "karzai" in my native language is an obscene term for the word testicles. I have always wondered how they call him over there. I will have to call my brother and ask him.

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: mahmud ]

quote:

---

As for FM...yes, pointing out the obvious is sooooooooo racist.

---

Yes there are extremists in every society including ours. But our extremists hold power and we call the extremists in other societies moderates when they are willing accomplices or collaborators to our extremism. So just a few years ago today's extremists were our freedom fighters.

It is all bullshit. If Afghan society has problems, it is for them to work it out unless you agree some outside force should enter our nations and butcher our people in order to convert our extremists to moderates.

There can't be a truth without language and yet for some reason language is always in the employ of liars.

ETA:

quote:

---

and when the conditions are correct (and believe me, the conditions across the Islamic world are not solely the fault of evil Western Whiteys

---

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Which "surrounding countries" were "funding" the Taliban before October 2001, Fidel, when there were no foreign invaders?

---

According to Abdul Ghafoor Liwal, senior analyst with the Regional Studies Centre of Afghanistan, the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan is the work of the Pakistani ISI and military with support from the CIA.

We know that Pakistan's democracy was overthrown itself by General Zia ul Haq just prior to the U.S. meddling in Afghanistan(see Zbignew Brzezinski's admittal of U.S. meddling leading up to U.S. proxy war with Soviet-backed PDPA) Pakistan basically became an increasingly militarized country in the 1980's without writ of law. Militia groups from all over Central Asia, Turkey and as far away as NY-NY even were funded by the CIA, Saudis and British from about 1979 to 1990's after the Soviets pulled out in 1989. The CIA was said to have bypassed the ISI, as well as more moderate groups at that point, in favour of funding the most militant Islamists and drug lords directly.

The 1990's was essentially a Darwinian battle to the death with billions of dollars more aid and money funelled to the most ruthless people they could find. NATO countries turned their backs on the ensuing carnage as millions of Afghans were displaced and Afghanistan torn apart from stern to stem throughout much of the 1990's. Deobandi movement plus pre-existing feudalism equals relatively new and powerful theocratic feudalist setup in Afghanistan during the decade of the 90's.

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

And yet, since the mid-19th century right up to today, all violence in Afghanistan is directly linked to imperial wars brought to Afghanistan by evil Western Whitey. Go figure.

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

---

I don't know what "militant Islam" means, because I personally have no use for any brand of Islam (or Judaism or Christianity etc.). But it sounds to me like a pretext for armed suppression.

If the people of Afghanistan want to be "militant Muslims" or slavish devotees of Pope Natzinger or C of E dissidents or Lubavitcher Hassidim - that is just fine with me, so long as they do not attack and invade others. I get very suspicious when progressive Canadians start analyzing and critiquing the religious tendencies of the very people whom we are occupying and murdering. It cannot fail but to give grist to the mill of the murderers and occupiers.

That's why I think that analysis of the Taliban's ideology or history is about as appropriate right now as those who were talking about the crimes of various wings of the ANC when apartheid was about to fall - or those who wondered whether the NLF (called "Viet Cong" by the invading murderers of that time) were really really really ordinary Vietnamese fighters, or whether they were North Vietnamese soldiers in civvies, or paid and directed by Moscow and Beijing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You sound just like those who say "Marxism" or "socialism" or "revolution" are "foreign imports" in various countries of the world, used always to discredit people native to those countries who are fighting against colonial or imperial domination.

---

Afghanistan's revolution is said to have been the first one in recent history that began as a women's rights movement. A Marxist youth movement began with university students in 1960's Kabul. The CIA began supporting people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar(WTC bombing 1993) to assassinate Marxist leaders in Kabul during the 1970's.

And later in 1992 when Ahmed Shah Massood declared war on the Taliban, the CIA cut off his half-billion dollar a year funding. The then U.S. ambassador suggested to Massood that he simply surrender to the Taliban.

quote:

---

That's why I think that analysis of the Taliban's ideology or history is about as appropriate right now as those who were talking about the crimes of various wings of the ANC.

