The Afghan People Will Win - Part 18
Comments
Militia is said to be the target of Afghan wedding attack:
KABUL, Afghanistan - The groom and 17 of the guests at a rural Kandahar wedding party attacked by a suicide bomber on Wednesday night were members of an anti-Taliban guard organization encouraged initially by American Special Operations forces, and the bomber's goal appeared to be to undermine support for the group, elders and government officials in the area said Thursday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?partner=TOPIX...
There you go. It's the fault of those damn Yanquis. They're pulling the stunt that the British used during their Days of Empire: rule by pitting diffent groups against each other. The Yanquis did this in Iraq, now they're doing it in Afghanistan. All it will do is escalate the level of violence in Afghanistan and hatred toward U.S./NATO/ISAF troops.
It would appear the local elders would disagree... they say it's the Talibans fault.
"The local militia were quite effective and helpful and were supported by the civilian population; they were not letting Taliban come to their area," said Haji Shah Aka, an elder from Nagahan.
Given their status in Afghan culture I'll take their word for it.
That doesn't contradict what I or the article I linked said.
The militia was created (and supposed to be armed) by U.S. Special Ops forces. It's purpose was to combat the Taliban. Naturally, the Taliban was going to strike against it. The suicide bomber was a Taliban actor.
I feel sorry for those tribal/militia elders/leaders. They decided to throw their lot in with the U.S. and against the Taliban. As the article later explains, the U.S. (military) has abandoned them to their dismal fate, just like the U.S. has done to the Laotian Hmung during the Vietnam War, the Kurds in the north and Shia in the south during the Gulf/Iraq War I in 1991 and the Sunni (militias) during (ongoing) Iraq war II.
What is hell? If there is no god how can there be a hell? If there is a hell does that mean there is a heaven?
That doesn't contradict what I or the article I linked said.
The militia was created (and supposed to be armed) by U.S. Special Ops forces. It's purpose was to combat the Taliban. Naturally, the Taliban was going to strike against it. The suicide bomber was a Taliban actor.
I feel sorry for those tribal/militia elders/leaders. They decided to throw their lot in with the U.S. and against the Taliban. As the article later explains, the U.S. (military) has abandoned them to their dismal fate, just like the U.S. has done to the Laotian Hmung during the Vietnam War, the Kurds in the north and Shia in the south during the Gulf/Iraq War I in 1991 and the Sunni (militias) during (ongoing) Iraq war II.
I believe the main focus of the discussion between us was if the Taliban did it or not; or am I talking about two different things to two different people?... that is not contradicted neither. We can shift to the reason... or a solution; I'm game for that.
The hardcore Taliban who are doing this do not support the traditional Afghan tribal/elders leadership system: they move in, pretty much as political outsiders, and replace this traditional system with their own system of government. Don't forget; most adult Afghans remember the Taliban being in control... there is no doubt in their minds what is going to happen if they seize power again. Afghans are very religious, way more than most people, but they do not aspire to the hardcore interpretation of the Taliban for the most part. Afghans being Afghans, they are going to fight back against this intrusion, USA/government support or not. I think there's little doubt about that amongst us here.
Of all the 3 systems/sides fighting in this goat fuck I'd like to see those poor tribes and elders "win" the most. They more than the others are in my opinion the Afghan people the thread is titled about. The conundrum is for me anyways is if we just "cut and run" like many here seem to want we are pretty much throwing them to the Taliban [again]. A total hands off approach to Afghanistan would almost guarantee the Taliban the ability to dominate the new power vacuum not out of popularity from the population but just because they are so fucking brutal, have money and weapons support from various Pakistani/Islamic groups and won't give a fuck what world opinion, posters on Babble or anybody else for that matter thinks about their tactics or oppressive system. All they need is for the world to turn a blind eye for them [again] to overwhelm the people with their brutality like after the Soviet withdrawal. If the people are armed and determined to control their own destiny (as the elders said in that article) all they need is our support i.e. weapons and some training to keep the Taliban in check. The Taliban are not supermen, they have their weaknesses as much as anybody else.
So the question is how do we get out of Afghanistan without throwing the people to the wolves again and almost guaranteeing our return in 5 or 6 or 10 years? Cut and run is not an option I like, nor is it realistic. I say major army units out by 2011, Special Forces and training support (to include training in logistics) stays to assure the government and the people have the military strength to negotiate with the Taliban form a position of strength... and go from there. Seems to be the lesser of all the evils to me but still not a good one.
I'm more than willing to hear everyone's ideas. I've typed enough... Solutions? Ideas? Bitches? Smart Assed Remarks, Gripes? Go for it...
War is hell and this one no less hellish. Troops out now.
Yes, cut and run, that should help the Afghans. They can go from one hell to another... but it will at least be their own hell, one we can ignore from our computers in the USA and Canada.
Hey Bec,
You seem a tad frustrated. Your life will be much calmer if you stop trying to figure out how Afghan society should organize itself. In fact, that's what Afghans want you to do - except those who suck at the teat of foreigners.
It's an easy choice. Leave them alone. Cut and run. You will be absolutely shocked and surprised how, once relieved of the kind help of well-meaning foreigners, they are able to actually feed and clothe themselves and carry on a semblance of civilization.
In solidarity,
Unionist
If we weren't in Afghanistan than that 7 year old boy would still be alive. Maybe he would have found the cure for cancer but that will never happen since because of us he's dead.
Hey Bec,
You seem a tad frustrated. Your life will be much calmer if you stop trying to figure out how Afghan society should organize itself. In fact, that's what Afghans want you to do - except those who suck at the teat of foreigners.
It's an easy choice. Leave them alone. Cut and run. You will be absolutely shocked and surprised how, once relieved of the kind help of well-meaning foreigners, they are able to actually feed and clothe themselves and carry on a semblance of civilization.
In solidarity,
Unionist
Good enough, if we do cut and run I can only hope your right... that is one thing I'd gladly be wrong about.
On a lighter note, yeah, I'll be getting rid of some of that frustration this weekend; I'm going to spend it hitting people with sticks and then drinking beer with them afterwards... and they get to hit me back; if they can
The most fun you can have with your cloths on if you ask me.
Have a good weekend.
It's what they are trained to do since the 1980s and 1990s through today. Terrorizing and murdering women and children is also what US-trained battalions in Central America were trained to do in the recent past. Torture, rape and murder of women and children is an especially useful method of suppressing local populations. It tends to demoralize large segments of the population in preparing them to accept the inevitable. This is what US and Saudis have paid for and Pakistan's army intelligence have trained Taliban and other groups in Central Asia to perpetrate on civilian populations. It's what they do.
Sparky, this is a phony war with scumbags making money from weapons dealing, drug trafficking and scamming North American taxpayers, the pro-Mooj Northern alliance warlords in Karzai's regime and Taliban insurgent leaders included. There isn't much difference between the opposing sides who are all on the take and crooked and corrupt as the war is long. None of the principals in this phony war want it to end soon. Taliban recruits may desire a pay cheque and perhaps even to see the US and Canadian invaders pullout, but not necessarily so for the highest ranking Taliban who are becoming rich and powerful in the process.
Very many Afghans believe that this is a phony war. The two sides have been meeting regularly in swanky hotel rooms of Islamabad and Karachi over the last several years. I think they are collaborating to keep this phony war going. The outcome of battles are decided in these hotel room meetings before any blood is spilled. It's a bullshit war, Sparky. Both sides need dragging to the negotiating table and a deal hammered out to end the senseless violence perpetrated against innocent women and children for the sake of a buck. UN mediators are needed and not the Saudi and Pakistani ISI and CIA discussing things behind closed doors with their most excellent friends(BFF), the Taliban.
On a lighter note, yeah, I'll be getting rid of some of that frustration this weekend; I'm going to spend it hitting people with sticks and then drinking beer with them afterwards... and they get to hit me back; if they can
The most fun you can have with your cloths on if you ask me.
Have a good weekend.
Enjoy - and post photos!!
À tantôt.
What is hell? If there is no god how can there be a hell? If there is a hell does that mean there is a heaven?
It's a man made hell. There's an old Dutch saying that goes, "If people were wise, this world would be paradise."
I believe the main focus of the discussion between us was if the Taliban did it or not; or am I talking about two different things to two different people?... that is not contradicted neither. We can shift to the reason... or a solution; I'm game for that.
The hardcore Taliban who are doing this do not support the traditional Afghan tribal/elders leadership system: they move in, pretty much as political outsiders, and replace this traditional system with their own system of government. Don't forget; most adult Afghans remember the Taliban being in control... there is no doubt in their minds what is going to happen if they seize power again. Afghans are very religious, way more than most people, but they do not aspire to the hardcore interpretation of the Taliban for the most part. Afghans being Afghans, they are going to fight back against this intrusion, USA/government support or not. I think there's little doubt about that amongst us here.
Of all the 3 systems/sides fighting in this goat fuck I'd like to see those poor tribes and elders "win" the most. They more than the others are in my opinion the Afghan people the thread is titled about. The conundrum is for me anyways is if we just "cut and run" like many here seem to want we are pretty much throwing them to the Taliban [again]. A total hands off approach to Afghanistan would almost guarantee the Taliban the ability to dominate the new power vacuum not out of popularity from the population but just because they are so fucking brutal, have money and weapons support from various Pakistani/Islamic groups and won't give a fuck what world opinion, posters on Babble or anybody else for that matter thinks about their tactics or oppressive system. All they need is for the world to turn a blind eye for them [again] to overwhelm the people with their brutality like after the Soviet withdrawal. If the people are armed and determined to control their own destiny (as the elders said in that article) all they need is our support i.e. weapons and some training to keep the Taliban in check. The Taliban are not supermen, they have their weaknesses as much as anybody else.
So the question is how do we get out of Afghanistan without throwing the people to the wolves again and almost guaranteeing our return in 5 or 6 or 10 years? Cut and run is not an option I like, nor is it realistic. I say major army units out by 2011, Special Forces and training support (to include training in logistics) stays to assure the government and the people have the military strength to negotiate with the Taliban form a position of strength... and go from there. Seems to be the lesser of all the evils to me but still not a good one.
I'm more than willing to hear everyone's ideas. I've typed enough... Solutions? Ideas? Bitches? Smart Assed Remarks, Gripes? Go for it...
