While the involvement of Canadian troops "are not to be reported", NATO troops will be "taking out" Taliban leaders.

quote:

---

Hillier summarized the strategy this way: "One of the parts of this kind of operation is in particular to neutralize — or take out — the leaders who plan, prepare, facilitate; who get the money and get the vehicles for people” to conduct suicide bombings."

---

NATO troops will "take out" Taliban leaders. Canadian involvement, or not, is a secret.

I wonder why Canadian involvement is being kept secret? Could it have anything to do with public opinion in this country - which only needs a few examples of atrocities to make the anti-war sentiment even stronger?

BTW, there is a good summary of Israeli targeted assassinations of Palestinians over here.

quote:

---

For more than thirty years it has been Israel's policy to assassinate or otherwise eliminate popular Palestinian leaders who were independent and had wide trust of the people, while seeking to construct a subservient leadership with whom it could negotiate "peace" on Israel's terms. ....

From the beginning of the second Intifada (9/29/2000) until May 15, 2006 some 3394 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories by Israeli occupation forces. Among these 233 were targeted killings in which Israel either invaded a Palestinian area or targeted a house or car from the air to assassinate someone seen as a "militant." These targeted assassinations generally result in deaths of by-standers. 353 bystanders have been killed in the course of targeted killings. The targeted persons include such religious and political leaders as Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder and spiritual leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), and Abdul 'Aziz al-Rantisi, a senior political leader of Hamas.

---

Maybe the Israelis, who've been doing targeted assassinations for 30 years, can advise NATO in Afghanistan.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Our neighbours in the USA were able to make the occupation of Iraq an election issue in their country and impose some defeats on the most bellicose Republicans. And look what the American peaceniks are up against.

---

You're right, but they've had the unfair advantage of seeing approximately six times more corpses (per capita) returned undeliverable in body bags, as well as more than 1/2 million dead Iraqis (for those few who actually care about that down there).

But I was posting about it in September 2005, when the MSM was reporting that small squads of Canadians were given specific individual targets for assassination, which they carried out by sniping from a distance or by ambush.

Here's one link I posted to the Globe and Mail. It's behind the Wall of Death, but here is a chunk of it I saved:

quote:

---

Canadian commandos taking out Taliban
by Stephen Thorne, Canadian Press
Saturday, September 17, 2005

OTTAWA -- Canadian special forces soldiers in southern Afghanistan have killed Taliban and al-Qaeda rebels in multiple operations over recent months as they work secretly in small units, military sources say.

The modest contingent of troops from Joint Task Force 2 is an integral part of coalition efforts to stem the tide of insurgency that has risen since campaigning began for tomorrow's parliamentary election.

JTF2 commandos have joined counterparts from the United States and some Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, in fighting that has claimed more than 1,200 lives in six months, the Canadian defence sources say.

Authorities wouldn't -- or couldn't -- put numbers on the dead, but some said there could be dozens.

Some engagements are long-range; others are close-in. Some involve a degree of infiltration into enemy compounds and "behind enemy lines" -- although no lines really exist in the mountainous and desert terrain where they operate.

The commandos, some of whom speak a smattering of area dialects, often work in collaboration with local citizens who know the lay of the land. Using specialized weapons, Canadian snipers have played their deadly cat-and-mouse games at night and in the 50-degree heat of Afghan summer days.

Many of their victims -- whom the chief of defence staff recently called "murderers and scumbags" -- never knew what hit them, one source told The Canadian Press.

---

quote:

---

David Rudd, with the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, told CBC News the soldiers of JTF2 are not trained to take and hold ground. "What they do is infiltrate into dangerous areas behind enemy lines, look for key targets and take them out. They don't go out to arrest people. They don't go out there to hand out food parcels. They go out to kill targets."

---

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Just as an aside, I can't help but notice that many, perhaps most, media reports on Afghanistan, especially those from Canadian governmental or military sources, depict a scenario where the current counter-insurgency approach is but a means to future "development" or "aid". It's said that "peace" and "order" need to be "restored" before reconstruction can take place. But they keep moving the goalposts. The alleged "aid" or "development" never arrives, or does so only in small pilot projects suitable for pro-war propaganda back home in Canada. The overwhelming amount of effort and money is being spent on activities that are making our troops the enemy of the locals. NATO is turning Afghanistan into an Asian desert suitable for camels and oil pipelines. Many Afghans are refugees in their own country. Some goddam "aid" and "development".

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Israel is not at war. They are assasinating Palestinian political leaders (not terrorists) and often killing other innocent bystanders with a certain degree of indifference. Using missiles launched from attack helicopters for assasinations tend to do that.

