Largest Military Operation in Afghan War Begins - Civilian Casualties 'Inevitable' Part 2

With remind's and this page's blog title in mind...

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/02/24/un-346-afghan-children-killed...

I hate the word "Taliban". They are not Taliban. They are Pastun. The ethnic majority.  Why don't we refer to every American as gangster? Because although it is an apt description of the state, to do so would be to dehumanize Americans for purpose of making it easier to hate and possibly kill them. And that's why the Pasthun are called "Taliban". To dehumanize them for the purpose of killing them.

New US Findings: Two Thirds of Taliban Not Extremists

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117287&sectionid=35102061

script changes to accommodate new realities

End the occupation

Try the war criminals

Marjah: "This is not Fallujah"

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/98336/-opinion-marjah-quot-this-is-not...

"Marjah is really just a microcosm for what the US is doing at this very moment around the globe--waging a veritable war on the world, in Iraq, Pakistan, expanding into Yemen, Somalia, Iran, supplanting bombs and soldiers with militarised sea lanes, forward military and missile bases on every continent, encircling 'enemies' Russia and China.

The process is merely accelerating as the US loses its traditional edge in the world economy, outpaced by China. It is the logical next step for a deeply illogical economic system. It can't be repeated too often: the US is frantically trying to consolidate its sole superpower status militarily before it loses the economic war.

Marjah also represents the US project of replacing the UN with NATO as the world's peacekeeper. The coalition of almost 60 nations is pursuing an illegal war launched by the US, with the UN--the only legitimate forum for world peackeeping--now in tow solely as window dressing. Though not quite.

Deputy special representative of the Secretary General Robert Watkins said the UN will not be involved in NATO's reconstruction plans for Marjah 'because we would not want to have the humanitarian activities we deliver to be linked with military activity.."

Here's something interesting:

Click on the link to read that and other interesting recent developments in Afghanistan you won't read about in other mainstream media.

Obviously, I have to get out of this discussion as quickly as possible, but I can't help replying to several drastic misreadings of me that you have done on this thread and the previous one.

As I said to remind above, I'm always ready to believe that I wrote my thoughts out badly. But since I don't believe that RAWA would ever ask NATO (for which read the U.S.) to stay, and I quoted them to that effect, and you don't believe it, as you say above, then why do you come up with that fantasy as if it were mine?

You seem to be reading me as arguing for a "right reason to 'intervene'." Show me where I have ever done that? I have never talking about "intervening," couldn't have, because I don't think in those terms, am absolutely opposed to "intervening." In the previous thread, you wrote:

I take it that it's my posts (and maybe Sean's, which I didn't write -- I can't speak for him) that you're referring to, particularly since you return to the charge in this thread, in a post addressed to me. More head-patting, too: you're not interested in returning to square one to explain anti-imperialist politics ... to whom? If it's me you're thinking about, trust me: you needn't bother your pretty little head about that, Charlie Brown. (And now remind is going to think that I'm condescending to you. A woman snarks back at being patronized, and it's her fault. Perfect storm, eh?)

I must write very badly. You and Frmrsldr seem convinced, no matter what I say, that I think we should "intervene" militarily in Afghanistan. How can I make this any clearer? I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD "INTERVENE"!!! I want the troops out yesterday. I want the troops out in 2001. What more can I say?

I was attempting to talk about the ways in which Western progressives can offer genuine SUPPORT -- emphasis on both genuine and SUPPORT, which means following, not leading -- to progressive groups in places where we are responsible for the distortion of culture in the first place. (Hint: there's an anti-imperialist analysis behind what I just wrote.) I don't just believe, I know that there are progressive leaders in all those places, as there are in communities in Canada, who know a lot more about how their own cultures work than we do, but who often indeed need our SUPPORT. You find out what support is by asking them. If they need money, you give money. If they need you to stuff envelopes, you stuff envelopes. To me, that is support, and it is also the most serious kind of politics there is.

I raised that issue because I felt I was running into an oversimplified and romanticized vision of what happens when imperialists break a culture and then leave the victims to pick up the pieces. The people of Afghanistan haven't had a forking chance to know what their own culture is for about two centuries now. There are predictable victims of imperial distortion of cultures, whether our troops are there or not, and women and girls are always first in line. Maybe that doesn't weigh on your conscience, but it does on mine.