Malalai Joya put it best when she said that the Afghan people are fighting a number of enemies: foreign soldiers, (Karzai) government forces, the Taliban and Northern (Alliance)/drug criminal warlords. If the foreign forces leave, that will be one less set of forces the Afghan people will have to fight against.
Freedom and democracy is something the people have to want and fight for themselves. Freedom and democracy cannot be imported from abroad.
Thus, all foreign troops OUT of Afghanistan NOW. Who will ultimately triumph and what the next national government of Afghanistan will look like will be determined the way it often is in Afghanistan - by a feat of arms. May the strongest win.
The mooj, the Northern Alliance warlords, the Taliban and the current puppet Karzai regime were all created by the CIA and ISI. From 1996 to 2001, the Pentagon and Clinton and baby Bush White Houses and State Departments cynically supported and played the Northern Alliance warlords and Afghan Taliban government against each other, supporting the Taliban just enough to keep them in power. Up until the end of the week prior to 9/11, the Bush White House, Dick Cheney, Haliburton, Unocal and Enron were in negotiations with the Taliban government for TAP (the Trans Afghan Pipeline.)
By 9/11 (and many think it was an inside job, myself included), the Bush White House and the Pentagon decided to throw their support behind the Northern Alliance and use them as proxy gladios to overthrow the government because the Taliban rejected the offer for TAP and held out for more money.
When we pull out, there will be a civil war - the result of a power struggle for who will govern Afghanistan. Most likely it will be either the most powerful warlord, the Taliban or some other unsavory group.
If the Taliban, then we will have gone there, had our sons and daughters murdered there by our criminal governments, and things will revert back to the way they were antebellum - as if we were never there at all.
If this happens, it is because WE made (for the past 30 years) Afghanistan this way. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
From the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even in the 1980s during the Soviet Afghan War, there was modernity in Afghanistan where freedom, democracy, equality for women and education for women and girls took place. This occurred in the big cities like Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat, etc. This was not the case in the rural countryside.
Trying to ram these alien and foreign ideas down the throats of the rural Afghans isn't going to work. The reason why the Taliban are singling out these village elders is because they have painted themselves into a corner by allowing U.S. Spec. Ops. forces and the CIA to convince them to take up arms against the Taliban. They are in an unenviable position. Just like in Vietnam, they are murdered, intimidated and bribed by U.S. forces when they are most numerous in the area. They are murdered, intimidated and otherwise convinced to support the Taliban when they have the upper hand in the area.
When we are gone and should the Taliban form the next government, what will happen is the Taliban will govern from Kandahar (Kandahar may become the de facto capital), Kabul and the other large cities in the south. The people in the rural countryside will govern themselves. For centuries, Afghanistan has been very parochial and decentralized. The people in the countryside have always pretty much ruled themselves and adopted a "Fuck you" attitude toward the central government. Any outsiders come in and try to throw their weight around, they will be met with fierce armed resistance.
The people of the south are Pashtuns. The Taliban are Pashtuns. The Taliban have the 'home team' advantage. In the long run, who do think is going to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan people - us or them?
I certainly ain't going to put any money on us, I tell you what.
The Pashtun are not the Taliban.
A Talib is a religious student.
The Pashtun confederation are broken down in two tribes, The Durrani and Ghilzai within this two tribes there are a number of clans and sub-clans.
Historical the Durrani have held the majority of the power, with in the Durrani Tribes, Popalzai, Barakzai Achakzai and Alakozai clans have been the most powerful, and most of these clans really don't like each.
The Ghilzai are more likely to be Taliban than Durrani. Within the Ghilizai there are a number of small clans compared to the Durrani clans. These clans have been traditional against the Durrani clans.
Within Kandahar province there are over 16 major clan groups and about 45 sub-clan groups all are trying to their share of the wealth. There are also a number of Tajiks, Hazaars and other non-Pashtun tribes.
Your Special Forces arguments are also incorrect, tribal police forces were used well before the Soviets invaded.
Since 1945, there have been over 19 Pashtun uprisings in southern Afghanistan, targeting everyone from Kabul to Pakistan.
Kandahar city was never large it has only been since the Soviet invasion that the city has increased to the size it currently is.
Politics and power in Kandahar
This is a very good recent document, rather lengthy but very detailed.
Afghan Resistance Statement: The Subterfuge and the Jirga Fell Flat
http://www.alqimmah.net/showthread.php?p=34588
"The surrogate rulers of Kabul once again unscrupulously tried to exploit the good name and stature of Jirga for securing the interests and demands of of foreigners...It is a matter of great surprise that the Jirga on one hand, shows its gratitude to the so-called American assistance, but on the other hand overlooks the innocent blood, violation of values and desecration at the hands of the Americans.."
Politics and power in Kandahar
This is a very good recent document, rather lengthy but very detailed.
"We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives."
Oooo, I can hardly wait to read all 83 pages!
The Pashtun are not the Taliban.
I never said they were. I said the Taliban are Pashtun. An oversimplification, I know. If you like, I can make that statement more accurate by rewording it: Most Taliban are Pashtun.
A Talib is a religious student.
I know.
The Pashtun confederation are broken down in two tribes, The Durrani and Ghilzai within this two tribes there are a number of clans and sub-clans.
Historical the Durrani have held the majority of the power, with in the Durrani Tribes, Popalzai, Barakzai Achakzai and Alakozai clans have been the most powerful, and most of these clans really don't like each.
The Ghilzai are more likely to be Taliban than Durrani. Within the Ghilizai there are a number of small clans compared to the Durrani clans. These clans have been traditional against the Durrani clans.
Within Kandahar province there are over 16 major clan groups and about 45 sub-clan groups all are trying to their share of the wealth.
This is more information than most people know and why labelling Afghan insurgents as "Taliban" is inaccurate and misleading. That is why former Marine who served in Iraq and head of a PRT in Afghanistan Michael Hoh, said we fight one army of insurgents in one valley and an unrelated and unconnected army of insurgents in the valley over the next hill. Yet one more reason why fighting in Afghanistan is a hopeless endeavor.
There are also a number of Tajiks, Hazaars and other non-Pashtun tribes.
There are also sizeable minorities of Pashtuns in the West among the Hazaaras and North East among the Uzbeks and Tajiks.
Your Special Forces arguments are also incorrect, tribal police forces were used well before the Soviets invaded.
No they're not. Tribal police are one thing. Arming them, paying them Yanqui dollars and politicizing them by making them militias is something else. The Americans are doing it now, like they did in Iraq. The Russians tried it before and it failed. The Americans, in their arrogance didn't bother to consult with the Russians. It seems Americans have to learn for themselves through their own failures.
Since 1945, there have been over 19 Pashtun uprisings in southern Afghanistan, targeting everyone from Kabul to Pakistan.
Prior to 1945, throughout the centuries there have been countless uprisings and armed conflicts/squabbles in Afghanistan, that is the nature of the 'country' (if you can call it that.) This is the environment we, Russia before that, Britain before them and a number of other foreign invaders before them, have walked into. Stirring up the Afghan hornets nest through invasion is not a particularly brilliant thing to do, but then I never accused George W. of being a genius. What, however accounts for the stupidity of the other countries, involved in our current misadventure?
Kandahar city was never large it has only been since the Soviet invasion that the city has increased to the size it currently is.
Kandahar City may not have been very large (except for Kabul, none of the other "cities" are very large either), but it is an old and politically significant city. It was constructed under Alexander the Great and has always been important to southern Afghans.
There's the Mullah Omar Taliban, and then there is the TTP. Most Pashtuns can't read their Korans, because they are printed in Arabic.
Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan originated in US and Saudi funded madrassas mostly in 1980s-90s Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban's second home. Sibel Edmonds says that US money, and to the tune of billions of dollars, still goes toward funding thousands of madrassas in Central Asia today. The USA and Saudi royals are funding the creation of Taliban and other radical groups still today.
Military Watershed: Longest War in US/Afghan History
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19685
"Despite the pledge by President Obama that after what was touted in advance as a victory in Kandahar and throughout the war wracked nation - to begin drawing down US and NATO troops in 2011, all indicators are that Western forces will remain in Afghanistan long after that. For longer than any foreign military power has ever stayed in the nation before, in a war that is already the longest in American history.."
one of these 'indicators' were the recent weasel words of the visiting MPs as Canadian advance guard of imperial interests - manufacturing consent for a longer stay under the guise of 'helping' and 'finishing the job'...
And which side would that be?
“We’re funding both sides of the war,” a NATO official in Kabul said
Politics and power in Kandahar
This is a very good recent document, rather lengthy but very detailed.
"We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives."
Oooo, I can hardly wait to read all 83 pages!
Have you read the complete document yet?
Frmsldr why do you over simplify everything?
Did you edit post 82 after you posted it? Because you did state the Taliban are Pashtun originally.
It would be more accurate to state US regular army units are supporting the tribal police system. Of course you know, the Brits and the Canadians (there are others also) are against the tribal police system.
Well considering the term Afghan was created in early 1800s, calling Afghans as Afghan would be the same as calling the First Nations here in North America as "Indians". Relating all past defeats against the whole "country of Afghanistan" would be a similar error because the country was never united.
And they will never be united if the US Military, Saudis and Pakistani elite have their way.
Frmsldr why do you over simplify everything?
Did you edit post 82 after you posted it? Because you did state the Taliban are Pashtun originally.
It would be more accurate to state US regular army units are supporting the tribal police system. Of course you know, the Brits and the Canadians (there are others also) are against the tribal police system.
Well considering the term Afghan was created in early 1800s, calling Afghans as Afghan would be the same as calling the First Nations here in North America as "Indians". Relating all past defeats against the whole "country of Afghanistan" would be a similar error because the country was never united.
Webgear, why do you complicate things? How does it strengthen your argument? What is your argument?
This actually was the first time on babble I used the term "Taliban" in a collective sense to refer to those fighting against us. In the past and consequently, I will revert back to referring to them as insurgents, as we really don't know who the hell we are fighting against.
Ask the military, the government and the mainstream media why they almost always refer to insurgents as "Taliban".
No I didn't edit post 82. It said the "Taliban are Pashtuns". It still says that. You later reversed it to say "all Pashtun(s) are Taliban", which of course is not the same and is demonstrably false.
The U.S. military and the CIA are not "supporting" the tribal police system, they are corrupting/perverting it into militias. The reason, it is hoped, is that they will be far more effective in combating the insurgents than the ANP and will turn against fighting U.S./NATO/ISAF troops and fight amongst themselves (like what happened/is happening in Iraq).