---

That's interesting, and I would never have thought to equate the rise of militant Islam, essentially aided and abetted by western imperialism in the 1980's-90's, with secular socialist revolutionary forces in war-torn VietNam and fascist South Africa.

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Really? I had no idea that we wrote all of the Pashtun's laws for them. How racist of me!

---

quote:

---

And yet, since the mid-19th century right up to today, all violence in Afghanistan is directly linked to imperial wars

---

Do you understand the difference between words "perpetuated" and "directly linked"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
That's interesting, and I would never have thought to equate the rise of militant Islam, essentially aided and abetted by western imperialism in the 1980's-90's, with secular socialist revolutionary forces in war-torn VietNam and fascist South Africa.

---

Fidel, don't judge other people's revolutions against tyranny. You have a tendency to do that. That's one reason it took you more than 4 years after the invasion of Afghanistan before you could bring yourself to condemn Canadian presence there - you just couldn't get past the evil ideology of the Taliban (and yeah, friend, it is evil - but so is Catholicism - and you just don't get that that doesn't matter here).

Now you're still comparing "good" reasons and "bad" reasons why oppressed people rise up against oppression. But it's the rising up that matters. Unless you see that, your opposition to the imperial invasion and occupation will never be more than lukewarm.

For us Canadians, it's getting our macho soldiers' sorry murdering asses out of there yesterday which is our duty. Not lecturing some Asian "peasants" as to how "inferior" their brand of religion is compared to our beautiful kindly charitable lily-white western ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think not all Afghan recruits to the Taliban, Pashtun or otherwise, are in it because they are dedicated to Taliban religious fundamentalism. As well as being opposed to a foreign military occupation of Afghanistan, they are being paid on a regular basis. Steady pay cheques, full bellies, and a bit of patriotism I think are winning out over dwindling support for a U.S.-backed kleptocracy.

---

Yup, there are a multiplicity of reasons, but that is how any number of extremists manage to draw the rank and file, from Hitler (not able to be Godwined because I am drawing a link to recruitment practices) to any of the other thugs of history. Then comes the indoctrination! Oh, boy, what fun it is!

And FM, in the context of this, it is pretty much the same thing. In the discourse, perpetuating the violence cycles that are natural to a land is more or less identical to being directly linked to it. Besides, you said ALL violence. I have my doubts that inter-tribal warfare and long standing ethnic issues within Afghanistan are solely the furtherance of imperialistic designs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Mind you, this debate has already proposed the good old goodness of having suicide bombers (and then arguing that I was saying that it wasn't as morally justified as some sort of JDAM) and the earnest heroism of the Taliban in all their glory and actions.

---

My people used suicide missions throughout World War II - not least of all during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - in order to inflict casualties on the enemy. Our enemies used tanks and air strikes. Who was more "heroic" there?

Can someone explain to me why we should condemn people who give their lives to blow up enemy prison guards, puppets of occupation forces, and free prisoners - many of them illegally detained fighters subject to torture and other violations of Geneva Accords?

Would it be okay if the insurgents just slaughtered the prison guards and didn't sacrifice any of their own lives?

Do you understand, Papal Bull (or do you care) what is the difference between someone who indiscriminately blows up civilians (whether via suicide or not), and someone who wipes out Afghan National Police guards?

Is there something about the suicide part that makes you jittery?

No, what I have a problem with re: suicide bombing tactics, are the fact that they are a concealed weapon developed primarily for the infliction of casualties in civilian areas. This is an interdictive approach. It forces the invaders to draw themselves deeper into the conflict in order to minimize casualties. Given the technological disparity between the occupational force and the perpetrators of the suicide tactic, this will create a necessity for an atrocity, leading to a quagmire. This creates a cycle of reprisal violence that eventually causes an issue of negative PR on the homefront of the occupational force.