Anyway, as I said above, I'm outta here. It's not that I can't take care of myself when the ego competition starts. It's more that, like a lot of women, I said to self many years ago, "Why bother?"

Skdadl, if you say something and I wish to respond or criticize it, I will generally identify what I'm critiquing. My posts were unclear. Let me make it clear:

1. All my posts rejecting intervention were addressed to Sean in Ottawa, who wrote lengthy reflective posts justifying intervention - he just hasn't made up his mind yet under what banner (some part of the UN, I think) that should happen.

2. You said this:

That's what set me off. That's what I disagree with - very strongly - if it is taken in an absolute way. That's why I said, "Even if RAWA asked us to help them defeat the jehadis with troops, we must say no."

I never said, nor ever meant to say, that you are soft on armed intervention. I wanted to respond to Sean, and in the course of that, also counsel caution about how we deal with some organization that we decide is somehow representative of the will of the Afghan people. That's why I wondered aloud, by the way, as to RAWA's attitude to the multifaceted insurgency - because I don't know the answer to that.

My bad for not citing your words and responding in a mixed-up fashion, combining my reaction to you and to Sean. I apologize.

This is from "About RAWA..." http://www.rawa.org/rawa.html

Those people and insurgents RAWA might currently or in future support are those who work for/fight for/support/defend human rights, democracy and secularism.

"Rawa believes that freedom and democracy can't be donated; it's the duty of the people of a country to fight and achieve these values." This is synonymous with an argument Malalai Joya has made many times.

The Star is doing a interesting expose today..

And Jim Travers also has an  pertinent article in The Star....

FM just because you hate the word Talibal doesn't mean you can just decide it was used wrong. Well you could decide that but based from what?

The Afghans called the Taliban, Taliban. The Taliban call themselves the Taliban.

While some are Pasthun they are also Iranian, Pakistani, Chechynian [I think I spelt that wrong]. Taliban are by no means Pasthun only.

Frmsldr, where do you find your faith in the UN as peace keepers?

First off if the UN sent in peace keppers and Nato left all that would happen is that the Nato soldiers would take off their Desert helmet covers and replace them with blue helmet covers. They would paint their vehicles white. If Canada sent peacekeepers under the UN flag it's going to be the same soldiers who were there fighting and killing days before.

Second you would see much stricter rules of engagement. This will without a doubt save local Afghan lives. With stricter rules of engagement soldiers will no longer have robust rules on when they can shoot. You will see a drastic increase in UN peacekeeper deaths.  I'm sure you remember the stories out of Bosnia where UN peacekeepers came under fire and had to call New York to get permission to return fire and protect themselves?  Or how about UN observation posts having to listen to and watch women being gang raped in the village next to them and not being allowed to do a thing about it. The UN vets who served in the early 90s whom I've spoken with got really fucked up in the head not because of what they did but because of what they had to sit by and watch and what they couldn't do.

Third it doesn't take much to google the tons of attrocities that UN peacekeepers have commited the world over. The UN hardly has a sterling record.  I won't  post this picture.

The first hit I got was of two UN soldiers holding [Roasting the caption says] a kid over a fire.  A few links down is a story about UN peacekeepers raping children.

I'm not defending NATO, they have done some very fucked up things! But the UN is hardly the answer if you ask me. I would argue just as bad if not at times worse.

That's not directly quoting him Unionist.  In the first thread Frmsldr's posts seem to really support the UN and it sounded like he had a lot of faith in them.

I found there are some glaring violations of international laws by some of it's members. Raping children  raping women. Trading food and supplies for sex. Murder.  If your going to pull NATO out of Afghanistan fine but the UN come with a whole different bag of problems.

*Sorry cross posted

The point I was addressing was Sean in Ottawa's. He felt that sometimes humanitarian military intervention is necessary and desirable. He drew up a dichotomy between the U.N. and NATO.

My reply was that the U.N. is the preferable of the two and I gave my reasons why.

Having said that, let me make it perfectly clear I am opposed to the militarization of human rights which is an argument that is used to justify the Afghan war, for example.

My position is Troops out Now (of Afghanistan)! I have never argued that the U.N. should replace U.S./NATO/ISAF troops in Afghanistan.

