The Afghan people will win - Part 1

Maybe NATO and multinationals will not succeed with colonizing Afghanistan. But there is still a lot of fun and profit in trying. Malalai Joya says the Taliban have been buying weapons from Karzai's Northern Alliance commanders in government. The fix is in.

And if and when they do retreat from Afghanistan, their friends the Taliban are on deck and will drag that country from the gutter to the sewer with theocratic feudalism part two.

The Taliban - medieval feudalists influenced by Pakistan's ISI, which is an extension of the American CIA. And ordinary Afghans - the ones not among the millions able to flee that country after 1992 -  will pay the price for generations to come. What a mess.

Not me. It's Malalai Joya who referred to Afghan reports of 2007. Soviets backed neither the mujahideen nor the Taliban. But they did supply the NVA and VC with a few crude weapons, just as the "Northern Alliance" figures in Karzai's government have been supplying the Taliban.

The Taliban are very religious, unionist. I didnt know you were so high on religion. Taliban fundamentalism was never the religion of most ordinary Afghans. Pakistanis are angry about the Talibanization of their country since the 1980s and 90s. It was never put to so much as a vote or referendum in either country.

Who are the Afghan people? Would you include Pasthuns in Pakistan? Clans and tribes divided by colonial empires' lines on maps drawn in the 1800s?

Or Tajiks and there brethren from other countries fighting against the Taliban in Northern Afghanistan?

How about the Harazs? Brutally enslaved people beaten down by just about everyone else in the country?

Your opening statement is overly simplistic and naive.

On another note, if you look at the blast site on where the children were killed, it is obvious that no mortar round could create a crater that size. I would recommend looking at the CTV news reports, if you have not seen the images of the blast site.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Haitians, too, have a proud history of rebelling against their former slavers. And theyve tried rebelling against the nouveau colonizers, about 25 times from last century to this one. The difference in that country has been that the peasant rebels are never armed well enough against the CIA-backed colonials. Whereas with the Pak-Afghan situation, weapons and ammunition have been dealt to all the wrong people again.

As Canadian John Ryan said about the PDPA government which outlasted the USSR itself by over a year, the Afghan-PDPA volunteer fighters might have held out longer against the mujahideen had they a decent supply of weapons. The Afghan PDPAs did defeat the mujahideen at two major dustups. But the mujahideen were armed to the eye teeth then and CIA pulling in jihadi mercenaries to the region from about 40 Islamic countries. As Ms Joya said, I think the US-led NATO occupation is there and using the Taliban as a cover, a reason for being there. And now one Canadian mining company has lost out on a contract to develop mineral deposits to the Chinese by a Canadian military-Afghan "economic liberalization" scheme. I think they are attempting to have China and other regional governments join them in colonizing Afghanistan.

Your military colleagues are not authorized to investigate and render verdicts in Afghanistan, Webgear. I believe the victims over the aggressors. Sorry.

Oh sure, everyone remembers Pol Pot, the biggest mass murderer after Hitler

Wow. After years of vicious, murderous terror bombing of Cambodia by the US, it is your contention that the US brought "democracy" there.

Un-fucking believable.

 What were the North Vietnamese doing in neutral Cambodia?

The US supported non-Communist forces after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and provided some humanitarian aid in refugee camps.

Ha ha ha ha…. That is a lie and Kerry got ripped in the election because he told that fib. It makes no sense because at the time the Khmer Rouge was supported by North Vietnam.

The Khmer Rouge was created by North Vietnam. They were not popular in Cambodia. If North Vietnam respected Cambodia’s neutrality, the US would have never bombed Cambodia.

And thanks for sparing us kindrid's bad history lesson, Michelle

Can you provide any names?

How can you tell which officials have been freely chosen by the people and which officials have been installed by the invaders?

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

What business of it is of your Unionist how they select their leadership, and so on?

Exactly.

Trying to define what is moral by using a measure defined by the immorality of others only perpetuates the original problem.

I was wondering before we get side tracked of who speaks for the people of Afghanistan, can you make provide any evidence that is was a Canadian mortar that killed the children.

Picture provided by CTV News.

That hole is large rather for an 81mm or 60mm mortar in my professional opinion.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Actually there was a lot of RCMP in the last seminar I was at, it was a good time. The instructors were wonderful people from several unions such as CAW and CUPE and the federal NDP. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Would the bomb/and or mortar round have gone off, if Canadian forces had not been in Khandahar province?

Yes, lets. Would the bomb, or mortar round have gone off if Canadian forces not been in Kandahar province?