Do you see why I have an issue with suicide bombing? It is a cynical and nihilistic use of human lives in order to draw a conflict to a terrible conclusion. It isn't for the relinquishment of people. It is to make their lives worse so that you create a vacuum (in terms of governmental power, and in terms of the direct area around the suicide bombing site). You're making that vacuum so that you can fill it. Not so that you can liberate the people and give them their chance at determination. It is a system to cow and dominate your targets - which are inevitably civilians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

For us Canadians, it's getting our macho soldiers' sorry murdering asses out of there yesterday which is our duty. Not lecturing some Asian "peasants" as to how "inferior" their brand of religion is compared to our beautiful kindly charitable lily-white western ones.

---

Wars are not about morality, but even without the moral argument, Canadian involvement the war in Afghanistan is highly questionable. This is a war with no clear objective, no plan, and no solid reason for Canada to be involved in. Does Canada want to assume "permanent" responsibility as the neighborhood policeman for Afghan government? If yes, is there any good argument for doing so? If not permanent, when does it end? Once all fundamentalists are dead? If that's the objective, What is the plan for achieving?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Fidel, don't judge other people's revolutions against tyranny. You have a tendency to do that. That's one reason it took you more than 4 years after the invasion of Afghanistan before you could bring yourself to condemn Canadian presence there

---

Our Liberal PM at the time didn't make it very clear to any of us exactly what our role in Afghanistan was and would become, which was to switch from peace-keeping presence in Kabul to relieving the U.S. occupation in Kandahar, S. Afghanistan where more U.S. troops were being killed at that time than any other part of the country.

As for Catholicism, I'm against forcing it on or exporting it to any country against their will.

quote:

---

"good" reasons and "bad" reasons why oppressed people rise up against oppression. But it's the rising up that matters.

---

I think Afghans want the fighting to stop and foreign invaders to go home. That's all that I can surmise for now, and I support Afghan's right not to be occupied by a foreign military.

quote:

---

For us Canadians, it's getting our macho soldiers' sorry murdering asses out of there yesterday which is our duty. Not lecturing some Asian "peasants" as to how "inferior" their brand of religion is ...

---

quote:

---

without taking the most economically deprived or gullible of your members and telling them to kill themselves.

---

I thought this was the standard recruitment practice for most military forces Last time I checked the US military was heavily drawn from the most economically deprived and under-educated segments of the population.

ETA: BTW thanks for the very interesting discussion everyone, its a good read

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by It's Me D:

I thought this was the standard recruitment practice for most military forces Last time I checked the US military was heavily drawn from the most economically deprived and under-educated segments of the population.

---

Yes! American war resisters and Canadians alike have mentioned joining the miilitary for various economic reasons. One young American mentioned signing up for Iraq after several heated discussions with his own family. He described being out of work without any good job prospects and having no health insurance. And he said going to Iraq was the biggest mistake of his young life.

It's just brilliant police work combined with effective intelligence and an occupying army with good old-fashioned dogged Canadian persistence.

The article doesn't bother mentioning whether all 250,000 residents of Kandahar are still under house arrest, as they were on Friday. Who cares about them anyway. They're all potential terrorists, is how I see it.

Oh, and good news - the danger of suicide bombings is way down now, because locals have turned in "11 suicide motorcycles".

quote:

---

Besides, you said ALL violence.

---

quote:

---

Mind you, this debate has already proposed the good old goodness of having suicide bombers (and then arguing that I was saying that it wasn't as morally justified as some sort of JDAM) and the earnest heroism of the Taliban in all their glory and actions.

---

quote:

---

No, what I have a problem with re: suicide bombing tactics, are the fact that they are a concealed weapon developed primarily for the infliction of casualties in civilian areas

---

quote:

---

Do you see why I have an issue with suicide bombing? It is a cynical and nihilistic use of human lives in order to draw a conflict to a terrible conclusion. It isn't for the relinquishment of people. It is to make their lives worse so that you create a vacuum (in terms of governmental power, and in terms of the direct area around the suicide bombing site). You're making that vacuum so that you can fill it. Not so that you can liberate the people and give them their chance at determination. It is a system to cow and dominate your targets - which are inevitably civilians.

---

quote:

---

IEDs and remotely detonated truck bombs are usually the way to achieve concrete military objectives...you know, without taking the most economically deprived or gullible of your members and telling them to kill themselves.

