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

This is an absolute  glaring error, at best, that needs correction immediately.

A long time  RAWA member,  Malalai Joya spoke at the NDP national convention in Quebec in Sept 2006. Then she was again in BC in 2009.

RAWA statments and positions have long been quoted at babble, as well.

And frankly....it is kinda chagrining, that you so condescendingly, in this thread, are telling everyone they know shit,  and then you slap up a RAWA link for the ignorant babblers, and note that they are making you angry because of their lack of Afghan knowlege.

Here is a link to the search of RAWA cited posts, just since the changeover.

As you can see, there are pages of  posts that contain RAWA quotes and citations.....and do note some people who posted them...

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...

Skdadl, with respect, we have dozens of threads and likely hundreds of posts reprinting RAWA statements, praising RAWA stands, quoting RAWA spokespersons - as remind said. But let me make a small point here, for the 10,000th time no doubt. We have to get the hell out. If RAWA sent us an ambassador today to ask us to stay to help fight the Taliban (which I can't believe they would ever do), we would still have to get the hell out - and I would question where RAWA's support really is.

Most people here grasp the irony of progressive people finding the "right" reason to intervene, which happens coincidentally to be exactly the same reason Harper and Obama and NATO are there - to defeat the Taliban. I'm not interested in returning to square one to explain anti-imperialist politics. In any event, the insurgency will prevail, and I'd rather Canadians weren't there when it happened. Call me selfish.

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.

In fact, it's even worse than that. The Canadian government and military refer to all insurgents as "Taliban" or "terrorists" interchangeably - the terms are synonymous in their view.

Ah yes, the psychological and propaganda properties of semantics or the "spin" you put on words and language.

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... [8]

"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 some news we all want to hear:

Afghanistan at the worst of times is not food self-sufficient. This human made disaster (the military offensive) in an agricultural province is going to mean widespread starvation of Afghanistan's poor.

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.

All honour to Malalai Joya, but if she is a "member" of RAWA, that is indeed news to me. I don't see how the chronology would work, and it was my understanding that Joya had her own political base.

In any event, in my exchanges with Frmrsldr at the time, I was not talking about either Joya or the NDP. Perhaps I write badly, but it seems to me clear from context that I was talking about the Western political leaders who rationalized the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and have cynically sentimentalized it ever since on the backs of women and girls. It wouldn't occur to me to include either NDP leader of the period among that bunch.

I opposed the invasion at the time and have opposed the occupation ever since, and if you could read babble archives, you would see me there on the record at the time, on the day of the invasion. I'm well aware that babblers have been friends to RAWA for a long time. I first learned about RAWA on babble in the summer of 2001, pre-9/11, when we had several discussions about the destruction of the Bam[i]yan Buddhas. As I recall those discussions, they were not abrasive nor competitive; people were genuinely trying to understand together what was driving the Taliban government and who in the country might represent progressive leadership. It was in that context that RAWA was first and always discussed in my memory, in discussions often led by writer, from 2001 to 2006. I'm sure the same spirit was maintained afterwards.

I am sorry if you think that I was telling all other babblers that they know shit. Since I don't think that, I am sorry that I seem to be read that way. At the time, I was in a sustained and somewhat frustrating exchange with Frmrsldr, who seemed to me to be condescending to me by repeating things I had already said as if I didn't know them, so I finally addressed him directly, just to get him to stop patting me on the head. Since I had raised RAWA in an earlier post without providing a link, and since I hadn't seen RAWA as part of the immediate discussion, I felt guilty about leaving the link out and added it belatedly, in case other readers might not know what we were talking about. It was my understanding that adding links as often as possible was considered a generous practice on babble, hardly a slap. I don't think that people who might be new to a subject are "ignorant"; I'm always aware that there could be people reading who don't know what some of the references are, and so I try to provide mine at least.

I find the competitive ego subtext of some of these exchanges deeply disturbing. I'll reply separately to Unionist.

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?"

Thanks, frmrsldr, for the link to Juan Cole.  At least at first read, he's putting out some interesting details. I considered Sara Chayes a shill for the ghouls several years ago, and Cole makes it official. 

" Sarah Chayes, a former National Public Radio correspondent who lived for years in Qandahar but has been on Gen. Stanley McChrystal's staff for the past year, told CNN that she sees increasing frustration in the Afghan public over the killing of civilians by NATO and US strikes. She implies that how the government of President Hamid Karzai deals with this issue could determine its fate, given that it is acting like, and perceived as acting like a criminal syndicate."

Whenever she gets attention for something I might begin to agree with, I catch the glint of a hook.

Cole also said the civilians killed were in Daikundi, rather than a bit south of the border in Uruzgan, as reported in the mainstream. And I thought it was 27, rather than 21, in the three minibuses. I can't help wondering if their "menace" had anything to do with the efforts at the Kajaki dam.