Well one might as well say it might have gone off at Yonge and St. Clair too.

So, all this killing is because killing would be "possible" somewhere at sometime?

Do Canadian forces also place mines in the vicinity of their facilities?

Do the Americans?

Well. Minfields are not usually so effective if you tell everyone where they are.

Some yes, of course. Depends on what the purpose of the minefield is. Regardless, there will still be plenty of unexploded ordinance left here and there, when the time comes, I am sure.

I'll bet mines will be cleared from land where prospective mineral deposits are located and western mining companies have interests.

Fidel

I believe in one of Robert Fisk or Stephen Tanner books, they make mention that the Soviets in the 1960/70s did an extensive natural resource survey that discovered additional large amounts of natural resources that were not known in previous surveys.

They also make note of a new natural gas line running from northern Afghanistan into the USSR.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Meanwhile, life goes on (so to speak):

3 Canadian soldiers killed by roadside bomb

Read that story carefully and tell me what you think happened.

Because we're winning!!!

A waste of lives, of those who are led to believe that they are involved in an honourable cause.  I recognized his picture immediately on the news, it seems that when one has spent time together in the same regiment, it matters little how long ago it's been.  WO Brown was a decent guy.

It appears the QRF hit a secondary device on the return leg of their mission, the device was likely planted to targeting the first responders to the other IED event.

This is a classic tactic; bait the enemy into ambush zone and hit them when it is not anticipated.

It is part of Murphy's Law.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

I'm sure our MSM figured that out; they just happen to be embedded which sounds an awful lot like " in bedded".

 unionist, I fully agree that Canada should not be there. Harper's recent comments make this even more crystal clear. Obomba's commitment of more troops and desire to apparently be there forever make this 1,000 times more difficult to support. The anti-war left was (far too easily) duped and helped elect Obama and are not inclined to protest him in large numbers. This is despite the fact that his military policies seem indistinguishable from Bush's.

However, I think we should be honest about what this means for Afghans. Yes, the Taliban is misogynist, medieval, fascist, kills gays, throws acid on girls for daring to educate themselves etc., etc.  Regardless of whether we can "win" and change this situation is irrelevant. We should not be there. Admitting anything less than the reality of the situation provides an opening for continual support of the war. I would rather point out the many other countries that are governed in the same manner. (let the chickenhawks use this as an argument to invade half the globe).  We are not the world's police officers and should be taking care of our own human rights issues here at home. Last time I checked the situation for FN people was still an (ignored) international embarassment. A FN woman has no standing under the Charter and we are trying to force another country to treat women a certain way at the point of a gun?

Using language like "once we leave, Afghans will be free to choose their representatives" is disengenuous. You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression. There will be no freedom or selection of leaders, etc. in the near term. The point is that we cannot make them free at the point of a gun - the point is that Afghans have to bear the responsibility of what their freedom (or lack thereof) will look like.  RAWA existed under the Taliban and will hopefully continue to exist when we finally abandon this ridiculous waste of money. 

Our responsilibity as a country is to decide whether to have relations with them and have a strong refugee program for those fleeing the area. Just as I think we should tell Saudi Arabia to bugger off and have no relations with them until they treat women as human beings.

Hold that Cohiba for a minute, Unionist. Webgear missed an important link in that chain:

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Yeah, I'm sure.

OK - free, as in free from outside international influences.  

 I am not predicting that they will "fail". I am simply commenting based on the facts about the forces at play on the ground. Whoever holds the most power weapon-wise will take control when we finally leave.  You are defining "failure" based on a Western understanding. Who are you to call my prediction a failure. It is very possible that for those who end up as leaders, a theocratic patriarchal repressive society would most likely be considered a success.  It is not for us to call this a failure based on our own Western standards. What has happened in the Swat Valley of Pakistan is also considered a success by some and has only been termed a failure by our frustrated military leaders still clinging to the notion of "Victory". 

See, now, Ghislaine, you're doing it again!

The ones with the "most power weapon-wise" are the U.S., NATO, Canada, the Afghan National Puppets! And they're losing (in case anyone hadn't noticed).

If the people can defeat these Great Powers (which they can, they have, and they will), do you really think they're so puny that they will fall under the sway of whoever has the most weapons?

Maybe you would. Maybe I would (I hope not). But for you to say they would, besides being counterfactual and counter-historical, reflects exactly the same spirit to which I referred earlier.