---

And all those who traveled down the "highway of heroes", who made the supreme sacrifice, they were never sent on a mission to die, right? It was always understood and intended that every rich, educated, and sophisticated Canadian kid in uniform would return from imperial combat in Afghanistan without a scratch, right?

[ 15 June 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Whatever became of the adage, "When in Rome, do as the Romans ... "? It would seem that she should be honouring the customs of the land she and NATO are occupying. A woman should not be in charge of a prison full of Moslem men; it's demeaning and a form of torture. It's as if Canada is telling Afghanis that their culture is inferior to Western culture; that their god is false and the christian god is true.

It's hard to determine what the US's true motive is with respect to its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and eventually Iran. If there is a Bin Laden, and if he were behind the preemptive attack of September 11, 2001, the US and its neocolonialist lapdogs should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the home of the purported 'terrorist' hyjackers. But hold on, the US already has bases in Saudi Arabia propping up the movers and shakers of OPEC and the autocratic Saudi royal family. The US needs a base close to (right next to) the Persian Gulf to protect its oil interests, especially near the Straits of Hormuz. The oil tankers could be threatened by Iran when full scale hostilities break out, thus Iraq had to be secured as a prelude to obliterating Iran. Geographically Iran is squeezed between Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia (coincidentally, all three countries are controlled by the USA.

The Western zionist press has been declaring Iran our enemy ever since Iranian students occupied the US embassy in Tehran.

The Taliban were eradicating opium and hashish in Afghanistan as a matter of religious fundamentals until the US and its henchmen invaded. What right does any country have to dictate religious and social mores; to invade a sovereign state; to wage war on a people that have been subjugated and invaded from time immemorial. Canada should withdraw its support from Haliburton's and Enron's dirty little war.

Geographically, Iran is surrounded by Afghanistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia - all nations controlled by Washington.

Elements in Saudi Arabia were contracted to put a team together to plan and execute the strike of September 11, 2001 as evidenced by the fact that 18 of the 19 hijackers were crack, Saudi secret agents. Shortly thereafter, with NATO, Washington invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq thusly completing the encirclement of Iran.

Whose interests would best be served by preparing for the inevitable war against Iran? The same interests would also create the crisis that precipitated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

When all fingers point at Bin Laden (if he exists at all), it deflects blame from the real culprits. It would seem that his appearance changes like a chameleon's, suggesting there is more than 1 Osama Bin Laden) it's a sure bet that he had nothing to do with the preemptive strike on the USA.

quote:

---

Democritus intoned: "A woman should not be in charge of a prison full of Moslem men; it's demeaning and a form of torture."

---

[ 17 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

When things go wrong for a patriarchal system, there is always a woman to blame, isn't there? What a bizarre, off-the-wall sexist, excuse for a military defeat! Rather than spouting such paternalistic b-s, maybe Democritus should acknowledge that this prison shouldn't have been filled with Afghans by Western forces in the first place...

Democritus replies:

It was ironic that the prison break happened just after the announcement of a new female, Canadian warden ... implying that she caused the break.

No occupying forces (especially christian, western forces) should be involved in Afghanistan, let alone filling its prisons with 'freedom fighters' or 'patriots'. It may be a patriarchal system but it's the Afghanis' patriarchal system ... the same one that existed under the Soviet occupation. The Soviets were also trying to liberate women but apparently, then, it was in NATO's best interest to fight the Soviets ... screww liberating women. The dialog appears to be in flux ... the propaganda machine continues to spin - only, it's the West's spin now.

Hillier et al probably see the prison break as an excuse to kill the escapees rather than house them indefinitely; the dirty little issue of torture is also conveniently resolved; no prisoners or dead prisoners, there's no longer torture.

I have no problem with an evolving culture (Afghanistan) behaving in any manner they choose. The paternalism is that of the West's ... invading and then trying to change a culture to reflect the invader's culture. An occupying army, dictating cultural morality is far more 'paternalistic' than anything the Taliban could achieve.

quote:

---

It's as if Canada is telling Afghanis that their culture is inferior to Western culture; that their god is false and the christian god is true.