There is a small contingent of U.N. troops in Afghanistan who engage in reconstruction, redevelopment, monitoring and humanitarian aid. They have disassociated from U.S./NATO/ISAF troops because of the war of aggression they are waging there.

Yes, U.N. soldiers have committed human rights atrocities and possibly war crimes (in the DRC and the Sudan, that I'm aware of). War is a crime because it consists of all other crimes. War is a state of savagery. It is a vortex that sucks its participants into a state of crime and savagery.

Because of these atrocities, the U.N. is considering/will cut its mission short in the DRC.

Given the nature of the world in which we live, is the U.N. the answer?

Well, it's definitely better than no U.N. and Uncle Sam and NATO running the show, or a state of international anarchy, which is to say the same thing.

One ignores international laws, treaties, protocols, agreements, etc., at one's peril.

Witness the spectacle of Harper desperately trying to dodge the Torturegate bullet.

Well put, the stuff of a poster, frmrsldr. 

For all the press buildup and now the raising of the flag, reports of 12 civilians killed by rockets on Feb 14, I can't believe there hasn't been much more bloodshed in the Marjah area. 

Funny....apparently P4, you do not see the nonsensical statements of yours  stating that the UN is worse than NATO, and all those other yapping propaganda comments you made, for what they are.

As follows:

And then in point 3 you say:

Too bad webgear's time was up here, he would not have made such a crass mistake in propaganda shedding.

As we can see, you said they were the same damn soldiers who just changed the colour of their helmuts and vehicles......as such they are the same damn soldiers who must doing the same damn things, whether under NATO or the UN auspices. As one has to correctly realize that they would not be adopting different behaviours  just because they went under UN auspices, as opposed to NATO.

Thus your comment of:

makes absolutely no sense given your contention that all military personal is the same, they just change the colours.

Now....as for your point 2, apparently you believe we should be more concerned about  Canadian soldiers being killed under tighter rules of engagement for them, as opposed to our being concerned about innocent Afghans being murdered, and apparently roasted and eaten too, through acts of colonial occupation. Frankly, I side with the innocent Afghans.

Interesting that you seem to see no difference between colonial occupation and peace keeping humanitarian efforts. Perhaps there isn't and the military persons all are just a bunch psychotic whacks, over there getting  jollies  because doing it here will land them in jail when caught, just like Williams.

perhaps if more men  thought a bit about the possibility of their own children, in particular their daughters,  being attacked and killed, at best, maybe they would not go the route of being apologists and actioners for those who would just as readily use and destroy their children, just as they do other people's children around the world.

~

Frmrsldr, Harper knows full well he is lying to the Canadian public, hence his proroguing parliament, and he gives a rat's ass...

Oh.....so now you are just here espousing racist propaganda, or at least trying to, that the good white people's countries, aka NATO, do not do that stuff eh?!

Though interestingly you again state the same thing:

Mock all you want with your "thinking men" comment, it shows further what you are...

....what do you think about  a scenario happening to you and your family, that is played out daily around the world, even in backwater villages, where a sex industry procurer is scouting and  drives past  your daughter while she is standing at a bus stop, let's say, 12 years from now,  he sees her and thinks "i could get a good dollar for her" and thus gone she is....only to become the sex toy of soldiers around the world who do not give a shit whether or not  some girl has been stolen from her family, and is there against their will?

It is not women, for the most part, who are thinking more about their sexual pleasures than human rights.....

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/06/16/civilian-sex-assaults-by-afgh...

Dyer also toured Canada telling anyone who would appear to listen that Nato Article 5 obligated Canada to go to war in Afghanistan. 

'They Are Our People'

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/r/u/rutabaga_ridgepole/2...

"There is no difference between Taliban and the civilian people. The Taliban are the rural people. They are our people," said Musa Jan, who arrived a week ago from Marjah..Jan said his neighbors house was bombed by an aircraft, killing 5 occpants inside, including children.."

skdadl wrote:

"Anyway, as I said above, I'm outta here. It's not that I can't take care of myself when the ego competition starts. It's more that, like a lot of women, I said to self many years ago, "Why bother?" "

I am going to try to find the position of RAWA on the work of Greg Mortenson, skdadl. If you haven't seen Stones into Schools yet, take a gander. Beliefs are undergoing rapid change everywhere as tradition enters the picture...and even the people of the mountain valleys in Afghanistan have come to see the need for education of their children, girls and boys. The enemy of those ideas are not just the Taliban. The sons of the professional and elite feel threatened.