The Afghan people, whether by elections or by traditional selection processes or by force of arms, will choose whom they want. Weapons have never been decisive and never will be.

unionist, when I say the most power "weapon-wise", I mean that they may decide who is in power by force of arms - which you agree with in your 2nd last sentence. That is what I meant. I am not saying they will fall under the "sway" of whoever has the most weapons - I am saying that whoever has the most weapons will possibly gain power by force of arms.

 You put words in my mouth, as I did not describe this possible outcome as a "failure" - you did. Whatever Afghans end up with or however they get there - it is not to us to accuse them of being a failure. I may accuse them of being anti-woman or whathever, but at least Canadians' lives and tax dollars are not being used to prop it up, as they are now.

No, SJ, you missed the point entirely (and I'm not sure why you're being taunting and sarcastic with me...).

The point is this:

It is our lying military and our subservient media.

It is the families of the deceased, who will read these articles, come to the sudden realization that their loved ones died for nothing (not just in the general sense, but in the specifics of what happened), and no one will listen to them - not the abject politicians who are composing their crocodile-tear statements of sympathy; not the bought-and-paid-for media; and not the brain-dead commanders and spin doctors of the CF.

They will live with the horror alone.

Afghans did get rid of a repressive monarchy. And then, according to Canadian John Ryan, got rid of another repressive regime by the end of the 1970's. Women were gaining rights and freedoms, which in any normal population represents a little more than half of everyone concerned. The muslim clergy and land barons didnt appreciate the new women's rights or land redistribution laws. But at the same time, moderate clerics didnt object so much as to want to declare jihad against the Afghan PDPA government. The CIA and Saudis went out of their way to fund and arm religious extremists, and send mercenaries from 40 different countries to Afghanistan and ignoring religious moderates entirely.

And at the time, Afghanistan was actually part of the Soviet Union. The country's feudal social structure was undisturbed from the Stalinist era through to the 1970's. By comparison, eleven southern US states decided to break from the union in the 19th century. The North sent troops to reverse that decision immediately. Over half a million people died in the process. No Asian country intervened in US affairs at the time though.

Interesting view of history.  

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Imagine the families reading that news story.

Sure it's possible, although it seems unchallenged that the invaders do kill a whole lot of civilians, no?

But it's possible, because the Taliban are a lot smarter than the Canadians and have a lot more support among the population. That's why, despite their complete lack of significant firepower,  their influence and control is increasing daily, seven years 7.5 years after they were allegedly "defeated".

Another thread down the drift drain. My fault. I mentioned the word "Soviet". Never again.

I think it ties in nicely to all those other threads where you raise holy old jihad on Catholic school funding here in Ontario, another part of the world where you dont live.

Apparently unionist thinks it was perfectly alright for the CIA, Saudis and one US-backed military dictatorship in Pakistan at the time to cause the Talibanization of two countries in forcing a militant brand of Islam on people that was never their own. And yet unionist wont stand for Catholic schools here in his own backyard. I have every reason to believe that unionist is really Taliban himself!!! :-)

Is there any proof of the ANP operating or betraying the Canadians in this manner?

Does the Taliban have the support of the population? Do the Taliban have the same level of support as did the Mujahedeen as against the Soviet?

Do the Taliban control more of the country than they did in 2005?

Defeat only happens when the war is over.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

I'm trying to think think of one oil or mineral-rich or militarily strategic country in the world where the US military has let go of so easily. We cant erally include VietNam, because the NVA and VC were being supplied by the Soviets as a counterbalance to western imperialism. And I'm not sure who is supplying the Taliban with weapons other than by their own means, opium trade, and apparently the former mujahideen/Northern Alliance commanders in Karzai's government. Which to me, looks a lot like the fix is already in.

 It looks like Obama has been ordered by his Wall Street handlers to reneg on an election campaign promise to pull out of Iraq. That doesnt look good for Afghanistan. I think the Taliban are a backup plan in the style of Ruhollah Khomeini, and for when corporate vampires finally do drain US and Canadian taxpayers dry with trying to colonize Afghanistan. From an imperialist point of view, rule by militant Islam is preferrable to a strong national government in Kabul or "falling to communism" down the road.  

Huh? Who said anything about the ANP?

Well, they seem to know more about CF movements than the CF knows about Taliban movements. Maybe the Taliban just have superior surveillance technology.

Now, don't use that word, please - I used it once, and look what happened!

Of course. You've read the reports.

Not in this case. Your Commander-in-Chief (or rather, the dude who writes her speeches for her) said the other day that we can't win. Sounds like defeat to me. And he has already announced that we will cut and run in 2011. The only question is whether we can hang on till then. 