The whole reason for this training of the ANA, militias and ANP bullshit is that the U.S./NATO/ISAF militaries are using this propaganda to sell their respective governments on the idea of escalating military engagement in Afghanistan, while the governments are using this propaganda to sell their publics on the idea that this is our "exit strategy": The more successful this strategy, the sooner our troops will be out.
So, let me see, because we mislabelled them monolithicly as "Indians", it therefore follows, both in logic and in fact, that we did not commit cultural genocide against our indigenous peoples.
Consequently, with Afghanistan, because the peoples in that region are ethnically and linguistically diverse and the "country" consists of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map by British geographers and chartographers in the 19th Century, "Afghanistan" is not, strictly speaking, a "country" really, but more of a "geographic expression".
It therefore follows, that our illegal attack, invasion, war, occupation of Afghanistan is a tabula raza and therefore will succeed, those other forces had not invaded "Afghanistan" because it didn't exist and they had not fought against "Afghans", because in reality, there are no such peoples as "Afghans". Nobody ever lost against the "Afghans" and no such "Graveyard of Empires" called "Afghanistan" exists.
That is the (absurd) logic of your argument.
I'm sorry, I missed it. When did "Afghanistan" become a country? When did the peoples living in that area become Afghans?
What is our strategy for victory - or is that a (classified) military secret?
What is the relevance of these obtuse cultural anthropology points and how do they relate to the morality of what we are doing in Afghanistan for the practical babbler of our modern world? Perhaps Webgear can enlighten us.
Those complicated details and the obtuse cultural anthropology points are necessary for this complex topic.
Not discussing these points or taking them into consideration when creating your arguments does nothing for your assessment of the situation.
Given your ability to provide a large amount of incorrect and oversimplified facts does not help your arguments with a clear or correct conclusion.
You are trying to make two different arguments into single conclusion. You are constantly talking about how the war is immoral and how the war is being conducted. This are two separate discussions in my view.
You being a highly trained and experienced soldier must realize the strategy for winning the war depends on the level of command you are talking about (strategical, operational and tactical), and that all these war winning policies are public knowledge.
The planning must have been headed up by the Ministry of Silly Walks.
It's a good point if only for the sake of discussion. It doesn't make the US-led military occupation of Afghanistan any less illegal. Many indigenous people of North America refer to themselves as Indians. The babbler/moderator Makwa has said it's a term he is comfortable with. And I suppose the fact that European explorers couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag makes no difference to me either.
Pashtuns normally place importance on culture over religious values, including Taliban ideology. Culture is expressed through their cultural code known as Pashtunwali. With Taliban, it's the reverse. Pashtuns love dancing, for example. With the Taliban, the general rule is no dancing allowed.
The diff here is that the US taxpayer,Saudi princes, and Pakistan's army intelligence agency created the Taliban and supported a Taliban government from 1996 to 2001. Then 9/11 happened, and the US Military says it is there in Afghanistan to ferret out "Al-Qaeda", another US creation, and anyone aiding and abetting "Al-Qaeda." The Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden, and who was a guest of the Af-Pak Taliban at that point, to Uncle Sam three times after 9/11. Why did the US reject these offers?
Travers: PM Gags Staff to Curb Afghan Scandal
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/822500--travers...
"Parliament has a responibility as well as the authority to pursue the truth and Canadians need to hear directly what Soudas, Buckler and Natynczk did for their political masters, and why.."
Those complicated details and the obtuse cultural anthropology points are necessary for this complex topic.
So, is it your one man crusade to convince us that Afghanistan is a legal, moral and just war by providing us with information about Afghanistan, its people and its culture - information we can find ourselves on the internet (CIA world factbook, wikipedia, google, ask.com, etc.) or by reading Encyclopaedia Britanica, National Geographic, Reader's Digest, etc. or watching PBS, etc.?
Keep studying Afghans and their culture, Webgear. The more you learn about Afghans, the less inclined you will be to kill 'em.
Where are we fighting this war, in Canada or Afghanistan? Afghans are killing Canadians because they are defending their crib. That's their excuse. What's yours?
THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU KILL YOUR NEXT AFGHAN.
You being a highly trained and experienced soldier must realize the strategy for winning the war depends on the level of command you are talking about (strategical, operational and tactical), and that all these war winning policies are public knowledge.
No one in government and the military talks about "victory" any more. The military talks about an "acceptable" level (the exact amount is never specified) "pacification" and "stability". It talks about "clear, hold and build", training the ANA and ANP and an "exit strategy". This is military double speak for defeat.
Afghanistan is a war we cannot win, yet our soldiers are sent to die there and our political and military leaders don't have the guts or moral fiber to admit it.
I am not trying to convince anyone whether the war is illegal or unjust, I am only providing a level of detail that is not known or discussed in these threads. I am also providing correct facts to some people's statements such how IEDs are used and tribal police and militia.
I would recommend that you attempt some studying before you post next time.
Inshallah my friend.
I am not trying to convince anyone whether the war is illegal or unjust, I am only providing a level of detail that is not known or discussed in these threads. I am also providing correct facts to some people's statements such how IEDs are used and tribal police and militia.
I would recommend that you attempt some studying before you post next time.
Inshallah my friend.
What a bunch of bullshit. You don't seem to understand the difference between traditional tribal Afghan police and an American created Afghan tribal militia.
Most babblers don't give a shit about the capabilities and characteristics about rockets, mortars, AK-47s, RPGs, etc. It has no bearing or relevance to the issues we are discussing.
During Tet 1968, Vietnam, the U.S. military stated the Tet Offensive was a strategic defeat for the Viet Cong.
The American public and the mainstream media largely saw it as a Communist victory. The majority of public opinion turned against the war.
Who was right?
They both were. Strictly speaking, from a limited military perspective, the Viet Cong had suffered a colossal military defeat.
What the military could not and does not to this day, understand, is that people's (a public's) social, political and moral perceptions are what win or lose wars, not actions on the battlefield alone.
Ok, prove to me the difference between traditional tribal police forces and the tribal militias, I will let you choose any region or province to present your case.
Try and do it under 10,000 words if possible.
Air Force to Pull Helicopters in 2011
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/force+pull+helicopters+2011/3144568/st...
"The Canadian air force is planning to withdraw all of its helicopters from Afghanistan within a few weeks of the end of Canada's combat mission next July, the air force general responsible for generating aircraft and crews for the war in South Asia said Friday...
The general, who was in Kandahar for three days to meet with air and maintenance crews also said that Canada is still ' at least four or five years away' from fielding ATTACK DRONES..
Canada's only drones in Kandahar are Israeli made Herons. With modifications the Heron is capable of launching weapons..."
Another benefit of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement or perhaps the Canada Israel Security Agreement? In any case a perfect candidate for the BDS campaign!
Webgear, what is it you're trying to tell us about the phony war in Afghanistan? I can't speak for FrmrSldr, but I must say that I am very impressed with your knowledge of war and imperialist tactics in prolonging war for no particular reasons. And I'm willing to bet you have something important to say and simply need some encouragement at this point. So feel free to tell us what's on your mind about this noble war to bring freedom and liberal democracy to Afghans in general.
Ok, prove to me the difference between traditional tribal police forces and the tribal militias, I will let you choose any region or province to present your case.
Try and do it under 10,000 words if possible.
It has little to do with exhaustively collecting every last bit of forensic evidence (proof) to make one's case. It has more to do about the political handling of the war by the U.S.A./NATO/ISAF and the negative impact we are making on Afghan society by our presence and waging war against Afghanistan's people.
Tribal police protect villagers from crime. American armed and supported militias have been politicized. They have been trained (indoctrinated) that the Taliban and insurgents are their enemy, They have been trained to kill Taliban and other insurgents. They are encouraged to seek out and engage in combat with Taliban or insurgents who may be attempting to have a presence in the area.
Because these militias now overtly oppose the Taliban or other insurgents, they might as well paint a bullseye on their backs as they have been made a target for the Taliban/insurgents by the good ol' U.S.A.
How hard is this to figure out?
Air Force to Pull Helicopters in 2011
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/force+pull+helicopters+2011/3144568/st...
"The Canadian air force is planning to withdraw all of its helicopters from Afghanistan within a few weeks of the end of Canada's combat mission next July, the air force general responsible for generating aircraft and crews for the war in South Asia said Friday...
The general, who was in Kandahar for three days to meet with air and maintenance crews also said that Canada is still ' at least four or five years away' from fielding ATTACK DRONES..
Canada's only drones in Kandahar are Israeli made Herons. With modifications the Heron is capable of launching weapons..."
Another benefit of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement or perhaps the Canada Israel Security Agreement? In any case a perfect candidate for the BDS campaign!
What the general is saying then, is that Canandian Air Force personnel will be disengaged from Afghanistan by 2011, but there will still be an Air Force presence (in the form of attack drones) in Afghanistan.
The bullshit is piling up so high in Afghanistan we need wings just to stay above it.
here's more:
Report: Pakistan ISI Backs Taliban
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=130187§ionid=351020401
"A new report has suggested that Pakistan's intelligence agency is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, providing them with funds and training. The report released Sunday by the London School of Economics (LSE) says that support for the Taliban is the 'official policy' of Pakistan's powerful Inter Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) and the body provides funds and sanctuary for the militant group on a larger scale than previously thought.
Pakistan appears to be playing a double game of astonishing magnitude, said the report's author Matt Waldman.."
as are our 'representatives' who know full well the imperial masters will require Canada's presence there somewhat longer..
NDDP
The Heron contract ceases next year, in July I beleive. There currently no replacement unit 2015.
Fidel
No encouragement is needed. I study and learn because I am a professional.
Frmsldr
Collecting and providing evidence is not your strong point, I understand that. Maybe you look at post #83 and #95 and re-evaluate your answer in regards to the tribal police issues especially in regards to Kandahar province.
Tribal police protect villagers from crime. American armed and supported militias have been politicized. They have been trained (indoctrinated) that the Taliban and insurgents are their enemy, They have been trained to kill Taliban and other insurgents. They are encouraged to seek out and engage in combat with Taliban or insurgents who may be attempting to have a presence in the area.
Because these militias now overtly oppose the Taliban or other insurgents, they might as well paint a bullseye on their backs as they have been made a target for the Taliban/insurgents by the good ol' U.S.A.