And so it goes.

Huh? Racist? White peoples countries?

OH I get it, you're insinuating I'm pushing racist views. I guess that will go along great with your imagine of me being a step away from that guy you witnessed shooting his wife.

As for NATO being and white countries, heres a few pictures for you.

Yes. UN doesn't draw it's soldiers from some other pool.  Soldiers who serve in NATO also serve in the UN.  The UN draws soldiers from some countries with very poor levels of discipline and professionalsim among their army. Yes before you say it NATO does have some major problems too! 

A man who doesn't think? I'm not sure where you are going with this Remind.

I think it's horrible and disgusting.

Using this logic you are saying that most of Rabble.ca males are thinking more about sexual pleasure than human rights? That's not very progressive of them... 

 For the record I am one of the apparent few who thinks human rights are more important than my sexual pleasure.

 Always a pleasure Remind.

...hmmm funny...you really are sloppy.....so are you snert or p-sto?

As you, as P4, were not in the thread where I mentioned that.

:rolleyes:

Then why are you participating in and upholding a system  that gives every chance of such a thing perhaps happening to your daughter, and which is allowing it to happen to other people's daughters?

but really all that is pointless, as I should not even bothered to engage you further,  once you indicated your sock puppetry.

I assume "they" is the Taliban and other mysogynist mujihadeen?

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/02/27/afghanistan-warlords-unwelcom...

As a soldier and if you've served in the 'Ghan, how do you feel about the fact that Hekmatyar (and his HIG network) and other radical mujihadeen were created, supported and financed by the CIA? That they might still be on the CIA payroll(?)

How do you feel about the fact that while Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying in this war, the U.S., U.K. and Karzai governments are holding negotiations with these insurgent and warlord commanders offering them positions in our sock puppet Karzai government?

It's a real bullshit war, isn't it?

For more information, go to http://www.rawa.org/ and search "Hekmatyar", "Haqqani" and "Charlie Wilson".

Charlie Wilson: "Sirajuddin Haqqani is goodness personified."

Frmr's link above to the g&m led me to a comment with a link to the latest MK Bhadrakumar on pipelines.  Alas, I'd missed it back in January.  Astounding void elsewhere on this.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LA08Ag01.html

P4 you could not have possibley thought I was speaking to you, as you, as P4, were NOT in the thread in question, which is:

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/french-law-spous...

But good try on the implausible explanations anyway....   :rolleyes:

And the system you are participating in is colonial occupation and destroying people's countries for resource extraction/transmission and exploitation/destruction of the people's who live there in oder to make a handful rich.

The handful think nothing of moving along and destroying other countries in order to have what they believe is their due. And of course they throw peanuts to the peanut gallery in order to keep them on their side, like  the ready availability of trafficked women in  slave conditions across Europe and indeed in Cypress, or throw what some people think is large sums of money, but really isn't, and yes even drugs.

And those trafficked women that military persons from all nations attend, have to come from somewhere and as most want em young the supply has to be constantly up graded, and the young girls really are not choosing prostitution willingly, now are they, they are scooped off the streets of their home communities, while others are  told they have jobs as nannies or domestics..only to be sold  in slave markets around the world.

Oh ffs P4, you well know what quote I am talking about...so stop trying to skew the optics away from post #42....that was in reference to your post # 40, where you indicate that it was like when likened you to the guy I witnessed who shot his wife.

You were NOT in the thread where I mentioned that, as such i could not have likened you to said guy. Therefore it is quite apparent you are either snert or p-sto, who were in that thread, though I did not liken them/you to said murdering guy either.

As for your patronizing attitude, and disparaging  to try and skew it away from your exposing of a sock puppet,   and my also indicating the callous at best actions you are advocating and participating in, it just further indicates a sense of privilege that is well developed.

America's Permanent War Agenda

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/03/americas-permanent-war-agenda.html

"Post-9/11, Dick Cheney warned of wars that won't end in our lifetime. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said America

'is engaged in World War IV, and it could continue for years...This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us..