It looks like Harper and his US and British handlers have succumbed to the idea that the Taliban are there to stay in Afghanistan. Oh darn. Because now it looks as if Afghans are about where Iranians were at the end of the 1980s war with the US and company arming both sides of that conflict to the eye teeth. Maggie and crazy George I both denied complicity in their respective houses of parliament, which means they were lying their heads off at the time. Afghans are only set back by a few decades as far as determining their own progressive future is concerned. That's how neocolonialism works with turning back the clock on whole nations of people. In the mean time, war and warfiteering reign merrily. 

They may be colocated...

Hello Frmrsldr, I am ok with disagreements. This is a discussion board so we will discuss the merits of this incident.

I do not believe a 60 or 81mm mortar round can create a hole roughly 1m wide by 50cm deep (by judging by the photo).

I believe that only 60mm mortars are currently used by the CF in Kandahar, there is no way a 60mm round could make a crater that size based off of personal experience.

I did mean to contradict myself, I was trying to get Unionist to state it was possible that a Taliban mortar round killed the children, or to admit that there are other options. It is still my opinion that it was an IED or mine that killed that killed the children.

PS welcome to babble.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Webgear and Unionist,

I have a Canadian Press article dated March 3, 2009. It is longer and more detailed than the CBC post:

"Forensic analysis of fragments from the bomb that killed the three young boys determined it was likely an old munition, perhaps left over from the Soviet occupation, that may be fashioned into a booby trap, officials said. Using old explosive material in a homemade bomb is a classic Taliban tactic, said Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance, the commander of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. The most likely cause of this explosion was an anti personnel IED, based on all of the factors at the scene. The children, aged 4, 12 and 13, likely found the device in a field on the way home from school and brought it into the village of Salehan, west of Kandahar City, before it detonated as they stood on a gravel pathway, he said. The burden of proof and experience in this part of the province places the likelihood of harming people with explosives squarely on the shoulders of the insurgency, not on the shoulders of Canadians, Vance said.... Military officials ... admit they're still struggling to understand the outburst of anti Canadian sentiment touched off by the tragedy."

<>(I rearranged the order of the paragraphs of the original to give the best logical flow to the article)

<>Here is what the article is saying:

1. The children were killed by a Russian UXO (UneXploded Ordnance) from the 1979 - 1989 Soviet Afghan War.

1a. The story is morphed where the UXO was modified into a booby trap to fit the Canadian military and government's propaganda that the Taliban are detestable murderous scumbags who are responsible for ALL the deaths incurred by the Afghan war.

2. The children were killed by an IED - a non professional, non factory made mine.

3. The bomb (at this point, whatever it is) was not located in a field in the hamlet, but somewhere away from the hamlet. No mention is made of the distance.

4. The children were not at first in the hamlet but were on their way home from school where they found the IED.

<>This raises a number of questions: A 4 year old was going to school? How far did this 4 year old have to walk to go to that school? War has been raging in Afghanistan since 1979 - 30 years. These children have known nothing but war all their lives and yet the Canadian military expects us to believe that the children when they saw the IED (IEDs are buried in the ground with only their whip antenna sticking up a few inches off the ground, so they are hard to detect), their reaction was, "cool toy!" and to pick it up and take it home. We are expected to believe that these children would not have recognized it for what it was. Even if we are to believe this fairy tale so far, the military expects us to believe that no one saw the children returning home, that none of the villagers informed the children what the electronic devise was, took it from them and, running like hell, whisked the children a safe distance away, screamed at the top of their lungs to warn the other villagers and attempted to dispose of the bomb in a safe manner.

<>Why do I not believe this?

Although this article is more detailed than the CBC article, there is information the CP leaves out that one can find in a February 24, 2009 article at www.rawa.org

The RAWA article states that the Canadian military held a live fire exercise 15 km west of Kandahar. This conforms with the CP article that explains that the hamlet of Salehan, where the incident took place, is located west of Kandahar City.

Conclusion: It is very likely that the Canadian military was responsible for the deaths of the Afghan children - and the Canadian military still 'don't get' why the Afghan villagers are pissed off at them.

Practising a live fire exercise in close proximity to an Afghan community suggests that the U.S., the U.N., NATO, the EU, the U.K., Canada, the ISAF, etc., don't give a fuck about the Afghans and never did. There are reasons why we are in Afghansitan, but that sure ain't one of them.<>

<>Not only are we losing the shooting war, we are losing the propaganda war in Afghanistan - dismally.

The Canadian military can't even 'get their story straight'. With clowns like that running the war, we don't need the Taliban's help. We can lose this one all on our own. 