Enlighten me, Webgear. Show me the error in logic of my argument.
Hint: A good place to start is to get your key terms/concepts clear.
Tell me, what (universally) is the difference between police and soldiers (militia included.)
Why is the U.S. military and CIA arming and supporting tribal militias (as I would put it) or tribal police (as you would put it)?
1. The U.S. military and CIA are bleeding hearts and truly care about Afghans.
2. The U.S. military and CIA are a bunch of imperialists and racists who think they know how to run Afghan society better than Afghans do and feel a need to prove it to the rest of the world.
3. The U.S military and CIA don't give a shit about Afghans. They are arming and supporting tribal militias to give the U.S. government breathing space over Afghanistan: If the tribal militias COIN strategy results in fewer U.S./NATO/ISAF casualties, then Western governments can lie to their publics about bringing the troops home sooner. If the strategy fails, then governments can use that as an excuse to keep the troops longer in Afghanistan because obviously, our Afghan "charges" aren't capable of looking after themselves and we'll need to help them just a bit longer (indefinitely/eternally.)
ETA
... the people of Kandahar don't want the protection of foreign troops.
... The U.S. officials in Marja are trying to convince local residents, in effect, that they should trust the foreign troops to protect them from the Taliban, but the Taliban are still able to credibly [sic] to punish those who collaborate with occupation foces.
About a dozen people have been killed for such collaboration already, and many more have been warned to stop,...
... The fact that the U.S.-NATO forces could not clear the Taliban from Marja despite such an unusually heavy concentration of troops is devastating evidence that the McCrystal strategy has failed.
Throughout 2009, media coverage of the war was focused on plans for a new offensive strategy that promised to turn the war around. But Thursday's double dose of bad news suggests a cascade of news stories to come that will reinforce the conclusion that the war is futile.
That in turn could lead to what might be an "Iraq 2006 moment" - the swift unraveling of political support for the war on the part of the elected and unelected political elite, as occurred in the Iraq War in the second half of 2006. The collapse of elite political support for the Iraq War followed months of coverage of sectarian violence [ETA: Know anything about Sunni and Shia "neighborhood protection militias?] showing the U.S. military had lost control of the war.
McChrystal is still hoping, however, to be given much more time to change the attitudes of the population in Helmand and Kandahar.
... McChrystal and his boss, CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus, may now be counting on pressure from the Republican Party to force President Barack Obama to reverse his present position that withdrawal of U.S. troops will begin next year.
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/06/12/mcchrystal-faces-iraq-2006...
I love the smell of victory in Afghanistan.
The Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF) is a lightly armed, quickly trained experimental program that began in early February 2009 that aims to establish a persistent security presence in some of the most insecure areas of Afghanistan. APPF is a special security mission under the command of the Afghan Ministry of Interior and is primarily charged with protecting communities, schools, government installations and highways that are continually threatened by insurgent elements. The pilot program is underway in Wardak province, where there are only 1,200 ANP and ANA to protect a population of 500,000.28 According to General McKiernan, who commanded ISAF until June 2009, the APPF is "a means to use a community-based, bottom-up approach to improve security."29
The APPF is modeled on traditional Pashtun tribal force structure called the Arbakais, which enforce the settlements of tribal disputes. However, the APPF serve in a public protection capacity rather than a law enforcement capacity; tribal power brokers will agree to a contract with the Afghan government and ISAF to "expel and deter insurgents, field APPF recruits and perform guard duties" in exchange for greater influence over local affairs.30 The APPF operate at the district level and they are chosen by the district leaders.31 Once they are vetted and approved by the Afghan Ministry of Interior (MoI), recruits are trained during a three-week program.32
The APPF is expected to expand from the Saydabad district of Wardak to 40 districts. It will consist of roughly 8,000 members by July 2009, and will focus on securing the ring-road from Kabul to Kandahar.33 As of March 2009, over 243 recruits from Saydabad had received training while 200 recruits from the neighboring district of Jalrez had begun training.34 The program is set to be reviewed by CSTC-A before the summer of 2009.35 If found to be effective, the APPF model will likely be extended and expanded in an attempt to secure the population of insecure regions until sufficient ANP and ANSF forces can be fielded, trained, equipped and deployed.
A controversial program, the APPF has met with criticism for bearing resemblance to the old militias. The short training of the force is also a major concern for critics.36 The transferability of the program to other parts of the country has been questioned, and many observers are warning against the long term adverse consequences of rearming local forces.37
Tribal Jurisdiction and Agreements
In many parts of Afghanistan, non-state institutions remain relevant to security and stability, despite repeated and concerted state-led attempts from the late 19th century onward to expand its administrative influence, including control over the provision of security and the administration of justice. In the East and Southeast, these relatively autonomous structures are very much a present day reality and largely linked to Pashtun tribes and the influence of individual elders. It is important to emphasize that tribal security and governance never was geared toward undermining the state. In contrast, tribes and their elders tried to cooperate with the state whenever possible to improve governance and reduce conflict in their areas, taking on state roles during times of state failure.
Afghanistan: A History of Utilization of Tribal Auxiliaries
Tsalweshtai, or a guard force, normally composed of forty men, composed of members of various subsections of the tribe and appointed by the tribe for some special purpose, such as protecting an isolated valley from raiding gangs. This seems to be more commonin the northwestern portion of Pashtun territory. There is a specific tribal injunction to ensure that no blood feud results if someone is killed by a tsalweshtai on duty.
Framing these regional power struggles-and any new ground-up strategy-are a complex and baffling array of tribal actors. Pashtuns are represented by dozens of major tribal groups (though two "super tribes," the Durrani and Ghilzai, have historically been among the most influential) with hundreds of subtribes. The most sought-after partnership discussed in any potential U.S.-NATO-Afghan tribal cooperation would involve the arbakai. Akin to local police and courted by the Karzai government, the arbakai defend communities and enforce the decisions of tribal councils, or jirgas. A September 2004 report (PDF) by the International Legal Foundation describes their traditional duties: "In ancient Aryan tribes, the Arbakai led groups of warriors in wartime and maintained law and order in peacetime. Today, they take orders from a commander. They are given considerable immunity in their communities and cannot be harmed or disobeyed. Those who flout these rules are subject to the punishments set by the Arbakai organization." More recently, these self-regulating militias have been especially adept (Economist) at keeping the Taliban at bay in areas where tribal structures are strongest. Pashtun tribes adhere to an ancient code of honor and revenge known as Pashtunwali; the Taliban have struggled to promote their vision of sharia law in Pashtunwali regions, the Economist notes. But experts say it would be premature to assume Pashtun militias would be open to cooperating with international forces: Pashtun disdain for outsiders is not discriminatory.
here's more:
Report: Pakistan ISI Backs Taliban
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=130187§ionid=351020401
"A new report has suggested that Pakistan's intelligence agency is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, providing them with funds and training.
Yes of course! And the ISI, which has controlled the Taliban, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Mullah Omar etc., is an extension of the American CIA. Omar was one of the Taliban mullahs who were most agreeable to dealing with US and Argentinian energy companies in the late 1990s. These guys know their way around Washington and Houston like the backs of their hands.
Kandahar? Kandahar? What's Kandahar?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/kandahar-kandahar-whats-kandahar
"Don't look now but President Obama's Afghanistan strategy is collapsing on his head.."
US Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
"The US has discovered nearly $1 Trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.."
US Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
Sigh... I'm not sure if this is a blessing or a curse...
The Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF) is a lightly armed, quickly trained experimental program that began in early February 2009 that aims to establish a persistent security presence in some of the most insecure areas of Afghanistan. APPF is a special security mission under the command of the Afghan Ministry of Interior and is primarily charged with protecting communities, schools, government installations and highways that are continually threatened by insurgent elements. The pilot program is underway in Wardak province, where there are only 1,200 ANP and ANA to protect a population of 500,000.28 According to General McKiernan, who commanded ISAF until June 2009, the APPF is "a means to use a community-based, bottom-up approach to improve security."29
The APPF is modeled on traditional Pashtun tribal force structure called the Arbakais, which enforce the settlements of tribal disputes. However, the APPF serve in a public protection capacity rather than a law enforcement capacity; tribal power brokers will agree to a contract with the Afghan government and ISAF to "expel and deter insurgents, field APPF recruits and perform guard duties" in exchange for greater influence over local affairs.30 The APPF operate at the district level and they are chosen by the district leaders.31 Once they are vetted and approved by the Afghan Ministry of Interior (MoI), recruits are trained during a three-week program.32
The APPF is expected to expand from the Saydabad district of Wardak to 40 districts. It will consist of roughly 8,000 members by July 2009, and will focus on securing the ring-road from Kabul to Kandahar.33 As of March 2009, over 243 recruits from Saydabad had received training while 200 recruits from the neighboring district of Jalrez had begun training.34 The program is set to be reviewed by CSTC-A before the summer of 2009.35 If found to be effective, the APPF model will likely be extended and expanded in an attempt to secure the population of insecure regions until sufficient ANP and ANSF forces can be fielded, trained, equipped and deployed.
A controversial program, the APPF has met with criticism for bearing resemblance to the old militias. The short training of the force is also a major concern for critics.36 The transferability of the program to other parts of the country has been questioned, and many observers are warning against the long term adverse consequences of rearming local forces.37
Tribal Jurisdiction and Agreements
In many parts of Afghanistan, non-state institutions remain relevant to security and stability, despite repeated and concerted state-led attempts from the late 19th century onward to expand its administrative influence, including control over the provision of security and the administration of justice. In the East and Southeast, these relatively autonomous structures are very much a present day reality and largely linked to Pashtun tribes and the influence of individual elders. It is important to emphasize that tribal security and governance never was geared toward undermining the state. In contrast, tribes and their elders tried to cooperate with the state whenever possible to improve governance and reduce conflict in their areas, taking on state roles during times of state failure.
Afghanistan: A History of Utilization of Tribal Auxiliaries
Tsalweshtai, or a guard force, normally composed of forty men, composed of members of various subsections of the tribe and appointed by the tribe for some special purpose, such as protecting an isolated valley from raiding gangs. This seems to be more commonin the northwestern portion of Pashtun territory. There is a specific tribal injunction to ensure that no blood feud results if someone is killed by a tsalweshtai on duty.