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.

Good grief, nothing like thinking too highly of yourself....and indeed sounding like those Americans who say "they are just jealous of us".

:rolleyes:

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.

Thanks, Frmrsldr - but I guess I'll have to keep wondering for now.

I can appreciate that these are complex issues, while in the final analysis it's really up to the Afghan people to work out. If we let them.

The Star is doing a interesting expose today..

And Jim Travers also has an  pertinent article in The Star.... [20]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/torture-issue-afghan-proble...

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part II: General protection of prisoners of war

ARTICLE 12 - RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS

PARAGRAPH 3. - OBLIGATIONS OF THE TRANSFERRING POWER

Despite the fact that a certain responsibility is thus laid on the receiving Power, it was never the intention of the authors of the Convention thereby to relieve the transferring Power of all responsibility with regard to the prisoners who are transferred... The Geneva Conference therefore adopted a system of subsidiary responsibility, subject to certain specific conditions.

A. 'Conditions of the obligation'. - The text states that the responsibility of the transferring Power is involved if the receiving Power "fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect". It is therefore in this case, and in this case alone, that the transferring Power continues to have responsibility... Article 130 of the Convention, which is one of the provisions relating to the execution of the Convention, gives a list of "grave breaches" which is not incompatible with the notion of "any important respect" as mentioned in the present provision. According to Article 130, the following acts are considered to be grave breaches: "willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or willfully depriving a prisoner of war the rights of a fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention"... there is no doubt that this list specifies matters on which the transferring Power should intervene in accordance with the present provision. On the other hand, we do not consider that these types of grave breaches need necessarily be committed "willfully" in order to justify any such intervention. The Transferring Power may and indeed must intervene if these acts have been committed and if the receiving Power is unable or unwilling to rectify the situation immediately.   [Bold print added]

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590016?OpenDocument [22]

Either Harper is ignorant to the point of criminal incompetence or he is intentionally lying to the Canadian public.

Either way, on these grounds alone, the man is unfit for the office he holds.

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.

Where did you see Frmrsldr say this??

ETA: Never mind, I found what you're talking about in the previous thread.

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

Well, I'm not sure what the previous discussion was, but the UN has no business in Afghanistan either. Frmrsldr said, and I agree, that the UN goes only when asked. No one invited the UN, with the possible exception of the puppet Karzai regime that was installed by armed invaders in 2002 and which hangs on to power in some parts of Afghanistan solely because of those invaders. Our task is to get our country out, now, and agitate for all other foreign armies to be removed as well. I'm not sure why we're comparing the sins of NATO and the UN in this context.

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.

Thanks for that affirmation - I never believed you had argued for that, which is why I questioned P4's post.

I agree. And it's no coincidence that the U.S. views the U.N. with hostility for the past several decades. Irrespective of the antiquated power structure of the Security Council, the principles the U.N. espouses at least in words (the Nuremburg principles, opposition to aggressive war, human rights, respect for sovereignty, etc.), combined with the "uncontrollable" voices in the General Assembly and various U.N. committees, is all anathema to the U.S. and its allies, like Israel and neo-con Canada.

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

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

There is the Hesb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (Hekmatyar) HIG network.

There is the Haqqani Network.

There is the Afghan farmer who went to the nearest insurgent commander (whatever stripe he may be) and grabbed a Tula Tokarev TT-33, an AK-47 Kalashnikov and an RPG because he is pissed off over the fact that some U.S./NATO/ISAF troops just destroyed his house and killed members of his family. He has no idea what country they came from, so he calls them foreigners. We have no idea what insurgent group he belongs to, so for the sake of simplicity and propaganda, our government and military calls him a "Taliban" or a "terrorist".

The Pashtun are by no means Taliban only either.

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. 

Actually there is, and more casualties will be discovered/reported when the fighting dies down.

http://wire.antiwar.com/2010/02/24/afghan-body-counts-28-civilian-deaths...

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...

Touche Remind I can see how that is contradictory.  With just a few minutes let me try and explain what I mean.

The UN has a much wider pool of countries that it draws it's members from.  Yes if the UN needed soldiers from Canada Britian US etc.. we would as I said take off one helmet and put on another. 

The UN also draws on soldiers from non-Nato countiries.  I won't be the one to point out who.. If you want, google the countries in which UN soldiers belonged to that commited the attrocities mentioned above. UN CAN be worse depending on who has the uniform on.

All in all Canada would slide from being Nato to UN but at the same time some other countries which supply soldiers to the UN have in my opnion very poor reputation for professionalisim. Don't take my word for it. Do a search for yourself and see who the culprits are when it comes to UN raping women men children extortion murder etc..Which countries stand out.