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Times online: The President of Afghanistan has ordered an investigation into a night of Nato airstrikes that reportedly killed up to 85 civilians celebrating a major Islamic festival. ....

If the casualty figures are accurate the incident would represent the largest single largest loss of civilian life since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan nearly five years ago.

The last reported incident on a similar scale was the US airstrike that hit a wedding party in the province of Uruzgan in July 2002, killing 46 people and injuring 117. ....

Bismallah Afghanmal, a member of the Kandahar provincial council, said that 80 to 85 civilians had been killed in Tuesday's bombing runs.

"These kinds of things have happened several times, and they only say ’Sorry’. How can you compensate people who have lost their sons and daughters?" said Mr Afghanmal.

"The government and the coalition told the families that there are no Taleban in the area anymore," he added. "If there are no Taleban, then why are they bombing the area?"

---

They say "Sorry" and keep bombing. LITERALLY.

A report from MSNBC notes the following:

quote:

---

As British troops sped away from a suicide bomb attack that wounded three of their own, witnesses in this southern Afghan city say the soldiers opened fire, sending residents scurrying in fear of their lives.

Within minutes of the Dec. 3 bombing, one civilian lay dead and six wounded from the gunfire — one of seven times in the last month that NATO forces shot Afghan citizens. Seven people have been killed and 11 injured, eroding public support for the battle against a resurgent Taliban.

NATO says in all the shootings, the soldiers acted in self-defense. Commanders call the deaths regrettable and label the run of incidents as "coincidence." ....

---

Coincidence. Uh huh. Wait! There's more:

quote:

---

Brig. Richard Nugee, chief spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said soldiers have an "inherent right" to self-defense. ....

---

OK. So maybe they're not "that" sorry about the "coincidence".

quote:

---

Most victims of NATO shootings are Afghan civilians — motorists who have failed to stop when ordered to do so, or people caught in the chaotic aftermath of bombings. The shootings have deepened resentment among Afghans ...

---

Afghans fearful ...

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winnie the Pooh:
Israel is not at war. They are assasinating Palestinian political leaders (not terrorists) and often killing other innocent bystanders with a certain degree of indifference. Using missiles launched from attack helicopters for assasinations tend to do that.

Canada, with other NATO forces, is at war against the Taliban. Killing enemy leaders in war is different than killing political leaders in peace.

---

Canada is only "at war" with the "Taliban" by choice. Israel is closer to being "at war" than Canada is; at least they get attacked by the "enemy" from time to time, whereas Canada is just going far afield to bully others.

quote:

---

Cueball: The Afghan war is a direct extension of the "war on terror" policy and both the Israeli policy and the American one (and by extension the Canadian one as well) are mutually supportive ideologically and methodologically. This is even true to a certain extent operationally ...

---

No different restrictions than if Canada was "at War" not by choice. The same rules of international warfare apply.

Israel's however, claims the laws of war do not apply to their actions as the territories were not taken from another state. Pretty weak argument, but that is their position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winnie the Pooh:
Canada is only "at war" with the "Taliban" by choice, Okay.

No different restrictions than if Canada was "at War" not by choice. The same rules of international warfare apply.

---

quote:

---

Israel's however, claims the laws of war do not apply to their actions as the territories were not taken from another state. Pretty weak argument, but that is their position.

---

quote:

---

Winnie the Pooh: Israel's however, claims the laws of war do not apply to their actions as the territories were not taken from another state. Pretty weak argument, but that is their position.

---

Weak? What are the Golan Heights? Sheeba Farms? Are Lebanon and Syria not states in their own right? In fact, the problem of Israel's "borders" date back to 1948 - not just 1967.

This is aside from the fact that Israel, along with its US sponsor, has done everything in its power to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and continued to control or occupy Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Further, even legalistic double talk cannot relieve Israel of the duty to protect people who live under Israeli occupation; that too is international law relating to "war" and conflict.

quote:

---

The core issues, as contained in resolutions passed before 1967, remain the Palestinian refugee problem, the status of Jerusalem, and the location of Israel's boundaries. These are the basic issues. They spring from 1948, not 1967.

The early U.N. resolutions call for Israel to repatriate or compensate the original 750,000 refugees of 1948-9 and to renounce Jerusalem as its capital and regard it as a corpus separatum, an international city dominated by neither Arab nor Israeli.... Finally, the original U.N. partition of Palestine awarded Israel an area only about three-quarters of its current official size. Israel's increase was gained at the expense of the Palestinians in the earlier conquests of 1948.