Framing these regional power struggles-and any new ground-up strategy-are a complex and baffling array of tribal actors. Pashtuns are represented by dozens of major tribal groups (though two "super tribes," the Durrani and Ghilzai, have historically been among the most influential) with hundreds of subtribes. The most sought-after partnership discussed in any potential U.S.-NATO-Afghan tribal cooperation would involve the arbakai. Akin to local police and courted by the Karzai government, the arbakai defend communities and enforce the decisions of tribal councils, or jirgas. A September 2004 report (PDF) by the International Legal Foundation describes their traditional duties: "In ancient Aryan tribes, the Arbakai led groups of warriors in wartime and maintained law and order in peacetime. Today, they take orders from a commander. They are given considerable immunity in their communities and cannot be harmed or disobeyed. Those who flout these rules are subject to the punishments set by the Arbakai organization." More recently, these self-regulating militias have been especially adept (Economist) at keeping the Taliban at bay in areas where tribal structures are strongest. Pashtun tribes adhere to an ancient code of honor and revenge known as Pashtunwali; the Taliban have struggled to promote their vision of sharia law in Pashtunwali regions, the Economist notes. But experts say it would be premature to assume Pashtun militias would be open to cooperating with international forces: Pashtun disdain for outsiders is not discriminatory.
This underscores what I have been saying exactly:
1. One example was given of a traditional police force but it was later described as providing protection against the Taliban and insurgents not from the area. Therefore, in the end, all examples given show that they have been corrupted/perverted into militia to fight the Taliban and insurgents.
2. One example was given that support came from "state" (provincial, district?) and national government. The Karzai regime is Uncle Sam's little puppet in Kabul. In other words, the reason why these militias are supported by the nominally Afghan government is because this is a directive loyally done under Uncle Sam's bidding.
Conclusion, all the examples given are described as soldiers who belong to a tribal army whose job is to protect the community against Taliban and insurgents who are not from the area.
Thanks, Webgear.
US Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
Sigh... I'm not sure if this is a blessing or a curse...
It's a curse.
One of the reasons for both the Afghan war and the eternal prolongation of the war is because big corporations stand to make a lot of money out of this war and Afghanistan:
The arms industry supplying the tools of war. The oil industry with the proposed construction of the Trans Afghan Pipeline. Mining Industries: While Afghanistan may not have as much oil as the Caspian Sea basin countries (it still has enough for Unocal to be interested), it is the most mineral rich country in the world when it comes to strategic minerals. U.S. survey and mining companies had checked Afghanistan out prior to the war, make no mistake.
This is something U.S. mining companies and the government don't want you to know about.
Cold Irons Bound: All Together on the Road to Ruin
http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/1965-cold-irons-bound-...
"Every day, day after day, some father or mother finds their children's limbs hanging in the trees, some child finds his parent's broken bodies smoking in the rubble, some ordinary, innocent human being sees their loved ones beaten, chained, abused and killed. Every day, day after day.
Only a fool--a bloody minded, arrogant, puffed up, pig ignorant fool--could not see the horrific harvest of hate and destruction that will spring from such evil seeds. Only a fool--or an elitest so wadded in wealth and privilege that he believes these monstrous fruits will never touch him personally and doesn't care what happens to the rabble below, as long as his profits--and his primitive, psychosexual lust for forcible dominion remain safe.
We are ruled today by just such fools together with just such cold, deadened, malevolent spirits.
But we seem to be content with this.."
Abu Ghraib Photos Frame Afghanistan Prisoner Problems
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/806194--travers-abu-ghraib-ph...
"Canadian decisions took root on a fine spring day in the oval office. It's known that some Canadian detainees [POWs] 'disappeared' in Afghan jails.."
Siddiqui: Afghan Mission has become incoherent
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/806420--siddiqui...
"there's little logic left in Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. That's because the NATO mission itself has become incoherent. Meanwhile despite pledges to avoid civilian deaths, the carnage continues, and also the lying that often accompanies such incidents.."
Statement of the Afghan Resistance Leadership Council: On the Commencement of Al-Faath Operation
http://inteltrends.blogspot.com/2010/05/islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan_0...
"The Al-Faath Jihadic operations will start on 10th May, 2010 this year to include operations against the defeated foreigners and their surrogates all over the country. Mujahideen will destroy and wipe out every thing that is considered supporting the foreign invaders.."
Afghanistan's Karzai to Ask Obama for Billions to Fight Taliban
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7692289/Afgha...
"Afghan President Hamid Karzai will ask for billions in aid when he travels to Washington next week on a trip aimed at improving relations with Barack Obama.."
Canadian Military Officers Describe some Afghan Police as 'no better than criminals'
http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+military+officers+describe+some+Afgh...
neither are some Canadian military officers of course
7 in 10 Canadians say Afghan Detainee Issue Should Not Lead to an Election: Poll
http://www.canada.com/news/Afghan+detainee+issue+should+lead+election/30...
after all what good would that do?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3006329
"A solid majority of Canadians believe prisoners detained by Canadian soldiers have been tortured after being transferred to Afghan authorities, a new Ipsos Reid poll suggests. A fat majority also say if torture occurred, it was not only wrong but that they believe there was widespread knowledge of it within the Canadian government.."
Training That Makes Killing Civilians Acceptable
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25425.htm
The Real News vid
Bound to Fail: The Inevitable Collapse of McChrystal's Afghan War Plan
http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney05132010.html
"...General McChrystal's war plan is in the early stages of unravelling. To appreciate why this was entirely predictable, consider please, the following.."
Victory At All Costs in Afghanistan
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LE13Df01.html
"Isn't it time to call what the US Congress will soon vote on by its right name: war escalation funding? The fact is that military spending is destroying the US economy.."
Hundreds demonstrate against raid that killed 11 civilians: "Death to Americans, long live the Taliban!"
Crowds of men marched through the streets of Surkhrod district in Nangahar province, with chants like "Death to Americans, Long Live the Taliban" and pelted stones at government buildings before they were fired on by police.
Afghan President's Half-Brother to Play Key Role in Battle for Kandahar
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/afghan-presidents-half-brother...
"NATO couldn't get rid of Ahmed Wali Karzai so it's forging an uneasy relationship with him...
'The more Americans the better,' Mr Karzai said of the 30,000 US troops currently surging into southern Afghanistan. He believes he can use his connections to persuade low-level fighters to lay down their weapons in exchange for jobs and amnesty. 'It's difficult but not impossible,' he said. However, he dismissed the $160 Million pledged by the international community for such a campaign as
'a drop in the bucket'."
no wonder the Afghan people are rising in resistance against this dirty occupation. May they prevail against their enemies.
More Troops Hospitalized For Mental Health Than Any Other Reason
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0515/troops-hospitalized-mental-health-reaso...
"More US troops were hospitalized for mental health disorders than any other reason in 2009. Mental health hospitalizations throughout the military topped injuries, battle wounds and even pregnancy and childbirth..Obviously PTSD, depression, anxiety and substance abuse are not limited to American soldiers.."
war crimes' collateral damage
Afghans Protest Deadly Nightime Raid: 'If the Americans Do This Again, We are Ready To Shed Our Blood Fighting Them'
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/17/afghans_protest_deadly_nighttime_r...
"If the military keeps doing this, the people will go into the mountains to fight them. When I saw my daughter injured all I could think about was putting on a suicide jacket.."
Bill For Afghan War Could Run into the Trillions
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51468
"Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmer estimated that the longterm costs of taking care of wounded soldiers and rebuilding the military - of the war in Iraq, will ultimately cost three trillion dollars.."
Another Canadian soldier killed while strolling on a country road, more than 8 years after the Taliban were "overthrown"
Kandahar police compound hit by suicide bombers
Two top officials of Afghan government quit or are fired after security breach
Ten foreign troops killed in AfghanistanTwo foreign civilians working for an American security company contracted to help train Afghan police were also killed in a Taliban suicide raid on a training camp in Kandahar, officials said.
Afghan Withdrawal Plans 'Clear': Natynczyk
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/07/afghan-mission-natynczyk.htm...
"We have got very clear instructions from the government of Canada to move out on the withdrawal and that is what we're going to continue to plan on.."
This is the same story that Polunatic linked to ... but the headline is worth noting.
NATO suffers deadliest day this year in Afghanistan.
Go home, NATO soldiers. Go home and live.
What do you make of this?
My understanding is that the political parties involved are sucking up to the Cons - and I have no idea why. From the above link:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/07/afghan-mission-natynczyk.htm...
Opposition MPs returning from an all-party trip to Afghanistan last week suggested they would be willing to come to an agreement with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives over a continued role for Canadian soldiers in the country beyond next year.
... At the end of their five-day visit to Kandahar and Kabul last week, most members of the special parliamentary committee on the Afghan mission said they believe Canadian troops should have a role in Afghanistan beyond 2011, but one that would focus on training instead of combat.
The article then contradicts itself when it continues:
But when asked about the MPs' comments, the prime minister would only say they were "noted with interest," and then reaffirmed the government's view that the resolution adopted by Parliament in 2008 "continues to be our work plan."
The motion calls for Canada to "end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011" and for all forces to have left by the following December.
Harper subsequently said the vast majority of troops would be out of Afghanistan, and not just Kandahar, by the deadline.
But Defense Minister Peter MacKay has said Canada [ETA: the Conservative government] is willing to continue mentoring Afghan police [and soldiers] after the troop disengagement begins next summer.
Keep in mind that the Conservative government will have 90 soldiers stationed in Kabul and Kandahar beyond 2011 training the Afghan National Army and Police (ANA and ANP) and that this troop presence and the civilian surge will not be brought before Parliament.
So what are these "opposition MPs" playing at?
The so-called "training" of Afghan police is anything but, AFAIK. The police are essentially support for the occupation troops of NATO and their training matches their role in that regard. Lotsa people here in Canada are being misled on this issue.
Compare it to the Israelis who have few, if any, police in the occupied territories. They're not interested in policing the population. They're interested in ethnically cleansing them. In Afghanistan, the fig leaf is larger and the aims not quite so ... genocidal.
So that's the first point. Training is ... more occupation by a different name. Make the locals pay for it. Autonomy! Ha ha. An occupier's joke.
Secondly, if the Conservatives are sounding more left wing than the Liberals (and some of the other opposition parties) then I would immediately suggest that they have quietly agreed to continue "the mission" . Perhaps it will have a "new" wrapping. In return, the Conservatives will "compromise" on some inconsequential issue.