---

That IS exactly what we are doing.

quote:

---

Could you immagine the reaction in the US if France or Britain had tried to intervene in the US civil war?

---

quote:

---

It's as if Canada is telling Afghanis that their culture is inferior to Western culture; that their god is false and the christian god is true.

---

Except for the God part, you are right. Our occupation is based upon the idea that we are superior, and can "bring them into the 21st century".

Michael Walzer wrote that the benevolent intentions of imperialists bringing "progress" to others is always suspect:

"For what underlies this benevolent intention is the morally dangerous belief that the victims have somehow lost their power of agency, their cultural and moral creativity, their capacity to shape their own lives. That they are dim, unenlightened, barbarian, ignorant and passive-trapped in a stagnant traditionalism, cut off from history itself, helplessly waiting to be rescued by the more advanced nations."

see page 543 at first paragraph

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Can anyone entertain the notion that maybe Russian - and now Western - invaders were thinking of *their* own good, not that of the Afghans or the lack of merits of their religious or cultural beliefs, and that this invasion wasn't based on an idea but on a strategic project, gaining a stronghold around Iran/Irak oil reserves and their transit routes out of the region? emms obvious to me but gets lost in the flurry of "war of cultures" bombast.

---

Destroying a people and their culture to gain "a stronghold around Iran/Irak oil reserves and their transit routes out of the region" to me requires a moral equation to the effect that the "religious or cultural beliefs" of Afghans are worth less than said oil. If invade a country for "our own good" then clearly we consider the people living their (and their culture, religion, etc) as less than worthless. I don't see how recognizing that we value oil more than people is bombastic...

ETA: Do you think we'd be so willing to slaughter the Afghan people for "our own good" if they shared our culture and religion?

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Can anyone entertain the notion that maybe Russian - and now Western - invaders were thinking of *their* own good, ...

---

Yes the Soviets were interested in a strategic alliance and perhaps did use imperialist methods. But I think a comparison of imperialist results is there for the historical record. Imagine that the Soviets sent stinger missile equivalents and billions of dollars in military aid to Salvadoran rebels and Mexico's Zapatistas in the 1980's? Or funded ultra right-wing militia groups and political opposition in the U.S. directly? We can only imagine the mayhem.

quote:

---

Do you think we'd be so willing to slaughter the Afghan people for "our own good" if they shared our culture and religion?

---

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Can anyone entertain the notion that maybe Russian - and now Western - invaders were thinking of *their* own good, not that of the Afghans or the lack of merits of their religious or cultural beliefs, and that this invasion wasn't based on an idea but on a strategic project, gaining a stronghold around Iran/Irak oil reserves and their transit routes out of the region? emms obvious to me but gets lost in the flurry of "war of cultures" bombast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Well the Yugoslav Christians certainly got it in the neck when it suited Western interests to dissolve their sovereignty and break up their country - indeed, it was done in alleged support of the Muslim population...

---

quote:

---

...the US has 5% of the world's population, but uses 90% of the world's opiates,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
And it's got to mean something that, as Sineed wrote in another thread: most of which come from Afghanistan.

---

Roddenberry's 'Starfleet's General Order #1' (United Federation of Planets)

The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal affairs of other civilizations, consistent with the historical real world concept of Westphalian sovereignty(sovereigntyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive)

Didn't we just read today about 2 competing pipelines being built in Afghanistan. One of the parties is Iran. This was the story 5 years ago before the invasion which the warmongers poo-pooed (in the Homer Simpson sense).

The realpolitics of this conflict point to the US and its lapdogs as guaranteeing themselves a ready, steady supply of crude before Iran closes the deal. They will stop at nothing to secure what the US considers their birthright.

Wouldn't you love Canada to nationalize its oil industry or at least form a Crown Corp repleat with refineries, stock piles and stations and start subsidizing the Canadian people the way Chavez is the Venezuelans? Why can he do it and not us ... ?

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: democritus ]