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.....

Dyer usually makes sense.

"The ability to run away is the essence of the guerrilla," as Mao put it-and that is why the much-ballyhooed "battle" for Marjah and Nad Ali, two small towns in Afghanistan's Helmand province, is irrelevant to the outcome of the war.

Breathless reports of the "battle" by embedded journalists have filled the American and European media for the past two weeks, as if winning it might make a difference. The truth is that some of the local Taliban fighters have been left to sell their lives as dearly as possible, while most have been pulled back or sent home to await recall. "The enemy advances; we retreat."

Mao didn't invent guerrilla warfare; he was merely a very successful practitioner who tried to codify the rules. Afghans don't really need instruction in it, since that has been the hill-tribes' style of warfare since time immemorial.

The only new element in the equation, since the 1940s, is that these wars have almost all ended in victory for the guerrillas.

The Jewish war against British occupation in Palestine in the 1940s; the war against the French in Algeria in the 1950s; the Vietnam war in the 1960s; the Rhodesian war in the 1970s; the victory of the Afghan "mujahedeen" against the Soviet army in the 1980s: in these and several dozen other wars, western armies with all their massive firepower eventually lost to the lightly armed nationalists.

By contrast, the number of times when they won can be counted on the fingers of one badly mutilated hand. By the 1970s, western armies had figured out why they always lost, and began to avoid such struggles-but now, they seem to have forgotten again.

The guerrillas always won, in that era, because the western armies were fighting to retain direct control of Third World countries or impose some puppet regime on them, at a time when the people of those countries had already awakened to nationalism. All the guerrillas had to do was observe the 16-character formula and stay in business.

They could accept a loss ratio of dozens or hundreds dead for each foreign soldier killed, because they had an endless supply of local 18-year-olds eager to join the fight.

Whereas the western armies could not take many casualties or go on fighting for many years, because popular support at home was always fragile.

In the end, the western army could always quit and go home without suffering any especially terrible consequences. The locals did not have that option, since they were already home, so they always had more staying power.

Eventually, pressure at home forced the foreigners to give up and leave-and the Taliban's leaders know that. They watched the Russians leave only 30 years ago.

The current generation of western officers are in denial, as if the past half-century didn't happen. They parrot some of the slogans of the era of guerrilla wars, like the need to win the "hearts and minds" of the population, but it's just empty words. The phrase dates from the Vietnam War, but the tactic didn't work there and it isn't working in Afghanistan.

The plan, in this "offensive" in Helmand province, is to capture the towns ("clear and hold"), and then saturate the area with Afghan troops and police and win the locals' hearts and minds by providing better security and public services. It might work if all the people involved on both sides were bland, interchangeable characters from The Sims, but they are not.

The people of Helmand province are Pashtuns, and the Taliban are almost exclusively a Pashtun organization. The people that the western armies are fighting are local men: few Taliban fighters die more than a day's walk from home. Whereas almost none of the "Afghan" troops and police who are supposed to win local minds and hearts are Pashtuns.

They are mostly Tajiks from the north who speak Dari, not Pashto. (Very few Pashtuns join the Kabul regime's army and police.) Even if these particular Afghan police are better trained and less prone to steal money, do drugs, and rape young men at checkpoints than their colleagues elsewhere, they are unwelcome outsiders in Helmand.

This is just another post-imperial guerrilla war, and it will almost certainly end in the same way as all the others. Thirty years ago, any western military officer could have told you that, but large organizations often forget their own history.

http://www.straight.com/article-294905/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-afghanistan...

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

Afghans To Be Told of Key Offensive

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Afghans+told+offensive/2618524/story.h...

"NATO's Canadian-led brigade in Kandahar will soon launch a public information blitz so that civilians will know well in advance about what may be the key offensive of the eight year war..the general predicted there would be a lot of fighting in the coming months.."

get those flags and boxes ready for more cannon fodder

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

US casualties in OEF have reached 1000.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7300536/US-toll-in-Afghanistan-war-reaches-1000.html

Now, back to my musing on frmr's apt description of "Taliban", and eyes to the horizon for how many "Taliban" have died so far in the flag-raising dance etc. in Marjah.

'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.."

So back to my question.  We heard various degrees of agonizing over civilian deaths, but how many "Taliban" have been killed in the Marjah area.

Maybe it will take months to shake out, as after Op Medusa.  1000-1500 in 2 wk, Sept 06.  After which Route Summit was built.  After which many Canadians have been blown up in one small area right there.  The CBC interactive map of Canadian fatalities, showing earlier part of this, has not been kept up to date, names and pins end July 08.

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/gmaps/afghanistan/

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.

Military Resistance 8B17-270210

http://williambowles.info/wordpress/2010/02/28/military-resistance-8b17-...