That's parliamentary "democracy" for ya.
Liberals volunteered Canadians for imperial duty in the Stan back in the early 2000s, and their cousins the Tories are keeping us there with support of the other wing of the same Bay Street party ever since.
More foreign friends giving their lives for Afghan liberty:
2 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan
Two more American troops were killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday, the military said, just a day after 10 NATO troops were killed in a string of attacks.
The latest deaths came as insurgents step up bombings and other attacks ahead of a major NATO operation in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar that Washington hopes will turn the tide of the war.
Monday was the bloodiest day this year for international forces in Afghanistan, when seven American troops, two Australians and a French Legionnaire were killed in five separate insurgent attacks in the south and east of the country.
Two civilian contractors training police, an American and a Nepalese, also died in a brazen suicide attack Monday in the southern city of Kandahar.
posted this to the 'coalition' thread but it belongs here too. Looks like the 'representatives' have 'played' us again...
A Look at Reality in Afghanistan
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/06/0...
"Rae went further and pledged the Liberal party to back serious discussions between Canada and NATO and alliance allies about a future role for our troops in Afghanistan..If Rae is right when he says the Liberals think a post 2011 role in Afghanistan for our military is 'very important', and if a motion is presented in the Commons to extend our stay in some way, it's hard to see Harper rejecting it..
NDP MP Jack Harris also noted it's important Canada not forsake Afghanistan so the sacrifice will not be in vain for the 146 soldiers, one diplomat and 1 journalist who's been killed..
General Stanley MChrystal, commanding upwards of 100,000 NATO troops in AFghanistan and a fighting soldier himself has made it clear he'd relish Canadian troops staying without a deadline.."
Ah so that's what 'opposition' means...they 'oppose' leaving Afghanistan - now i get it!
"Rae went further and pledged the Liberal party to back serious discussions between Canada and NATO and alliance allies about a future role for our troops in Afghanistan..If Rae is right when he says the Liberals think a post 2011 role in Afghanistan for our military is 'very important', and if a motion is presented in the Commons to extend our stay in some way, it's hard to see Harper rejecting it..
Personally, I think there is a conspiracy among the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives to cooperate amongst themselves.
Why the hell else would Liberal and NDP MPs snatch defeat (Canadian military disengagement from Afghanistan) from the jaws of victory? All they had to do was 'sit on their hands' (do nothing) and 'hold their hands over their mouths' (say nothing) while Haper blathered on about respecting the 2008 War Resolution passed by the House where military disengagement would begin in July 2011 and all troops would be out by December 2011.
Now, they've handed Harper a political victory on a silver platter: Harper can say to the Canadian public, "See, for the past six months, I was all for complete military disengagement from Afghanistan. But as both the Liberal and NDP parties are so strongly in favor of escalating Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan and (possibly) since the House voted yes to the latest (2010 or 2011) War Resolution, who am I [ETA *cough* *cough*] to ignore the will of Parliament [ETA I mean, it's not like I haven't done it before]?
I also think an election is going to be sooner rather than later. I think the Liberals, the NDP and the Cons are pandering to the wealthiest companies that have interests in the war: the arms, oil and mining industries. I think they're also "waving the bloody shirt" with that "If we walk away from Afghanistan now, then those 147 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives will have died in vain.", to pander to the yahoos in Canadian society who support (the) war.
So, unless the U.S.A. and NATO achieve victory in Afghanistan (they won't), then those 147 soldiers have died in vain. So what now, more Canadian soldiers can die in vain, in an immoral, unjust and illegal war we can't win?
I agree with you - clearly they're operating in tandem and we'll get a little dance and soft-shoe and then all will agree that the job is not done yet and we'll be stuck. It's not about making it work but keeping it working...endless war remember?
Our friend Fidel is right.
Kucinich: "We may be funding our own killers in Afghanistan."
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0608/kucinich-war-critics-rebuke-usfunded-br...
Well I'm not surprised. And thanks to Former Soldier for pointing us to some very informative alternative news sites, like antiwar.com and rawstory etc. From FrmrSldr's linked-to news piece:
“Supporting a corrupt elite in a civil war does nothing to make us safer, costs the United States billions of dollars, and it’s not working,” Greenwald told Raw Story.
It "confirms what we have heard numerous times from our friends, co workers and producers in Afghanistan. The United States is effectively funding both sides of the war all too often," he said.
Sibel Edmonds is right, Washington is more corrupt than most people know. And our followers in Ottawa just play along with the charade. War! What's it good for? Those on the receiving end of kick-back and graft understand full well what war is good for.
Which makes Jack Harris' recent comments about finding another role there all the more puzzling, eh?
I believe there were a few threads about Dawn Black indicating there is a role for Canadian's in Afghanistan after the halting of the combat mission next spring. Now Jack Harris has been spinning plans about what Canada should be doing next summer and combat operations have ceased.
What exactly is the NDP's position on Afghanistan, because they do not seem to have a clear message?
What exactly is the NDP's position on Afghanistan, because they do not seem to have a clear message?
In 2006, Jack Layton talked about complete military disengagement from Afghanistan. He also talked at that time about Canada having a humanitarian (civilian) role in Afghanistan.
Currently, (subject to change, of course) Harper is talking about almost all the troops being disengaged from Afghanistan by December 2011, the troops remaining (90 being the latest figure) will train the ANA and ANP. Some of those troops will be in Kandahar (the others in Kabul.)
While Harper is extolling the virtues of a proposed civilian surge: Civilian experts who will assist with administration, government, reconstruction, redevelopment and humanitarian aid. Bob Rae and Jack Harris are proposing an escalation of troops beyond 2011 - to engage in non combat duties, such as training the ANA and ANP - as mentioned above.
Remember that the 2008 War Resulotion was largely the handiwork of Stphane Dion and the Liberals. Now they are destroying both the spirit and the letter of that Resolution.
Indeed, different MPs from the NDP are sending mixed and contradictory messages about our future role in Afghanistan.
RE - NDP position ... Perhaps it's "emerging" as the situation becomes more clear. After the next election, things will become very clear, I predict. lol.
NATO allies poised to slash military budgets; Gates urges other cost savings:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, on a trip to London and Brussels this week, is pressing allies to hold the line as Pentagon officials fret they could be stuck with an even bigger share of the burden of the war in Afghanistan or future NATO missions.
Good, I say. Let Uncle Sam shoulder more of the burden for the wars he starts. Maybe this way, the U.S.A. will start and become involved in fewer wars and maybe the world will become a more peaceful place.
For many European governments trying to recover from the global financial crisis, their armed forces are prime candidates for the chopping block.
... "We have to take care not to cut too much or in the wrong way, that we might jeopardize our security in the future," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Monday in Brussels. "After all, economic prosperity depends on security too."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR201006...
Bullshit.
RE - NDP position ... Perhaps it's "emerging" as the situation becomes more clear. After the next election, things will become very clear, I predict. lol.
The NDP should do what the Harper administration and the Cons have been doing and what the Liberals are failing miserably at: The NDP's policy should be to shape public opinion; not allow public opinion to shape NDP policy. Like the Cons, the NDP need to shape the narrative and try to get the public on board to what the NDP party strives to accomplish. In other words, unlike the Liberals; be proactive toward, not reactive to, public opinion.
It's all in the message and the messaging.
I detect a slight change in (American) media coverage of the Afghan war.
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Four U.S. soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday when their helicopter was shot down, officials said, and a fifth member of the military from the NATO coalition was killed in a roadside bombing.
Wednesday's attacks added to what has been one of the deadliest weeks for the U.S.-led international military force in the nearly nine-year war. Since Sunday, 23 NATO troops have been killed in Afghanistan.
The journalist continues to state nervously:
Allied aircraft crashes in Afghanistan due to enemy fire have been relatively rare during nearly nine years of war. The lack of Taliban surface-to-air capacity has given the United States and other foreign powers a major tactical advantage over insurgents, enabling them to fly at fairly low altitudes, even over insurgent strongholds in the south and east.
In contrast, the U.S. decision in the 1980s to supply mujaheddin in Afghanistan with Stinger missiles marked one of the major turning points of the Islamic rebels' fight against Soviet forces. Russian aircraft were forced to fly at much higher altitudes -- or risk being shot down.
... American helicopters are particularly vulnerable to Taliban attack when operating in areas such as Sangin, where there is a relatively light presence of U.S. or NATO forces. In many areas of remote valleys in eastern Afghanistan, where the United States maintained a small presence, earlier Taliban shoot-downs of Chinooks and Black Hawks forced U.S. commanders to change tactics.
Both the rocket-propelled grenades and the heavy machine guns that the Taliban has used to shoot down helicopters are relatively crude weapons. To counter them, U.S. helicopter crews flying into remote valleys increasingly shifted to flying only at night and only on evenings when there was little to no illumination from the moon. The restrictions made it much harder to continue to resupply some of the more remote U.S. bases, which received supplies only a few times a month. But by operating after nightfall and during hours in which there was little moonlight, U.S. forces have been able to mitigate the Taliban attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/06/09/ST20100609...
The NDP should do what the Harper administration and the Cons have been doing and what the Liberals are failing miserably at: The NDP's policy should be to shape public opinion; not allow public opinion to shape NDP policy. Like the Cons, the NDP need to shape the narrative and try to get the public on board to what the NDP party strives to accomplish. In other words, unlike the Liberals; be proactive toward, not reactive to, public opinion.
It's all in the message and the messaging.
Isn't shaping public opinion another phrase from propaganda?
Isn't shaping public opinion another phrase from propaganda?
Sure. You can call it a lot of things like propaganda, indoctrination or conditioning.
If you want to win against Harper, you've got to beat him at his own game.
In the world of politics (sadly) it boils down to who has the better propaganda and (hopefully) who has the better policies. Better in terms of their benefit for Canada and the majority of Canadians.
RE - NDP position ... Perhaps it's "emerging" as the situation becomes more clear. After the next election, things will become very clear, I predict. lol.
But that's just it. Things are not clear wrt Canada's role in Afghanistan. The governments of other NATO countries have shared information with their citizens. Not so in Bananada. Most Canadians are in the dark about our colonial administrative duties in Afghanistan. The NDP has called for transparent Parliamentary debate since Paulie Martin changed the Canadian role from one of peacekeeping to that of aggressive US-style combat beginning in 2005, in the lead up to young Canadians coming home in plastic bags to their families in increasing numbers.