I checked, martin, and they told me they really enjoy the banter here. What have you heard?

Thanks for those posts.

Yes, thanks Former Soldier. It doesnt sound like Afghans are winning much with their country still turned upside down after more than 20 years and children being blown to pieces by UXO's. One UN official said Afghan children have the fewest rights of any and are among the most abused children in the world. 

Webgear,

Currently the Obama administration is conducting a review of the Afghan war and will come out with strategic recommendations in time for the next NATO summit in May.

Harper has already publicly expressed praise for Obama's 17,000 troop surge to Afghansitan. 

My guess is Harper is just 'lickin' his chops' anticipating:

1. The review will recommend an increase in the troop surge.

2. Obama will follow this recommendation.

3. Obama will accede to Generals David McKiernan's (U.S. and Coalition Commander in Afghansitan), David Petraeus' (CENTCOM Commander responsible for both the Iraq and Afghan theaters of war) and Robert Gates' (U.S. Defense Secretary) demands for even more troops in Afghanistan. All these commanders have stated that the current overall request of 30,000 troops is NOT a final cap.

4. At the NATO summit Obama will ask Canada to escalate its military commitment to the war.

Harper is hoping that 'Obama mania' will rub off on him. Harper will turn to the people and say, "See, Obama has asked me to keep Canadian soldiers engaged in combat. How can I not oblige a nice guy like Obama?"

Harper will turn to the government and attempt to bully Parliament into agreeing to yet another escalation of the war.

The ideological differences between the Cons and the Libs are either hairsplitting or nonexistant. Iggy is on record supporting both the Iraq and Afghan wars, just like Harpo. It is very likely that Iggy and the Libs would pass such a motion in the House.

<>"My own judgement... quite frankly is we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. My reading of Afghan history is that it's probably had an insurgency forever, of some kind." - Stephen Harper.

<>Wouldn't it have been nice if Harper had read that Afghan history 'book' before he went to Afghanistan in 2006? Before the first and second times he escalated Canada's military commitment in Afghanistan?

Is Harper salivating at the mouth over the prospect of more war? You bet he is. As for anyone who believes Harper is not likely to escalate the war and will stick to the June 2011 disengagement (as promised during the last election) from combat resolution: Well Webgear, I wouldn't bet my, yours or any other Canadian soldier's (or Afghan's) life on it.

CTV initial reports and substantial reports indicated that the CF was conducting live fire exercise in the vicinity of Salehan, which is a small error on your version of events.

Other details we have not looked at.

1. The bodies of the children were intact after the blast, pictures where initially provided by CTV news. If the children were carrying the mortar shell, it is not possible for the bodies to remain intact even for a small shell such as a 60mm mortar detonated in close proximately. These small children would have been ripped to shreds.

2. In a previous thread I linked a website that noted nearly 800 people in Afghanistan for the year 2008 were killed by IEDs, UXOs and old mines. I believe around 150 of those people were killed by insurgent IEDs. So, yes the Taliban do kill civilians and sometimes on purpose.

3. Another similar event happen last year when a bus struck an IED north of Kandahar city, over 10 people were killed.

4. In the former Yugoslavia, one of the factions mortared their own side causing several dozen innocent civilian deaths in a market area and blamed their enemies. So this method has been used before in the past.

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Frmrsldr

It is likely Afghanistan will end in 2001 and we will likely end up in Congo or Sudan if you read between the lines from various political advisors commenting on what the Canadian military should be doing after the "Combat" mission ends.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

NorthReport

I am glad I can make you happy, because I do not like sad people. 

Yes... the minority government does play an important factor. However, the military is broken, plain and simple, the army can not sustain any more rotations into Kandahar, the soldiers are worn out, and the soldiers have been on constant training or deployments since 2005.

The vehicles are in poor shape, parts are becoming difficulty to find. Equipment is being lost at a high rate.

Contrary to popular belief the army is small, and resources are limited at the best of times before the war started.

The army according to government policy is supposed to be able field 2x 2500 Battle Groups in two different locations at any one time. Currently the army is having a difficult time operating one BG in one location.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

The warmongers have a new mascot for their cause. First they kill her husband, then they use her to egg on the others to their death:

Don't give up on Afghan mission, slain soldier's wife urges

The National ran an extended (52-second) excerpt from the mascot's speech (beyond the usual 4-second soundbite). Pastor Mansbridge then opined that it was "a very powerful statement". 

Oh well I, sittin in Wawa waitin for my yaya mmmhmm Had a beer and wings at the Lakeview one time. Give'r-give'r Wawa!

Please continue in a new thread.