Defectors from Taliban betrayed and abandoned...return to Taliban

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.

Here is a question about the RAWA.

Given the all too probable chance that the Taliban will move in and take power in Afghanistan once NATO leaves, and given the Taliban  history of violence towards women and views on women as human beings- what do you think will happen to the RAWA when the taliban come back?

Will there be violence against them and if so will the private security companies be able to keep the RAWA safe?

...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'm a mixture of them both.  Just the good parts! No I thought you saying that to me remind, sorry for assuming. 

You responded to one of my posts, then I responded to yours then when you responded right after me I assumed I was the person you were speaking to. Little bit of egg on my face eh?

What am I participating in?

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/ [50] and search "Hekmatyar", "Haqqani" and "Charlie Wilson".

Charlie Wilson: "Sirajuddin Haqqani is goodness personified."

Top Canadian Brig. Gen. Denis Menard puts faith in "Festung Kandahar City" and strategic hamlets:

http://www.globeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-forces-gird-for-summer-f...

Well, we'll see.

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

Frmrsldr, has anyone ever told you that you have a very round about way of answering questions?  And when I say answering questions I mean side stepping answering and coming back your own questions (=

The questions you "answered" with are very good questions.  I'm still waiting on you to answer my other question regarding Mr PrivacyRules but after that I'd be happy to answer these questions. I think you'll find my answers to them surprising too.

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.

p>Remind are you sure you are reading this thread correctly?

You posted this to me.

The last person you respomnded to, taking the majority of the post was me in post #28.
I posted in post #29
You opened your post, #30, without naming who you were directing your comments to.
THEN you went right into addressing a comment I made. See bold.

You were clearly speaking to me by addressing my quote so it was logical to assume, everything considered, that your NATO white country comment was indeed addressed to me too.

I think you are the one who is confused here Remind, maybe too much eye rolling (=

In the future to avoid this if you want to address different people in the same post I suggest you start off with the persons name so everyone knows who you are speaking to.

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.

not sure what i did there...

anyway,

the RAWA article and sources say the US is making a warlord governor who was involved with Al Queda and who helped Osama bin Laden escape from various places.

yet Obama(State of Union speech) and Canadian politicians and military officials have stated the surge in Afghanistan is in response to 911 and to catch Osama bin Laden.

They can't continue to bomb civilians to ostensibly hit bin Laden's crew while giving bin Laden's accomplice a governorship.  

Why don't they put that warlord up as a detainee for questioning instead of making him a governor?

If they're going to let him go free and give him power, they can't detain or go after others. Inconsistent.

Obama and Harper should now announce they are no longer interested in finding the perpetrators of 911.

That one act (of making bin Laden's accomplice a governor) has put their entire rationale for war to the lie.

Even the proposal to make bin Laden's accomplice a governor shows their warmongering rationale a lie.

Even if they go back on their proposal, the fact it was suggested wipes out the foundation for their war.

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.."

Oh the gas station guy comment.

I didn't know used it in another thread, not that you believe me.   I remember saying I "enjoyed shooting" a while ago and it was some how twisted into me being like the man you saw shooting his wife at a gas station or something.  I brought it up because when you made the White nato comment it sounded like you were trying to accuse me of racisim and figured sure just tag it on to my crazy shooting imagine.

Lets get something straight here, Snert is the sock puppet, I'm the brains of the operation (=

Just kidding.

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.

The RAWA article mentioned the Washington Post, but all i could find here were references to US commanders 'reaching out' to Hekmatyar in letters, with possible offers of aid to his region and removal from target lists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR200910...

even that is bad enough.  if the US is doing this, why doesn't it similarly 'reach out' to the civilians in Marjah or Kandahar instead of bombing them?

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.

RAWA has been around since the 70's, without western colonial protection. So you have been taught wrong.

....and you know as a women, I would rather be oppressed than murdered and my children murdered by occupiers. At least one is alive to fight the oppression and eventually end it.

Moreover, does it matter who kills me between the occupiers or religious fundamentalists?

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.

Afghanistan Bans Coverage of Taliban Attacks

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/afghanistan-bans-coverage-attacks-detain-off...

"Afghanistan announced a ban on news coverage of Taliban strikes on Monday, saying such coverage only emboldened the Islamist militants..Journalists will only be allowed to cover the aftermath of Taliban attacks with permission from the National Directorate of Security (NDS) spy agency, the agency said. It threatened to detain journalists who film attacks without permission and confiscate their equipment..

'Live coverage does not benefit the government, but benefits the enemies of Afghanistan,' NDS spokesman Saeed Ansan said.."

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.

And if my conclusions don't match up with yours than I'm clearly wrong?  You sound like me when I teach (=

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).