None of the vicious toadies in previous Liberal Government or this ReformaTory-Liberal coalition government have been very transparent or accountable to the Canadian public at all with respect to Ottawa's kow-towing to Uncle Sam in the Stan.
RE: Taliban Jack Layton
Would it really be enough for a federal government to pull troops out of Afghanistan and not push for international diplomacy toward ending the illegal US-led Military occupation altogether? Or do Marxists think that doing as little as possible to inconvenience Uncle Sam's Military agenda would be the Marxian thing to do, or not do in this case? Our stooges in Ottawa are let off easy by Marxist babblers time and time again. Why should our elected stooges not be held to higher standards by self-described leftists and anti-war advocates? Is contributing to the end of war not a noble ideal for the left? Is working to use established diplomatic channels to bring about resolutions for ending war and international conflict not in our federal stooges job description?
Who thinks the fascist agenda in Europe and Spain of the 1930s and 40s was nobody else's business but Spain's and then that country which stood alone against Nazi Germany for over two years behind the Russian front?
Who among the leftists here think NATO countries made the right decision in turning their backs on the carnage and crimes against humanity that took place in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996? Was that an indigenous matter for Afghans to sort out themselves with the US-CIA and Pakistani ISI funding the Mooj and then Taliban who took turns raping and pillaging with every city and town they razed to the ground as millions fled the country? Were our elected stooges in Ottawa just doing the right thing then, too?
Wow. 8.5 years of kill and get killed in the service of western imperialism, and you're still foggy about it. Take your time, don't rush to judgment.
Oh yes, the MPs will sling partisan insults at each other, out of which we will at last figure out what the Liberals and Conservatives have been hiding from us: Why are we there!? And who knows, if the transparent debate goes on long enough, we may actually find out we're doing something good there! Or not! Oh to be all grown up and wise and be able to understand what the world is really about! Parliament will let me know!
Would it really be enough for a federal government to pull troops out of Afghanistan and not push for international diplomacy toward ending the illegal US-led Military occupation altogether?
Not quite. Don't forget the payment of reparations and war crimes investigations.
"Marxists"? They have their own take on Afghanistan!? A majority of Canadians want Canada out now. I trust the "Marxists" aren't with the minority on this one?
No, every warmongerer and their cheerleaders says they are bombing, occupying, and slaughtering in order to "end the war". Our noble ideal is to "leave the war" and stop killing the Afghan people.
Yes, they're doing that. NATO. ISAF. The UN. They're using all the channels to try to rig and remote control the future of the Afghan people. Fortunately, they will die trying, until they get weary and run away.
The elected government of Spain invited anti-fascist heroes from around the world to come and fight against the fascist insurgents. Is that your metaphor for Afghanistan?
Russian never invited Canadians to come do their fighting, and Canada never offered.
Me! I do!
Ummm... Yes. When people are being raped, you don't go in there and do just a little bit of raping of your own. Would you like to borrow my Idiot's Guide to Rocket Science?
When they weren't invading Afghanistan? Yes, friend, they were doing exactly the right thing. How much earlier would you have like them to go in there and self-destruct? Would that have been a "phoney war" like the current one, or a genuine holy crusade? I do have trouble following which side you're on at times.
Sure. You can call it a lot of things like propaganda, indoctrination or conditioning.
If you want to win against Harper, you've got to beat him at his own game.
In the world of politics (sadly) it boils down to who has the better propaganda and (hopefully) who has the better policies. Better in terms of their benefit for Canada and the majority of Canadians.
So you have no problem with propaganda as long it is your message being published to the masses.
Wow. 8.5 years of kill and get killed in the service of western imperialism, and you're still foggy about it. Take your time, don't rush to judgment.
You may be clear. I know I am clear. But what about transparency and accountability to the Canadian public? Remember them? No, our stooges have not been straight up with Canadians regarding their vicious toadying. They don't want Canadians thinking that Jean, and Paulie and now Steve have been boot-licking the way they have.
So in your view, Canadians don't need transparent or accountable government. Not when they have you to wise them up. In the mean time our stooges are doing excellent work, and especially those old line party hacks working part-time for full-time pay and gold-plated pensions in our non-elected and non-accountable Senate.
And the Yanks should be free to slaughter Afghans willy-nilly once we're gone? It's only been 30 years' worth of US meddling to Talibanize Pakistan and Afghanistan. You say it's not enough time - that the neoliberal regime backed by NATO need even more time to lay the law down for tens of millions of desperately poor people. I think I understand where you're coming from now.
It's a phony war. This is what Afghans and a few Americans, including Dennis Kucinich have been saying for years.
You seem to think this is a real war on terror. I don't agree. And apparently very many Afghans agree that this is a phony war to extend the US Military occupation of Central Asia. See Zbigniew "Mackinder wannabe" Brzezinski's grand chessboard strategy for Central Asia.
Afghanistan has no democratically elected government. Ottawa's bosses in Warshington made sure of this over the last 30 years and counting. Are you saying that we should recognize feudal warlords and drug traffickers in the Taliban, former US proxies from 1996-2001(and apparently still on the CIA's payroll still today according to news reports) as to what Afghans want?
My father signed up to fight fascism in North Africa, Italy, Holland and finally Brussels by '45. And so did tens of thousands of Yanks who were chomping at the bit but were held back by Roosevelt ni that country. A weak and ineffective federal Liberal PM here described Hitler as trustworthy before the start of war in Europe. And Stalin demanded a second front for over two years before it happened.
No, but you can borrow my post-WW II UN Guide to preventing human rights disasters and fascism in general for dummies.
Again you've sided with the CIA and our elected stooges' non-decision to intervene in the CIA-Pakistani Military dictatorship's business in Afghanistan from 1979-92. Well I'm not surprised for some reason. Some lefty you've turned out to be. It's disappointing.
You see Unionist, with merger, coalition, hand holding, courtship, or whatever it ends up being described on the horizon, one has to lay the groundwork toward certain commonalities with the prospective partner. Colonialism and offshore economic exploitation at gunpoint tend to be fairly visible and unwieldy portfolios to contend with in their own right. The harmonization of policy becomes a matter of practicality, in order to avoid needless impediments to the mutual interests at stake.
[9/11 trivia] More than 6 soldiers have died for each of the 24 Canadian who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11. [/9/11 trivia]
This is a new one on me. Apparently after having driven the Taliban and Al Qaeda from our line of sight on the good days, rescuing the population from themselves, saving women and children from patriarchy, and overseeing Potemkin construction projects, our continuing presence is now required in order to protect people from the excesses of our erstwhile allies, by convincing them that slaughtering the indigenous citizens wholesale probably isn't such a good idea after all.
Fidel has finally found the reason for us to stay in Afghanistan - to fight the U.S. invaders.
It's original, I'll give him that.
This is a new one on me. Apparently after having driven the Taliban and Al Qaeda from our line of sight on the good days, rescuing the population from themselves, saving women and children from patriarchy, and overseeing Potemkin construction projects, our continuing presence is now required in order to protect people from the excesses of our erstwhile allies, by convincing them that slaughtering the indigenous citizens wholesale probably isn't such a good idea after all.
You must have wind burn from the wording of the question which hath eluded you. Canada's combat troop presence is gone in the theoretical end goal proposed by the ill thought out anti-NDP rhetoric.
The YANKS are still there though in the theoretical excellent move by Ottawa to remove troops and with our elected stooges in Ottawa apparently continuing to remain silent on the world stage with regard to what our largest trade partners are doing in Afghanistan. They've just put diplomatic pressure on Britain's weak and ineffective Tory-"Liberal Democrat" High Street coalition in London to send more troops to Afghanistan.
According to the rabid, frothing at the mouth anti-NDP rhetoric in this thread, Jack Layton is not supposed to even use Parliamentary procedure to pressure our stooges into doing their jobs as national leaders of a recognized country to work toward international peace talks and ending the slaughter of what have been mainly desperately poor innocent Afghans and Pakistanis in addition to the soldiers murdered on either side of the situation(sometimes referred to as workers by middle of the road lefties but only when convenient). Jack Layton and the fourth political party - the effective opposition in Ottawa and making both Canada's two stoogeocratic old line parties look like the colonial administrators that they are - are the root of all evol in the colonial outpost of Ottawa today.
I'm sorry, but the constant deflecting of blame from the two lap poodles leading the Tory-Lib coalition and onto the NDP so slavishly is starting to wear thin. At some point we need someone in a leadership role in Ottawa and unafraid to pursue international diplomacy, even if it does mean stepping on Uncle Sam's toes.
Sure. You can call it a lot of things like propaganda, indoctrination or conditioning.
If you want to win against Harper, you've got to beat him at his own game.
In the world of politics (sadly) it boils down to who has the better propaganda and (hopefully) who has the better policies. Better in terms of their benefit for Canada and the majority of Canadians.
So you have no problem with propaganda as long it is your message being published to the masses.
It's not an ideal set of circumstances. But if it results in the NDP forming a government, a defeat of the Conservatives and the achievement of policies that will greatly benefit the majority of Canadians, you bet!
Your ethics and principals are truly amazing.
Your ethics and principals are truly amazing.
I guess one could say that of most (if not all) politicians.
"All is fair in love and war."
Politics is like "war". If you're in it to win it...
A marriage of dogmatism and pragmatism; realism and idealism.
Propaganda or "Indoc[trination]". There's a lot of it in the military. Had too much. Don't like the 'smell' of it?
Fidel has finally found the reason for us to stay in Afghanistan - to fight the U.S. invaders.
It's original, I'll give him that.
To be clear, it's YOU who thinks Uncle Sam should be free to stay in Afghanistan without our stooges in Ottawa interfering in Uncle Sam's right to march into a sovereign country and commit war crimes willy-nilly unchallenged by anyone, and especially not by our bought and paid-for stooges in Ottawa. You think it natural for vicious toadies of the day to avoid cutting Uncle Sam's grass. YOU can't imagine what a real leader in Ottawa should do in this situation... because you wouldn't recognize a real leader if he was draped in orange. I think it's the colour orange that fools you so.