Other unreconciled issues from this earlier period include such sticky situations as a demilitarized zone that Israel had shared with Syria near the Sea of Galilee. Israel forcefully and unlawfully occupied this zone in the 1950s and 1960s, in defiance of its 1949 armistice with Syria. This deception predates Syria's complaints about Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights in 1967. The zone is now integrated into Israel's economy and infrastructure. But Syria retains a legitimate claim to it as disputed territory to be decided only after negotiations.

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

---

from Lessons to be learned from 66 UN resolutions Israel ignores. - link.

This article looks to be 10 years old. Here's a listing ... of UN Resolutions critical of Israel that have been ignored as well as those vetoed by the profligate US. "This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation."

Your distinction is ridiculous - Canada is not "at war" in the sense that we have no choice but to fight. We're only at war because our government wants us to kill Afghanis. That's not sufficient justification for doing it.

Now we can discuss the right or wrong of being engaged in that conflict, I'll gladly listen with interest to your views. That does not change the fact that Canada is at war in Afganistan.

It works both ways, of course. The "enemy" is allowed to kill non-civilians involved in the Canadian war effort.

That means they can't kill civilians.

People who make a fuss about "targetted assassinations", but are silent about the killing of civilians, are just dishonest.

For example, the Taleban kills schoolteachers because they say that teachers are basically helping the occupier.

"Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff, told the Canadian Press Friday that one of the offensive's principal aims is the killing of Taliban commanders and suicide bomb-makers."

It IS true that soldiers "hors du combat" are supposed to be captured, not killed.

But that term involves soldiers who have laid down their arms and who can be effectively constrained.

In other words its not just about "civilians." The prohibition is even so broad as to make killing armed combatants who are non-threatening illegal, in such circumstances as one is not allowed theortectically speaking to shoot retreating soldiers in the back.

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winnie the Pooh:
Now we can discuss the right or wrong of being engaged in that conflict, I'll gladly listen with interest to your views. That does not change the fact that Canada is at war in Afganistan.

---

Obviously, you think it's fine for Canadian troops to target specific individuals for assassination. I don't give a fuck whether they are civilians or "military", armed or unarmed, it's wrong for Canadian troops to be in Afghanistan deliberately murdering people. Just as wrong as if Uruguay were to invade Canada (thereby being "at war" with us) and target you and me for assassination.

I objected strongly to the war in Iraq. I supported going to war in Afganistan.

And contrary to your assumptions of me,I don't "think it's fine for Canadian troops" to target civilians. Nor do I see any evidence that is the case currently. Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence?

I didn't say "target civilians" - I said target "specific individuals". And I never suggested Uruguay was ever likely to invade Canada, so I don't know where you are getting this "paranoid" nonsense from. Substitute whatever country you like for Uruguay and substitute whatever country you like for Canada, and my point remains the same.

Targeting specific individuals in war is often done, not against the conventions. Admiral Yamamoto, Imperial Japanese Navy comes to mind. And a couple of attempts on Hitler, too.

You still have not presented any shred of evidence that the Canadian troops are targeting civilians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winnie the Pooh:
Interesting comparisons between the Israelis and Canadian tactics. I offer this difference for discussion.

Israel is not at war. They are assasinating Palestinian political leaders (not terrorists) and often killing other innocent bystanders with a certain degree of indifference. Using missiles launched from attack helicopters for assasinations tend to do that.

Canada, with other NATO forces, is at war against the Taliban. Killing enemy leaders in war is different than killing political leaders in peace.

---

Pooh,

Your use of the term "at war" suggests a degree of scale and necessity not appliccable here.

To the contrary, we're not "at war": We're an invading force that has travelled a long distance to remake Afghanistian in a way that suits our current tastes.

If we're going to assassinate to streamline that effort, so be it. But lets not use terminology that implys it's essential to our national survival.

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winnie the Pooh:
Spector, mostly you've been been talking a war is not a war unless you say so. Not a rationale position.

---

Since we're being pedantic, it's worth pointing out that, it's not a war until the government declares it so.

We are not "at war" with Afghanistan, nor are we "in a war". We have contributed troops and resources in support of a NATO mission.

[ 18 December 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]

Be that as it may, formal declarations can take multiple forms, and do not require someone to say: "We declare war," for a state of war to exist. All the Arab Israeli wars have been started in this manner.

The Iraqi invasion of Iran was preceded by a formal claim on Iranian territory and an ultimatum, which served as a declaration.

There is some debate about whether or not authorizing "use of force" as has been done in the US is a declaration of war.

[ 19 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I notice you pinkos never mentioned Russia's role in the current Afghan situation. Of course you wouldn't, that would mean criticising one of your precious, murderous commmunist regimes.