This article covers WWII and its aftermath history of imperial wars for unchallengeable global dominance throughout a period when America had and still has no enemies. Then why fight them? Read on.."

Hmm....I do not remember that thread, at least in the manner in which you detail it, it is not familar...

However, if I have mentioned it before in a thread in which you were in, I retract and dismiss my notion of sock puppetry and give you full apology.

No problem Remind! My confusion probably didn't help either, it probably looked like I was playing dumb.

I was going to find the thread and PM it to you just so you know I'm not full of hot air but I can't figure out how to search on here. I can't even find the search function?

I'd like to pose my question to you about RAWA.  [And get back to the topic]

I'll start by saying I'm not trying to justify NATO being in Afghanistan. It is my belief that when NATO leaves Afghanistan the Taliban will take over.  They treat women pretty poorly. From the strict rules placed on women to assassinating women in power.

What do you think will happen to the RAWA when the Taliban take over? I think the members of the RAWA are brave, I'd call them heroic.  I can't help but think the Taliban will target them to prove a point, what the RAWA stand for comes into direct conflict with the Taliban views on woman [Or so I've been taught].  I hope I'm wrong.

PrivacyRules' case could be fiction. If you like, I'll even say I believe it is fiction. However, Canadians being tortured on Canadian soil by Americans and fellow Canadians with or without the knowledge and collusion of the Canadian government has happened in the past and is almost certainly happening now. That is why I'm actually not terribly interested in PrivacyRules' individual case. I'm interested in the universal moral, legal and political principles involved. In other words I'm interested in the "big picture" in such cases.

Contrast this with what's going on in Afghanistan. This is unquestionably real. If you have been to Afghanistan, then your experiences are real. The points I made about Afghanistan are historical facts that can be verified by evidence.

Canadian soldiers are being killed by people who were allies of the CIA in the past, are described as our enemies by the CIA, the State Department, the Defense Department and by the American, Canadian and other governments today, and who will become allies of the CIA once again in the very near future.

This shows you the absurdity, tragedy and senseless futility that is war. There are no real (as opposed to bs stated) good reasons to risk one's life and physical or emotional health to go off to Afghanistan and wage war there. Why has this war dragged on for 9 years? Why does there seem to be no end in sight?

Profit: That's how arms industries make their living: eternal war. The more wars there are and the longer they last, the more profit the arms industries make.

The Pentagon and the Defense Department have 907 billion good reasons for the Afghan war to go on forever. $907 billion is the amount of money they received for their combined budgets for 2010. It is very profitable for them to keep war and security paranoia going on forever.

Which do you prefer:

1) I make it easy by always providing your conclusions for you?

2) You arrive at conclusions of your own, with me just guiding you along the way by asking you thought provoking questions?

I realize it's a bit unfair to ask this of a soldier, but this is rabble and the Army this ain't.

Well the usual reaction is OMG WTF we died for nothing what is the government doing making deals?! OUTRAGE.

Truth is, that's what governments do. They make deals.  I think in the end it'll come down to a deal between the Karzai government and Taliban.  The lives of our soldiers being used to bring the Taliban to the negeoation table. Everyone will be happy with a less radical nice Taliban that promises to be good.  We'll have a victory parade and pat ourselves on the back for accepting the lesser of two evils.

A soldiers life is basically currency for their government, as cold as that sounds.

How do I feel about the deal making process?  In order to "completely bring the Taliban to heel and route out all existance of them" in Afghanistan "we" would have to do some very brutal and horrible things. I'm not prepared to partake in that level of brutality and neither are most people if you ask me.

Japan and German [and friends] did some very brutal shit in WW2 and years later we are in Afghanistan WITH Germany and Japan owns how much of North America?  I know we did bad things too but my point is allies become enemies and enemies become friends. This deal making isn't something new.  I've made peace with the fact that I've had friends die by the Taliban and I may very well be rubbing shoulders with members of the Taliban armed forces or something 10 years down the road on some peace keeping mission.

Yup! All wars are.

No. You are only "wrong" when you let other people do your thinking for you and make decisions for you.

I am happy with whatever conclusions you have; so long as they are your own and you arrived at them on your own.

I'm not here to teach you how to learn; I'm here to teach you how to learn to learn (for yourself).