I, on the other hand, am not so willing to let our vicious toadies off the hook for their toadying ways. Someone has to act like a real leader of a real country, and Jack is volunteering to do just that. Our colonial administrators in the two same-same parties just aren't up to the job. Steve and Iggy have their heads so far up Uncle Sam's derriere that they've gotta pump air to 'em.
Meanwhile... At least 40 people were killed and 77 injured by a suicide bomb attack on a packed wedding party in insurgency-plagued southern Afghanistan, officials said on Thursday
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100610/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_violence#mwpphu...
That is correct, the Taliban would never injure or kill anyone that opposes them, they have never killed police officers, government officials, tribal elders, political opponents, teachers, aid workers in the past.
Webgear. Your side is losing. After a war longer than WWII. You thought you overthrew the Taliban almost 9 years ago. The insurgents still run more of Afghanistan than your "officials" do. Smell the coffee. Call for withdrawal.
The eternal prison colony at Bagram
A commenter on a Merkin site where we were discussing that article yesterday asked a prescient question: what is Obama (or whoever is in office at the time) going to do when the Taliban retake either the site or (more likely imho) the government of Afghanistan?
The longer I think about that question, the more I remember how GTMO came to be. Man, did Marx underestimate the number of historical replays of just about anything or what?
He's volunteering to stay longer.
In what world do you imagine Canada has any influence whatsoever in what happens in the occupation? Ask Webgear, and he'll tell you under whose command and pleasure he proudly serves (hint: their headquarters has five symmetrical sides). I know you can twist logic like a freeway overpass, but to conclude that Canada's subservient role to the US somehow acts to mitigate their actions is a real puzzler.
Name one instant, one time, one snippet where Canada criticized or second guesses their boss's actions or wishes, anywhere on the globe. Canada happily lets them torture a citizen for years, while all the toady opposition sits on their hands and wonders whether it'd be better to torture him here instead.
Canada's presence in Afghanistan does serve a purpose to the Americans: it gives them international cover, allowing them to maintain the fiction that this is a NATO operation. The Canadians also act like the low-rent colonial troops we've always been to greater power, gladly offering up our own citizens to further the empire's interests.
I'm sure those same victims feel much better, much freer when they are murdered by your side instead.
In your heart of hearts do you really believe this; the Taliban had nothing to do with this attack, becouse they said so?
No, I believe the Taliban lie all the time and the U.S., NATO, and Canadian military tell the truth. I believe the Taliban just like to slaughter civilians, while the westerners will do everything - even stepping in front of bullets themselves - in order to save innocent Afghans (especially women) from coming to any harm.
I also believe that most of the massacres in Vietnam attributed to the U.S. and its compliant Saigon regime were actually the handiwork of the Communist Viet Cong, who while masquerading as ordinary Vietnamese patriots, were actually paid agents of Moscow and Beijing and thought nothing of butchering their own in order to achieve their nefarious aims.
In general, I think the West - dedicated only to protecting itself against less developed cultures and spreading the ideals of liberty and democracy - gets a really bad rap.
Now tell me what your heart of hearts says to you.
Thank you for your honest answer, it really shows your (internet?) character.
Me? I believe both sides lie and deceive to fit their agendas so you have to be careful what you believe... sometimes they are both lying about the same thing with one lying more than the other to cover their ass. In this particular case I'm thinking the Taliban are victims of their own success and now have to lie about it. This was no "oops we missed the real target"... that guy walked into that wedding party fully knowing full well the nature of the target. The Taliban may have fooled you but I doubt they fooled the Afghan people for the most part.
This by the way; the having to lie to cover ones fuck ups all the time is one of the reasons I support the US withdrawing from Afghanistan; it's time to go... I sorry if I'm not as fiery and emotional about this as some here are; that's not my style.
As I've said before I'm all for the US leaving Afghanistan. I just feel too creepy about "supporting" the Taliban like some of you guys do... but to each their own.
Afghan President Has Lost Faith in US Ability to Defeat Taliban
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/afghanistan-taliban-us-hamid...
"Afghanistan's former head of intelligence says President Hamid Karzai is increasingly looking to Pakistan to end insurgency.."
This by the way; the having to lie to cover ones fuck ups all the time is one of the reasons I support the US withdrawing from Afghanistan; it's time to go... I sorry if I'm not as fiery and emotional about this as some here are; that's not my style.
Yeah, well, that's the WRONG REASON for supporting U.S. withdrawal. The CORRECT REASON is that it's not their country. If the U.S. starting being very truthful about their fuck ups, you might decide they should stay, right? Views like yours - deciding whether an invasion is right or wrong based on your own "reasons" - deny the freedom of people everywhere in the world. Attitudes like yours are ready to be manipulated into defence of aggression, murder, and enslavement.
By the way, I don't support the Taliban. Nor do I believe their reports or denials. Your straw-man misreadings of my posts shows your character quite clearly.
The war in Afghanistan is illegal, immoral and unjust and cannot be supported on those grounds. We should never have waged war against the Afghans in the first place.
So I take it your real answer to my question in post #52 about post #47 is no.
Thank you for your time.
He's volunteering to stay longer.
In what world do you imagine Canada has any influence whatsoever in what happens in the occupation? Ask Webgear, and he'll tell you under whose command and pleasure he proudly serves (hint: their headquarters has five symmetrical sides). I know you can twist logic like a freeway overpass, but to conclude that Canada's subservient role to the US somehow acts to mitigate their actions is a real puzzler.
And it's for this reason Jack Layton must be lying when he speaks of working toward a UN-mediated loya jirga between the formerly US-backed Mujahideen and some Taliban in Karzai's puppet government, and the formerly US-backed Taliban who are, apparently, still on the US taxpayer's payroll.
It's a bullshit war. It's a most deniable "war on terror." And just like Canada has an obligation to the rest of the fucking world to help curb corporate America of its voracious appetite for under-priced fossil fuels, our stooges probably also have an obligation to the rest of the world to stop kow-towing to the phony bastards and work toward ending a phony phucking war on terror in not one but two countries in Central Asia where tens of millions of deperately poor people have struggled so hard against a western world neoliberal siege machine for the last 30 years and counting. Democracy might not be an ideal our stooges in Ottawa today aspire to, but why should it mean the NDP are lying, too? There's no evidence for this claim.
The NDP called for an investigation into the CIA's abduction of Haiti's first and last democratically elected leader in 2004. The Blocquistas contribution was to shout down the NDP in Parliament and inisist that the effective opposition cease referring to Aristide as removed in favour of the double speak, "departed." It's all there in Hansard.
They kill because the CIA and their private enterprising mercenaries are providing the incentives: cash and weapons and other aid delivered to the Taliban by Air America-2010. Also, Malalai Joya said two years ago that Afghan reports state that 85% of the drug shipments out of Afghanistan are flown by US aviators.
It's a bullshit war.
So I take it your real answer to my question in post #52 about post #47 is no.
Thank you for your time.
And you believe this?
If so, why?
And how about this, from the same article:
Kandahar is key to the success of U.S. President Barack Obama's revamped war strategy, which focuses on turning local allegiances against the Taliban and toward the U.S.-backed central government.
No connection - right?
Source.
The Taliban are the best enemies US taxpayer's money can buy. Gotta keep phony war and the drug running and weapons dealing and grinding poverty going for as long as possible. Like they say, evol triumphs where Canada's vicious toadies help it along.
dubla posta
So I take it your real answer to my question in post #52 about post #47 is no.
Thank you for your time.
And you believe this?
In this particular case yes... it was the Taliban or one of their allies.
Because...?
Who would benefit most from this incident, in your opinion? Or did that question figure in arriving at your conclusion?
And did you consider this:
Why wouldn't the U.S. organize this atrocity?
Because...?
Who would benefit most from this incident, in your opinion? Or did that question figure in arriving at your conclusion?
And did you consider this:
Why wouldn't the U.S. organize this atrocity?
The Pentagon is doing all kinds of dirty and very nasty things in the 'Ghan that naturally, they don't want the American (or any) public to know about.
Most of the victims were already on the governments side... if you reject this premise I imagine you could speculate this into a conspiracy or black flag operation.
As for the statement you keep referring to I have no problem with it. It's a true statement and, depending on how you want to interpret it, you could stretch it into the basis for a conspiracy theory or black flag operation (if you chose to go in that direction).
Militia is said to be the target of Afghan wedding attack:
KABUL, Afghanistan - The groom and 17 of the guests at a rural Kandahar wedding party attacked by a suicide bomber on Wednesday night were members of an anti-Taliban guard organization encouraged initially by American Special Operations forces, and the bomber's goal appeared to be to undermine support for the group, elders and government officials in the area said Thursday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?partner=TOPIX...
There you go. It's the fault of those damn Yanquis. They're pulling the stunt that the British used during their Days of Empire: rule by pitting diffent groups against each other. The Yanquis did this in Iraq, now they're doing it in Afghanistan. All it will do is escalate the level of violence in Afghanistan and hatred toward U.S./NATO/ISAF troops.
Militia is said to be the target of Afghan wedding attack:
KABUL, Afghanistan - The groom and 17 of the guests at a rural Kandahar wedding party attacked by a suicide bomber on Wednesday night were members of an anti-Taliban guard organization encouraged initially by American Special Operations forces, and the bomber's goal appeared to be to undermine support for the group, elders and government officials in the area said Thursday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?partner=TOPIX...
There you go. It's the fault of those damn Yanquis. They're pulling the stunt that the British used during their Days of Empire: rule by pitting diffent groups against each other. The Yanquis did this in Iraq, now they're doing it in Afghanistan. All it will do is escalate the level of violence in Afghanistan and hatred toward U.S./NATO/ISAF troops.
It would appear the local elders would disagree... they say it's the Talibans fault.
"The local militia were quite effective and helpful and were supported by the civilian population; they were not letting Taliban come to their area," said Haji Shah Aka, an elder from Nagahan.
Given their status in Afghan culture I'll take their word for it.
Most of the victims were already on the governments side... if you reject this premise I imagine you could speculate this into a conspiracy or black flag operation.
Ah, sorry - I didn't notice that. Well, if the attack was aimed at pro-government militia members, and if it truly was carried out by insurgents, then it takes on a rather different character than a random attack against civilians, doesn't it?
I never, once, said it was a "conspiracy" or "black flag" operation. I was the one who pointed out that there were two versions of whodunnit. I pointed out that I believe neither version. You said you believe the U.S.-NATO version. I questioned, and continue to question, why you would do such a thing.