That would be tantamount to committing a sin, wouldn't it? Sort of like slagging off your murderers dream utopia of China, or taking the murderer Che Guevera's name in vain.

You pinkos never met a murderer you didn't like: Stalin, Mao, Che Guevera, Castro.

Yet you easily chastise Pinochet - of course you would, it's ok to be a murderer, but if you're a right wing murderer, well, that can't be tolerated.

Hypocrite lefties.

[ 20 December 2006: Message edited by: nugganu ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nugganu:
The majority of Afghans and Iraqis killed have been at the hand of terrorists.

---

Cite?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nugganu:
I notice you pinkos never mentioned Russia's role in the current Afghan situation. Of course you wouldn't, that would mean criticising one of your precious, murderous commmunist regimes.

---

Name calling won't get you anywhere. Play nice. Why not tell everyone about Russia's role in the current Afghan situation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nugganu:

hypocrite lefties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nugganu:
The majority of Afghans and Iraqis killed have been at the hand of terrorists....

[ 20 December 2006: Message edited by: nugganu ]

---

quote:

---

"Afghanistan was supposed to be the good war," bemoaned the New York Times in the editorial I quoted earlier. But the war in Afghanistan has been an imperial adventure from the beginning, despite the fact that many supposedly on the left, applauded it at the time as a "just war." In reality, it was designed to reassert U.S. power after September 11, to prepare the ground for an invasion of Iraq, to insert the U.S. military in a crucial strategic region, and to gain access to Central Asian oil and gas supplies. One thing it was never about was bringing to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. According to Bob Woodward's insider account in Bush at War, by September 13 then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had already noted, "Bush was tired of rhetoric. The president wanted to kill somebody."

A few days later, Bush ordered Powell to send an ultimatum to the Taliban government demanding that they turn over Osama bin-Laden or "We'll attack them with missiles, bombers and boots on the ground." Bush added, "Let's hit them hard. We want to signal this is a change from the past. We want to cause other countries like Syria and Iran to change their views. We want to hit as soon as possible." But when Mullah Omar responded that he would be prepared to extradite bin-Laden if the U.S. provided evidence implicating him in the 9/11 events, his offer was ignored.

The Australian journalist John Pilger reports that "in late September and early October [2001], leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties negotiated bin-Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the September 11 attacks. According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph), this had both bin-Laden's approval and that of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader." But this deal too was rejected. According to Pilger, "The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan was notified in advance of the proposal and the mission to put it to the Taliban. Later, a U.S. official said that 'casting our objectives too narrowly' risked 'a premature collapse of the international effort if by some luck chance Mr. bin Laden was captured.'" In other words, the opportunity to go to war was not to be squandered.

---

quote:

---

"David Wilkins's comments were morally repugnant," says Mr. Fisk. He believes that the ambassador should be grilled in detail about the scandal of Mr. Arar's abduction and torture.

Mr. Fisk, who once wrote that journalists "are asleep all over America except for Sy Hersh," says he was dismayed over the lack of media– and Canadian government–outrage over the ambassador's comments.

Although he is in Toronto this week, Mr. Fisk usually gets to look at Canada from his vantage point in Beirut where he covers the Middle East for the Independent.

When the war in Lebanon began this summer, he was only a mile away from the place where four UN peacekeepers were killed by Israeli bombing.

One of those soldiers was a Canadian officer, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, one of only a few of Canada's remaining peacekeepers. Mr. Fisk says he noticed that the Canadian government paid scant attention to this loss.

"Prior to Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers were always seen as peacekeepers, like the Irish. But now that Canada has got itself involved in this hopeless war against Islamists in Afghanistan, it is seen differently."

He sardonically muses about the bizarre result if Canadian peacekeepers were to be later called into Afghanistan to separate combatants–among them Canadian combat troops.

Mr. Fisk says he had gained a great deal of respect for the wisdom of Canadian peacekeepers. He learned of their cool-headedness under fire by sharing a foxhole with them in Sarajevo. But today, he says, Canada's hard-fought global reputation has been squandered by its role as a U.S.-proxy combatant in Afghanistan.

It also didn't help that Canada's government took a one-sided stand in the war in Lebanon.

But does the opinion of a middle power like Canada's really matter in the Middle East?

Canadian opinions are not as important as American or British, he says. "But Arabs are not stupid. They notice what the Canadian government says."

He also believes that Canada has put itself at risk of some kind of terrorist attack as a direct result of its military activities in Afghanistan.

"You can't have a foreign military adventure [like Afghanistan] and be safe at home," says Mr. Fisk.

---

[ 21 December 2006: Message edited by: TUSK ]